EmailMeForm



Funding Sustainability: SDG Donation Effectiveness on Poverty Reduction in ASEAN A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements of the Renée Crown University Honors Program atSyracuse UniversityGwendolyn BurkeCandidate for Bachelor of Arts and Renée Crown University HonorsSpring 2020Honors Thesis in International RelationsThesis Advisor: _______________________ Dr. Francine D’Amico, Thesis Reader: _______________________ Dr. Dimitar GueorguievHonors Director: _______________________ Dr. Danielle Smith, Director AbstractThe Sustainable Development Goals are an ambitious undertaking that aim to create a more sustainable future by addressing major issues faced by developing countries. Set to be completed in 2030, the SDGS are comprised of 17 broad interdependent goals. The SDGs have been criticized for trying to solve too many issues at once rather than focusing efforts on more fundamental issues like education, healthcare, and poverty. This paper analyzes the impact of the United Nations Development Programme SDG projects have on reducing poverty in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations region from project start dates in 2016 to 2019. It treats the SDGs as a collective force and uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the impact of project funding on poverty reduction in ASEAN. The qualitative approach is a regional index that categorizes each country in ASEAN based on its population and development level. The quantitative approach uses data from the global Multidimensional Poverty Index to inform a case study that examined the impact total project funding per capita and amount of funding per project had on poverty levels in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. It also examines the importance of addressing domestic governance in project focused on poverty reduction through a context analysis of SDG project documents. The research showed a country’s level of project funding had no significant impact on poverty reduction and that improving domestic governance is not a main priority of poverty reduction projects.Executive SummaryThis project analyzes the influence funding has had on reducing poverty via Sustainable Development Goal projects. The SDGs are comprised of 17 broad interdependent goals and were approved by the United Nations to start in 2016 following the completion of the Millennium Development Goals at the end of 2015. The SDGs are set to end in 2030, so this project serves as an evaluation of the SDGs as they near the one-third completed mark. While there has been a lot of optimism regarding what the SDGs aim to achieve, there has also been plenty of criticism and doubt. Focusing specifically on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states, the project examines changes in each country’s poverty levels, the amount of funding each country receives, and the number of projects in each country. It also seeks to identify if changing domestic governance is a goal of poverty reduction initiatives. The project used a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. For the qualitative approach, a collective case study was performed to create a regional index of the ASEAN states using information from UNDP human development reports, the global Multidimensional Poverty Index and the United Nations Transparency Portal. The regional index was used to identify trends in each country’s poverty level and from it four countries were identified for the quantitative method, a comparative case study. The comparative case study focused on Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. It examined the expenditure on UNDP projects per capita and project expenditure per number of projects to identify patterns between changes in funding and changes in each country poverty levels. A second qualitative case study was also conducted. It used content analysis to identify language focused on or relating to enhancing governmental institutions in SDG 1 poverty reduction projects. The SDGs have only been in progress for four years, and there are still another 11 years to go before they reach completion. Viewing the SDGs optimistically, they have great potential to make positive and lasting change in the world socially, economically and environmentally. However, funding and support for foreign development ebb and flow with changes in foreign governance and the global political climate. For the projects to truly making a lasting impact of the world, they need to be effective in both their methods of implementation and methods of evaluation. Table of ContentsAcknowledgements5Introduction 6Review of Literature7Research Question and Hypothesis10Theoretical Perspective and Methodology 13Regional Inventory 16Case Study 1: SDG Project Effectiveness22Findings on SDG Project Effectiveness25Case Study 2: SDG 1 Projects and Domestic Governance28Findings on SDG 1 Projects and Domestic