[财经英语角区] The Measurement of Hope [推广有奖]

The lives of the world’s poorest people have improved morerapidly in the last 15 years than ever before, yet I am optimistic that we willdo even better in the next 15 years. After all, human knowledge is increasing.We can see this concretely in the development and declining costs of newmedicines like HIV drugs, and in the creation of new seeds that allow poorfarmers to be more productive. Once such tools are invented, they are neverun-invented – they just improve.
Skeptics point out that we have a hard time delivering newtools to the people who need them. This is where innovation in the measurementof governmental and philanthropic performance ismaking a big difference. That process – setting clear goals, picking the rightapproach, and then measuring results to get feedback and refine the approachcontinually –helps us to deliver tools and services to everybody who willbenefit.
Innovation to reduce the delivery bottleneck is critical.Following the path of the steam engine long ago, progress is not “doomed to berare and erratic.” We can, in fact, make itcommonplace.
Though I am an optimist, I am not blind to the problemsthat we face, or to the challenges that we must overcome to accelerate progressin the next 15 years. The two that worry me the most are the possibility thatwe will be unable to raise the funds needed to pay for health and developmentprojects, and that we will fail to align around clear goals to help thepoorest.
The good news is that many developing countries havegrowing economies that allow them to devote more resources to helping theirpoorest people. India, for example, is becoming less dependent on aid, andeventually will not need it.
Some countries, like the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden,South Korea, and Australia, are increasing their foreign-aid budgets; others,even traditionally generous donors like Japan and the Netherlands, have reducedtheirs. The direction of many countries, including the United States, France,Germany, and Canada, is unclear.
Still, aid is critical. It helps people in the poorestcountries to meet their basic needs. It funds innovation in the creation of newtools and services, and in their delivery. Unfortunately, aid budgets arethreatened by fiscal weakness in almost all of the advanced countries. Unlessvoters hear about the positive impact that their generosity is having, theywill inevitably focus on issues closer to home.
A single story, true or not, about a small amount of aidbeing misused can often cloud the entire field.Imagine how you would feel about investing if every article you read were onlyabout stocks that did poorly, with no reporting on the big successes.
Historically, aid was discussed largely in terms of thetotal amount of money invested. But now that we are measuring indicators likechild mortality more precisely, people are ableto see the impact that aid has in stark terms –that it means the difference between, say, giving people access to HIVtreatment and letting them die. When framed thisway, aid has a better chance of becoming a priority.
But will the world align around a clear set of goals in thenext 15 years? The United Nations is starting to mapout new goals for the years following the 2015 expirationof the current MillenniumDevelopment Goals. As with the MDGs, the next set of goals could help toalign groups doing the work, remind voters what their generosity supports, andallow us to see where we are making progress in delivering solutions to thepoor.
The MDGs’ success means that there is a lot of interest inexpanding them to include a broader set of issues. But many of the potentialnew goals lack unanimous support, and adding alot of new goals – or goals that are not easily measurable – may sap momentum.
The MDGs were coherent because they focused on helping thepoorest people in the world. The groups that needed to work together to attainthem were easy to identify, and they could be held accountable for cooperationand progress. When the UN reaches agreement on other important goals likemitigating climate change, it should consider whether a different set of actorsand a separate process might be best for those efforts.
The progress that the world has made in helping the poorestin the last 15 years is the kind of good-news story that happens one life at a time, so it often does not have the samevisibility as a big setback,such as the outbreak of a new epidemic. From time to time, we should step backand celebrate the achievements that come with having the right goals, thenecessary political will, generous aid, and innovation in tools and theirdelivery. Doing so has certainly deepened my commitment to this work.