The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have been presented as a new consensus on a development strategy which has been accepted, with too much automation, by the donor community and by many social actors, including numerous ONGD. The part of wishful thinking that they contain, which can hardly disagree, seems to have eclipsed some aspects that should be discussed in depth. Firstly, it should be noted that the process leading to the adoption of the MDGs was of unusual form of the tradition of the United Nations, without previous preparatory committees. Although to some extent seem to give continuity to some of the conclusions of the world summits of the 1990s, the MDGs quite match the objectives that had been approved in the bosom of the OECD at the end of the nineties. To broaden your perception, visit Martin O?Malley. On that occasion, with absence of the alleged beneficiary countries. A second group of elements of reflection and/or criticism revolves around of the objectives themselves. Has been highlighted as -shockingly – modest goals which, in addition, only focus on performances about the effects or symptoms, but without going into diagnose or act on the causes of the situation which is intended to mitigate. Thus, the imprecise, but far more ambitious, objective development understood as structural transformation, has been reduced to another much more limited: of the eradication of poverty.
That substitution of objectives impoverishes the debate on development and the objectives pursued. It is important to underline that, in addition, poverty is not related at any time in the context of the growing inequalities in the world. At all times referred to it as an internal problem of the countries of the South. Your solution only arises directly act on the population. Is it qualified as poor living on less than one dollar a day and, in any case, there is a need of introducing redistributive mechanisms.