Governance32Conclusion33Bibliography36Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. D’Amico, my thesis advisor, for supporting me through this process. From helping me organize my ideas at the very start to assuring me that we do not always find what we expect at the end; she has been a crucial component in the completion of this project. I would also like to thank Amy Kennedy and Angela Allen in the International Relations department for their continued support and belief everything would turn out okay. Thanks so much to Karen Hall in the Honors Program for reminding me not to be too hard on myself and answering all my last-minute questions. A special thanks to my roommates for their support and willingness to listening to me even if they had no idea what I was talking about. And finally, to my classmates in my international relations capstone course who shared my struggles, successes, and late-night takeout orders, thank you for your support and, more importantly, the memories. IntroductionThe United Nations is a large and influential intergovernmental organization. Committed to addressing and resolving issues related to peace and security, development, and human rights, the United Nations held the Millennium Summit in 2000 to deliberate what the UN role in global development ought to be in the 21st century. At this summit, the member states adopted the Millennium Declaration. From this declaration the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were created and committed to by all UN member states at the time. The MDGs were eight goals set to be achieved globally by the year 2015. The MDGs were to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; to achieve universal primary education; to promote gender equality and empower women; to reduce child mortality; to improve maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; to ensure environmental sustainability; and to develop a global partnership for development (United Nations n.d. d). There was considerable widespread global support for the MDGs and, while the MDGs were not fully achieved, there was significant development and social progress in many regions of the world due to MDG project efforts.Starting in 2012, UN members began to design the Post-2015 Development Agenda, identifying shortcomings and issues the MDGs had faced and the need for a greater environmental focus (United Nations Development Programme n.d. b). From this process, 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were set and adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015 as part of the 2030 Development Agenda. The SDGs are an expansion of the MDGs, emphasizing integrated solutions to achieve global success by 2030, recognizing many development challenges have interlinked problems (UNDP n.d.). They also address environmental preservation as an aspect of sustainable development. The SDGS are no poverty; zero hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender equality, clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, innovation and infrastructure; reduced inequality; sustainable cities and communities; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life below water; life on land; peace and justice strong institutions; and partnerships to achieve the goal (UN n.d. b). This paper first aims to measure the success of the SDGs during the first four years of implementation by evaluating poverty reduction in Southeast Asia. Secondly, it seeks to determine if improving domestic governances is a priority in SDG 1 projects.Review of Literature Given that the SDGs were only adopted in the 2015 UN General Assembly and were implemented in 2016, most current scholarly literature focuses on evaluating the MDGs, the transition from the MDGs to the SDGs or speculations as to how the SDGs will perform and be measured. Scholars Sachs and Rey argue that while the MDGs success in gaining widespread commitment and substantial improvements in development set a strong precedent for the global adoption and success of the SDGs, the SDGS must also learn from the shortfalls of the MDGs (2012). Sachs and Rey identified changes the SDGs needed to make as the need for intermediate milestones to assess progress and more accurate, up-to-date, and available data (2012). They also suggest the SDGs “should be more focused and realistic with regard to financing than were the MDGs” (Sachs and Rey 2012).Nisson, Griggs, and Visbeck (2016) ask how the SDGs, marketed as integrated and depended on each other for success, actually interact each other and identifying several possibilities for SDG interactions. National circumstances, base levels of development, and differences in geography, governance and resources will affect how the SDGs interact with each other, so these factors need to be considered when assessing the success of SDGs (Nisson, Griggs, and Visbeck 2016). Hák, Janou?ková, and Moldan (2015) address concerns regarding the historic lack of consensus on