Are the Millennium Development Goals, which set out to get rid of global poverty, the way forward, asks Lorna Gold.
Political haggling ahead of the Millennium +5 Summit in September is now in full swing at the UN. The summit will review the implementation of the Millennium Declaration signed in 2000, and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The so-called "quick wins" for development put forward by Prof Jeffrey Sachs in the Millennium Project report, Investing in Development, are receiving much attention in the press and in government negotiations.
His idea is to rid the world of global poverty through rapidly "scaling up" basic service provision for the poor: providing more mosquito nets, expanding school meals programmes, and massive replenishment of soil nutrients.
All of this sounds eminently sensible rather than revolutionary. There is no doubt that greater provision of these services would make a real difference to millions of people.
All the studies show that the widespread provision of mosquito nets generally leads to lower incidence of malaria; free school meals have immediate impact on the health and wellbeing of vulnerable children; and the replenishment of soil nutrients leads to greater agricultural productivity.
But are these quick wins really what developing countries need or want? One may ask whether the proposed solutions are not "easy wins", which rich countries can take credit for without threatening the balance of power?
In the face of IMF-imposed caps on public spending, crippling external debt, stagnant economies and a lack of predictable finance for basic services, the most pressing challenges are not bed nets and school meals but avoiding national bankruptcy.
In the first round of negotiations ahead of the September summit in New York, developing countries called for some alternative quick wins - which would have a much more far-reaching impact on their future development prospects:
* the cancellation of the poorest countries' debt;
* an agreement on the end date for the agriculture export subsidies;
* the full participation of developing countries in standard setting processes and governance structures of the WTO, World Bank and IMF.
The impact of these changes, if implemented immediately, could transform the balance of power globally. They would level the playing field for international trade, release additional finance for reducing poverty, and give developing countries a fair say in their own economic and social development.
Yet far from being regarded as quick wins, such essential reforms seem to be slipping off the international development agenda. The current global consensus, encapsulated in the MDGs, seems to be leading the debate away from the difficult, yet critical questions of structural reform.
Such reforms are wrapped up in political processes that, by their nature, are time-consuming, difficult and often divisive.
For the time-bound MDGs speed is of the essence. Instead, the focus is on easy solutions that are often based on a "sticking plaster" approach. Sticking plasters are, of course, sometimes essential, but they cannot replace the quest to provide long-term cures.
The MDGs are not a bad thing, per se. They have demonstrated their power as an advocacy tool to put poverty on to the global agenda at a time when security has dominated global politics.
Yet the goals can be interpreted in many ways. At present, they represent a serious risk to the wider politics of development. In the current climate, where developing countries are beginning to articulate a stronger, more united voice capable of challenging the powerful, the MDGs are conveniently or unwittingly fostering a return to a vision of human development that is devoid of any sense of power politics.
Additional finance is essential to achieving human development. But the proposed increase in aid could lead to new problems if it is not accompanied by reform to the international system.
It could bring increasingly centralised conditionality and dependence on the macroeconomic policy prescriptions of the World Bank and IMF. It is entirely plausible that their failed policies of rapid privatisation and liberalisation, coupled with decreased investment in basic services, could be further accelerated in pursuit of the MDGs.
In the run up to 2015, many developing countries could find themselves trapped in a paradoxical situation: forced to fulfil IMF conditions for "MDG aid" to be disbursed, in the knowledge that those conditions undermine the poverty-reducing impact of government expenditure, further increasing dependency on aid.
Avoiding such a scenario is possible, but it requires a more critical approach to the dominant MDG framework. Attention needs to be focused more on the systemic blockages to development at a national and international level.
To do this, discussions on the MDGs must always be set within the framework of principles encapsulated in UN conventions on economic, social and cultural rights. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the quality of processes - and not just the quantity of outcomes.
Above all, those affected must be empowered to exercise their right to participate in decision-making so that solutions are fostered from the bottom up, leaving space for national and local responses.
Furthermore, the MDGs must be set squarely within the context of macroeconomic policy-making and the power imbalances underpinning such policy formulation. MDG 8 calls on states to build a "global partnership for development", but this goal is weak in its breadth and scope, and often overlooked.
The focus of discussions around the achievement of the MDGs must, therefore, shift from social service provision to substantive reforms of global financial and commercial institutions. Otherwise, these goals could become a global distraction rather than an important contribution to the solution.
Dr Lorna Gold is policy analyst for Trócaire. This article is based on Trócaire's report More than a Numbers Game? Ensuring the Millennium Development Goals address Structural Injustice to be published on Wednesday.