“Getting more bang for your buck”

By Bjørn lomborg | Published: 01 October, 2009

I think the Millennium Development goals were rather arbitrary and most of all, I think they were also somewhat unrealistic and not properly prioritised. That said, I think they have a point in that they get people thinking about a goal, they focus the mind. In future, I think we need to be more pragmatic and prioritise the goals so that we get the most bang for our buck.

I think there’s always going to be that balance. Politicians don’t want to look like they’re prioritising these issues, but at the end of the day we end up doing it anyway. Not talking about it doesn’t make it go away, whether we do it behind the scenes or not. With the current batch of MDGs being at best only a partial success, I think people are more prepared to have that conversation and ask: how can we do this smarter next time? How can we get the most good for the money we’re spending? I’m happy to imagine that we could get $50bn more every year, even $75bn each year, but then you have to ask, how would you want to spend that? Instead of just saying: wouldn’t it be nice to have a world where you can do all these things, we need to be much more honest about saying: if you want more of this, where do you want to have less?

You can’t say that everything is important at all times. I do think we often need to be honest with ourselves and ask ourselves how much can we do, for example, focusing on battling easily curable infectious diseases versus battling climate change. That’s going to be one of the issues for the World Bank, and that’s one of my concerns: that we need to ask ourselves how much good can we do if we spend our money on climate change, compared to how much can we do elsewhere with the same amount of money.

At the Copenhagen Consensus we asked some of the world’s leading economists, including five Nobel laureates, what should be the development priority, and they told us that investing in micronutrients would be the best deal for the world to work with. They’re very cheap, they could help half the world’s population, and they would make us better off in virtually every way – not just in terms of health, which is an immediate benefit, but also in terms of education, which means you’re empowering people to deal with future challenges.

An important issue that is not covered in the MDGs but is as important is a successful Doha round. Basically it’s the developing world that is going to benefit from increased availability of free trade, possibly to the tune of $3,000bn per year on average across the century. This falls outside of the scope of the MDGs, but it’s significant, because I believe that we’re only going to get a second round of funding, if the developed world, which is going to be footing the bill, can see that this is a good idea.

In many ways, this is a battle for hearts and minds in the first world, and one obvious way to win it would be to say: we’re not going to waste your money, we’re going to actually spend it really well. But also, we can emphasise that there are other really cheap ways of doing this, like free trade. I think more people would be willing to perhaps give some concessions in the Doha round if you put it in those terms.

Bjørn Lomborg is adjunct professor of the Copenhagen Business School and organiser of the Copenhagen Consensus. As told to Peter Guest

Investing in investing
To sustain rapid growth, Africa will need to substantially raise the rate of investment. In recent years it has averaged only around 20 percent of GDP, whereas the rapidly growing Asian economies invest above 30 percent.
Corporate sustainability has survived the downturn
As we begin to look beyond the economic downturn to recovery and global growth, it has perhaps never been more timely to examine the state of corporate sustainability. Despite the downturn, we see corporate commitment to environmental, social, and governance issues remaining exceptionally strong: 93 percent of CEOs in our recent survey see sustainability as critical to their company’s future success.
Sub-Saharan markets remain in lower league
Given South Africa’s showing in the recent World Cup it would appear that Africa in 2010 is a lot like the US in 1994 – better at hosting the tournament than playing. Similarly, sub-Saharan stock markets in 2010 are a lot like the S&P 500 in 1994: poised for five very strong years of appreciation.
For mining firms being big matters
Despite the recent recession, mining fundamentals remain strong, fuelled by robust demand from urbanising economies, especially China’s, and by constrained supply for many metals and minerals.
Few reasons for Africa to fear EU’s fund directive
Much has been written in the financial press about the draft EU directive on alternative investment fund managers. The usual focus is on the directive’s potential impact on remuneration and the additional regulatory burden it seeks to impose. A lesser-told story is the potential impact of the directive on Africa-based funds, whose investments play a key part in the economic development of the continent, particularly with regards to infrastructure. We look at the history of the directive and how it might affect Africa-based funds.

Sign Up

For the latest news and updates from This is Africa.

Interviews

Andry Rajoelina

“We are on the path to reform and this is the first time that the one in power will not run in the next presidential election...”

Anna Tibaijuka

Africa’s urbanisation must be understood and managed to prevent growing inequalities from becoming a source of conflict, according to Anna Tibaijuka,...