how to measure sustainable development and how to operationalize the SDGs. Because the concept of sustainable development is hard to assess, selected SDG indicators need to be structured into a coherent framework that “not only define what to measure but also how to measure it (Hák, Janou?ková and Moldan 2015).” They also warn that not all of the current proposed Global Monitoring Indicators have universal application or are focused on measurable outcomes (Hák, Janou?ková and Moldan 2015). Like Sachs and Rey, Hák, Janou?ková, and Moldan also raise concern regarding the reporting agreements between countries and international organizations as it relates to data and relevant information (2015). Similarly, Lu, Kakicenovic, Visbeck, and Stevance comment on the lack of developed metrics to measure progress toward SDG targets (2015). In terms of literature specific to the SDG 1, ending poverty everywhere, Mubecua and David evaluated how poverty eradication is progressing in sub-Saharan Africa, focusing mainly on the challenges facing countries in reaching that goal (2019). Sengupta critiques SDG 1, acknowledging that while it improves upon the MDG relating to poverty, MDG 1, it has shortcomings regarding its achievement (2018). Sengupta contends there is no division of labor for achieving SDG 1, and the goal is ambiguous as to “who is to do what toward implementation” (2018). Essentially, the poorest countries are disproportionately burdened with the task of reducing poverty despite lacking the funds to finance poverty reduction efforts fully (Sengupta 2018). This issue is in part linked to the lack of clear criteria and methods to measure and evaluate the progression of a country toward a goal. The SDGs accept the idea of the “poverty trap,” which believes that poverty is an economic system that requires a significant amount of capital to overcome and escape (Chen, 2019). Sachs is an ardent supporter of the “poverty trap” theory and believes a key factor in the success of the SDGs will be raising more funding for the projects and increasing the aid budge (Sachs, et. al., 2018). Sachs specializes in international and sustainable development, and was a large supporter of the MDGs, serving as a Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals. (United Nations, 2015). He has maintained his position of Special Advisor for the SDGs and has been vocal in his efforts to raise support and funding for the projects (Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, 2019). However, criticism of Sachs’ and the UNDP’s methods argue there is too great a focus on the idea “that underdeveloped nations can be saved through more outside assistance and by expanding existing programs” (George, 2006). Arguments against the idea of the poverty trap state that a large financial push is not enough to bring a person out of poverty because it discounts other external factors, notably the inefficiencies in governmental institutions and policy.The SDGs have plenty of project ideas on how to reduce illiteracy, improve public health, empower minority groups, and increase income in order to reduce poverty. However, Angus Deaton, winner of the Noble Prize in economics, notes that what the people in developing countries need more than poverty reducing projects is an effective government that works for the betterment of its peoples (Swanson, 2015). Kaufmann (2009) notes that government failures, such as weak government institutions and corruption, mean aid fails to reach the poor and that governments respond to the priorities of the socially powerful. While some foreign aid comes with conditions of improving transparency or capacity development, there are no mechanisms to enforce these changes (Kaufmann, 2009). Developing countries receiving aid are still sovereign nations that want to maintain their political power and independence, and there is a limit to how much an aid program can demand of the host country without threatening to withhold aid for serious problems such as severe corruption (Swedlund, 2017). Without adjustments to government institutions, improvements in administrative capacity and beneficial changes in domestic policy, the positive impacts of foreign aid will be difficult to sustain.Research Question and HypothesisIn this project, I ask what factors make United Nations Development Program Sustainable Development Goal projects effective in reducing poverty and if countries that have a higher portion of SDG 1 projects related to improvement of governance have greater success in poverty reduction efforts? I hypothesize the higher the total UNDP project expense per number of projects and the greater level of expenditure per capita a country has, the more effective development projects are. My hypotheses reflect Sengupta’s critique of SDG 1 and the assumptions of how to overcome the poverty trap. If poor countries are not required to bear the full financial burden of implementing projects, the countries will be able to focus on creating projects that promote not only the reduction of poverty but also on keeping people out of poverty in the long term. Regarding improving domestic governance, I hypothesize that it is not a priority for SDG 1 projects. Despite the importance of having efficient domestic institutions in combating poverty, because the UNDP acts as collective disperser of foreign assistance, I believe it will be limited in the designs of its projects to create governmental change. I focus on SDG 1 for several reasons. First, it can be clearly and quantifiably measured. As noted previously, there is a lack of clean and quantitative criteria for how the SDGs are to be measured. Secondly, building off of the concept that the SDGs are integrated and interdependent for success, changes in a person’s access to food, a person’s health and well-being, and a person’s quality and access to education, among other things should have an impact on poverty. These factors were originally combined goals under MDG 1, but have now been divided into SDG 2, SDG 3, and SDG 4, respectively. I contend success in reducing poverty will reflect the success of the other SDGs. For the purposes of this project, I regard SDG project effectiveness as a decrease in a nation’s poverty indicated by a decrease in a country’s global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). The global MPI was first developed in 2010 jointly by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHDI) and the UNDP to better evaluate poverty in the UNDP’s Human Development Report that year (Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative n.d. e). A multidimensional approach was adapted to help capture a range of factors that reflect “deprivations experienced by poor people in their daily lives” that are not solely reflective of income and monetary poverty (OPHDI n.d. e). The MPI methodologies were updated in 2018 to better measure the SDGs, particularly Goal 1 of the SDGs which aims to reduce poverty in all its dimensions (OPHDI n.d. e). These adjustments allow for greater comparisons of MPI results across countries, making it a strong indicator to measure changes in poverty. The MPI uses data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), Pan Arab Project for Family Health (PAPFAM) and national surveys to calculate a multidimensional measurement of a person’s poverty in over 100 developing countries (OPHDI n.d. b). The MPI has three dimensions and ten indicators; each dimension and indicator with those dimensions are equally weighted (OPHDI n.d. b). The first dimension is health which uses nutrition and child mortality as its indicators, the second dimension is education which uses years of schooling and school attendance as its indicators, and the indicators for the third dimension of standard of living are cooking fuel, sanitation, drinking water, electricity, housing and assets (OPHDI n.d. e). A person is considered to be multidimensionally poor or MPI poor if they are “deprived in at least one third of the weighted MPI indicators” (OPHDI n.d. e). A nation’s MPI is calculated by multiplying the incidence of poverty and the average intensity of poverty, reflecting both the portion of people in poverty and the degree to which they are impoverished (OPHDI n.d. e). The MPI country reports identify people as being either “vulnerable to poverty if they are deprived in 20–33.33% of the weighted indicators,” or “as living in severe poverty if they are deprived in 50–100% of the weighted indicators” (OPHDI 2019a). There are no MPI for developed nations. To investigate my research question, I focused on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states and asked what made UNDP SDG projects successful in reducing poverty in the member countries of this association. ASEAN is a regional intergovernmental organization comprised of ten Southeast Asian member states. It was established in 1967, when the five founding nations signed the Bangkok Declaration: the most recent nation joining in 1999 (ASEAN n.d.). The member states listed in the order they joined are Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, and Cambodia. In this paper, I refer to Brunei Darussalam as Brunei and Lao People’s Democratic Republic as Laos. There are several reasons for focusing on ASEAN. First, one of the aims of ASEAN is “to accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community of Southeast Asian Nations” (ASEAN n.d. b). ASEAN is comprised of three community pillars, one of which is the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) established in 2015 to recognize the regional economic integration agenda (ASEAN n.d. a). These shared economic goals help to control for the economic policies, goals and actions of ASEAN member states. Also, the ASEAN-U.S. Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement (TIFA) which linked ASEAN member states and the United States in 2006, helps to control for major differences in trade agreements with the United States (Office of the Trade Representative 2019). Also, the geographical proximity of ASEAN nation states, suggest there are shared similarities in terms of climate and shared social and cultural values. Also, in the 2003 MDG report for Asia and the Pacific, a correlation between economic growth and poverty reduction was identified (United Nations 2003). Considering many countries in Southeast Asia are “closely integrated into the global economy” and were greatly impacted by the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, there were concerns about countries rate of economic development moving forward and the impact it would have on poverty reduction (UN 2003). The final regional MDG assessment report for Asia and the Pacific found Southeast Asia to be successful in achieving the MDG 1 target of halving the number of people living on less than $1.25 per day (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations Development Programme, and Asia Development Bank 2015). However, in Asia and the Pacific as a whole, when “the poverty line is set at $2.00 per day the achievement was less impressive” (ESCAP, UNDP and ADB 2015). While income is an important measurement in assessing poverty, it only addresses the financial aspect of poverty and offers a limited assessment of a person’s well-being. ASEAN’s progress in poverty reduction during the MDG period and the potential for a more multidimensional assessment of changes in poverty makes ASEAN a valuable region to asses in the early stages of the SDGs. Theoretical Perspective and MethodologyIn this research project, I examine the impact of UNDP projects from a constructivist perspective. The MDGs were influenced by the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development which states the right to develop is an “inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized” (UN 2011a). Likewise, the UNDP made the 17 SDGs integrated solutions because it recognized “development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability” (UNDP 2019b). Constructivism recognizes the “role of transnational actors like NGOs or transnational corporations in altering State beliefs about issues” (Slaughter and Thomas 2013). Prior to the UN Declaration, development aid was seen more as charity than an obligation by countries in the Global North. Under the Declaration, the concept of development aid shifted away from charity to focus more on enabling and empowering countries to overcome obstacles and ensuring development (UN 2011b). It demands a level of accountability from the international community, especially from previous colonial powers, and makes the well-being of citizens the central focus of development. I use mixed methods, a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, to analyze UNDP projects impact in the ASEAN region. In measuring the effectiveness of the SDGs collectively on poverty, my independent variable is a country’s expenditure on UNDP projects and my dependent variables is a country’s level of poverty indicated by its MPI. First, using information from UNDP human development reports, the global MPI, and the United Nations Transparency Portal, I used the collective case study method to create a regional inventory of the ten ASEAN member states. I examined each nation’s population, its MPI, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and its Human Development Index (HDI) ranking. This provided a comprehensive overview of the variations in poverty and development in ASEAN member states, and also helped me identify outliers in the region. Using my regional inventory, I then identified four countries – one country that demonstrates an MPI increase, one country that demonstrates an MPI decrease, one country with low MPI that is comparatively well developed, and one country with a low MPI that is comparatively less developed – to use in comparative case study to measure the effectiveness of UNDP projects from the adoption of the SDGs in 2016 to present. Using the number of UNDP projects and total project expenses from the UNDP Transparency Portal and the country’s population, I calculated the expenditure per project and the expenditure per capita to evaluate the impact of funding on poverty reduction. The ASEAN member states in the regional inventory are listed in order of the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings. The HDI is a method of measuring human development that uses three dimensions: long and healthy life; education level; and a decent standard of living to develop a broad picture of a countries level of development (UNDP n.d.a). The MPI reports for 2016 and 2017 for ASEAN countries were calculated using the same data so there are no differences in values between those years in the ASEAN region. I used country’s nominal GDP which is representative of the total monetary values of the country’s final goods and services in has produced and sold within that year accounting for inflation. Nominal GDP does not account for a country’s living standards but solely reflects it changes in its economy and economic performance (World Population Review 2019b). The UNDP Transparency Portal is the UNDP’s interactive database that houses information on all of UN development projects including a country’s development project budget, expenses, number of projects, and the number and type of donors.After the four countries were selected and their SDG project effectiveness analyzed, I identified and examined the four countries respective SDG 1 projects. I performed a content analysis of each project’s initiatives and looked for language focused on or relating to enhancing governmental institutions. A content analysis is a research method “used to determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within some given qualitative data (i.e. text)” which can be used to identify the presence of certain trends or concepts (Columbia University, 2019). This includes project designs that focus on increasing or improving government monitoring systems or public administration; that work collaboratively with national and sub-national governments to enhance and assistant in government capacity building; that work with the government to reform policies or provide policy advice relating to the governments institutions; or focus on government related technical assistance and capacity development. Other language reflecting initiatives to improve government functions were also considered. From the results of the content analysis I determined if influencing domestic governance was a priority for the SDG 1 projects in the selected countries.Regional InventorySingapore and Brunei Darussalam Singapore and Brunei are the two most notable outliers in ASEAN. Singapore has an HDI score of 9, where Brunei’s score is 39 (UNDP 2019). Both countries are classified as having very high human development, so neither of these countries have UNDP SDG projects nor MPI scores. Singapore has a population of 5.7 million and is a relatively small island nation, only 719 km2 (World Population Review 2019a). Despite its size, Singapore has a safe harbor for large ships and is located on the major sea trade between East Asia, Southern Asia, and Africa, the Middle East, and Europe which allowed the country to develop into a major trading port. It also has a profitable electronics industry and is a major financial center. These factors contribute to Singapore’s 372.81 billion GDP (World Population Review 2019b). Brunei is smaller than Singapore in population with only 434 thousand people but is 5,765 km2 in size which is still comparatively smaller than other ASEAN nations (World Population Review 2019a). It has a GDP of 13.32 billion (World Population Review 2019b). While the country has a the small population out of the ASEAN members, it is abundant in natural resources, namely oil and natural gases, which have contributed to the country’s wealth and development. MalaysiaMalaysia has an HDI score of 57 (UNDP 2019a). While Malaysia is developed enough not to have an MPI evaluation, and its HDI values categorizes it as a country with very high human development, it is still considered to be a developing country (World Population Review 2019b). With a population of 32 million and a GDP of 373.45 billion, the country has experienced rapid development in the past decade (World Population Review 2019a, 2019b). Despite UNDP actively having over 24 projects in the nation each year, the lack of MPI data doesn’t allow for Malaysia’s changes in poverty to be comparatively measured as an indicator of successful development. Thailand Thailand has a population of 69.6 million spanning over 513,120 km2 (World Population Review 2019a). Its HDI ranking of 83 indicates a comparatively high level of human development (UNDP 2019a). Reflective of its high HDI ranking, Thailand has had a consistently low national MPI of 0.003 with an urban MPI of 0.002 and a rural MPI of 0.004 from 2016 to 2019 (OPHDI 2016d, 2017f, 2018f, 2019f). The UNDP has had a consistent presence in Thailand during both the MDGs and SDGs.Philippines The Philippines is the 13th most populous nation in world and second most populous in ASEAN with 108.6 million people spread over 7,000 islands that make up the country (World Population Review 2019 a). While its GDP is 356.68 billion, global ranked just below Singapore, it has a considerably lower HDI ranking (World Population Review 2019b). With a ranking of 113, the country is classified as having medium human development (UNDP 2019a). The Philippines has seen a decrease in its MPI since 2016. The Philippines national MPI in 2016 and 2017 was 0.052 and in 2018, the national MPI decreased by a value 0.015 to an MPI of 0.038 (OPHDI 2018e). The national MPI decreased again in 2019 to 0.024 due to a decrease in the Philippines national severe poverty from 4.7 percent to 1.3 percent, a decrease in the incidence of poverty from 7.4 percent to 5.8 percent, and the national average intensity of poverty from 51.8 percent to 41.8 percent (OPHDI 2018e, 2019e). The Philippines has also had the greatest number of UNDP SDG projects each year in the region (UNDP 2019b).Indonesia Indonesia is the fourth most populous nation in the world and the most populous in ASEAN with 271.6 million people and a correspondingly large GDP of 1.1 trillion, the fifth highest in the world (World Population Review 2019a, 2019b). Despite its large GDP, Indonesia’s HDI rank is 116, categorizing it as having medium human development (UNDP 2019a). It’s 2016 and 2017 HDI was the second highest in the region at 0.066 which dropped significantly in 2018 to 0.029 (OPHDI 2017b, 2018b). From 2018 to 2019, there was only a small decrease in Indonesia’s MPI from 0.029 to 0.028 (OPHDI 2018b, 2019b). Indonesia saw a decrease in the national incidence of poverty from 7.2 percent to 7 percent, a decrease in average intensity of poverty from 40.5 percent to 40.3 percent with no changes to the national level of vulnerable people or those in severe poverty (OPHDI 2019b). The 0.001 HPI values was a result of a decrease in the incidence of poverty in rural areas (OPHDI 2019b). Indonesia often has the second greatest number of UNDP SDG projects each year in the region (UNDP 2019b).Vietnam Vietnam has the same HDI rank as Indonesia at 116 (UNDP 2019a). However, it has a considerably smaller population of 96.7 million across 331,212 km2, and a lower GDP of 260.3 million (World Population Review 2019a, 2019b). Vietnam also has a considerably lower MPI than Indonesia, the second lowest in ASEAN, with values of 0.029 in 2016 and 2017, 0.020 in 2018 and 0.019 in 2019 (OPHDI 2016f, 2017g, 2018g, 2019g). The country experienced a slight decrease in the national incidence of poverty from 5 percent to 4.9 percent but no change in its national average intensity of poverty or in the portion of the population considered to be vulnerable or in severe poverty (OPHDI 2018g, 2019g). Vietnam had a large UNDP presence in 2016 with 66 projects, but this large number was caused in part by MDG projects that were in their evaluation phase (UNDP 2019b). The number of projects has been decreasing each year (UNDP 2019b).Lao People’s Democratic Republic Laos is 236,800 km2 and has a population of 7.2 million (World Population Review 2019a) It has a GDP of 20.15 billion and an HDI rank of 139 which is still indicates Laos is considered to have medium human development (World Population Review 2019b, UNDP 2019a). Of the ASEAN member states that had national MPI values in 2016 and 2017, Laos had the highest at 0.174 (OPHDI 2016b, 2017c). With the change of MPI indicators in 2018, Laos experienced an increase in MPI to 0.211 (OPHDI 2018c). However, the following year the MPI nearly halved and Lao’s 2019 MPI was 0.108 (OPHDI 2019c). Laos experienced a decrease in the national incidence of poverty from 40.5 percent to 23.1 percent and a decrease in national average intensity of poverty from 52.2 percent to 47 percent (OPHDI 2018c, 2019c). These decreases in incidence and intensity of poverty are a result of the 12.4 percentage point decreases in the national level of severe poverty from 22 percent to 9.6 percent with only a 2.5 percentage point increase in people vulnerable to poverty from 18.7 percent to 21.2 percent (OPHDI 2018c, 2019c). Laos has had a relatively consistent amount of UNDP SDG projects per year, ranging from 19 to 23 projects (UNDP 2019b). Cambodia Cambodia has a population of 16.5 million and is 181,035 km2, making it notably smaller in both size and population compared to Thailand and Vietnam, its two largest neighbors (World Population Review 2019a). Cambodia has a GDP of 26.98 billion, but its HDI rank of 146 means it is technically still categorized as having medium human development, but near the bottom of that category in terms of development (World Population Review 2019b, UNDP 2019a). Cambodia is the only country in ASEAN that has experience an increase in MPI since 2016. Its national MPI in 2016 and 2017 was 0.146, the second highest in the region (OPHDI 2016a, 2017a). In 2018, Cambodia’s national MPI increased to 0.158 (OPHDI 2018a). While this change could have been a result of the change in MPI indicators, the national MPI increased again in 2019 to 0.170 (OPHDI 2019a). Cambodia experienced an increase in the national incidence of poverty from 34.9 percent to 37.2 percent and an increase in national average intensity of poverty from 45.3 percent to 45.8 percent (OPHDI 2018a, 2019a). The national level of people vulnerable to poverty did not change, but the national level of severe poverty increased from 12 percent to 13.2 percent (OPHDI 2018a, 2019a). Cambodia has had a slight increase in the number of UNDP projects in the country, rising from 23 in 2016 to 29 in 2019 (UNDP 2019b).Myanmar Myanmar has an HDI ranking of 148 and, while that categorizes it as a country with medium human development, it is at the cusp of being considered a country with low human development (UNDP 2019a). It has a population of 54.1 million and a GDP of 65.67 billion (World Population Review 2019a, 2019b). Myanmar had no available MPI report in 2016 despite being the least developed country in ASEAN. The lack of report is most likely due to a lack of access to data as there are reports for 2017, 2018 and 2019. Myanmar’s MPI for 2017 was 0.134, the third highest in ASEAN (OPHDI 2017d). In 2018, Myanmar’s MPI increased to 0.176, the highest in ASEAN (OPHDI 2018d). There was no change in MPI in 2019. Despite UNDP having active projects in the region, due to the lack of available data in 2016, I consider Myanmar to by an outlier as it could not be compared fully to other nations with data for all four years. Case Study 1: SDG Project EffectivenessI selected Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand to use in my comparative case study. Only six out of the ten countries in ASEAN had complete MPI data to compare, narrowing my selection pool. Cambodia was the only country to demonstrate a consistent increase in MPI. While Laos’s MPI started high and increased after the MPI indicators were adjusted, it experienced the greatest decline in MPI overall. I chose Thailand because it has the lowest and most stable MPI in ASEAN and has the highest human development out of the countries with MPIs. Vietnam, despite having a low HDI rank which would suggest lower development, it has the second lowest MPI score in ASEAN. To measure expenditure per capita, I used total project expense data from 2015 to 2019. While at the time of the research 2019 has not ended, the year has progressed far enough that I am comfortable assuming there would be not be an increase in expenditure significant enough to impact the outcome of my results. I started with data from 2015, before the SDGs were implemented, to provide information on project expenses that would have influenced country MPI values in 2016. Similarly, for average expenditure per project, I started with data from 2015 to give context to expenditure during the transition from MDGs to SDGs. CambodiaIn 2015, Cambodia’s total UNDP project expense was $17.42 million (UNDP 2019tp). In 2016, it was $12.7 million; in 2017 $19.11 million; in 2018 $19.01 million; and in 2019, $10.11 million (UNDP 2019tp). Cambodia’s expense per capita values are $1.056 million per person, $0.77 million per person, $1.158 million per person, $1.152 million per person and $0.613 million per person for 2015 to 2019 respectively. Cambodia had a total number of 24 UNDP projects in 2015; 23 in 2016; 19 in 2017; 25 in 2018; and 29 in 2019 (UNDP 2019tp). The expense per project in Cambodia in 2015 was $0.726 million per project; $0.552 million per project in 2016; $1.006 million per project in 2017; $0.76 million per project in 2018; and $0.349 million per project in 2019. LaosLaos’s total UNDP project expense was $16.85 million in 2015; $12.46 million in 2016; $12.16 million in 2017; $11.28 million in 2018; and 5.16 million in 2019 (UNDP 2019tp). Laos’s expense per capita values are $2.34 million per person, $1.731 million per person, $1.689 million per person, $1.567 million per person and $0.717 million per person for 2015 to 2019 respectively.In 2015, Laos had 24 UNDP projects; 22 in 2016; 23 in 2017; 23 in 2018; and 19 in 2019 (UNDP 2019tp). Laos’s expense per project was $0.702 million per project in 2015; $0.566 million per project in 2016; $0.529 million per project in 2017; $0.49 million per project in 2018; and $0.272 million per project in 2019.VietnamVietnam’s 2015 total UNDP project expense was $22.98 million; $17.91 million in 2016; $13.76 million in 2017; $19.9 million in 2018; and 11.82 in 2019 (UNDP 2019tp). Vietnam’s expense per capita values are $0.238 million per person, $0.185 million per person, $0.142 million per person, $0.206 million per person and $0.122 million per person for 2015 to 2019 respectively.Vietnam had a total number of 53 UNDP projects in 2015; 66 in 2016; 44 in 2017; 37 in 2018; and 33 in 2019 (UNDP 2019tp). The spike in projects in 2016 was a result of an overlap of MDG projects in their final stages and the start of new SDG projects (UNDP 2019tp). Vietnam’s average expense per project was $0.434 million per project in 2015; $0.271 million per project in 2016; $0.313 million per project in 2017; $0.538 million per project in 2018; and $0.358 million per project in 2019.ThailandIn 2015, Thailand’s total UNDP project expense was $5.03 million; $5.54 million in 2016; $4.32 million in 2017; $4.42 in 2018; and 3.8 million in 2019 (UNDP 2019tp). Thailand’s expense per capita values are $0.072 million per person, $0.079 million per person, $0.062 million per person, $0.064 million per person and $0.055 million per person for 2015 to 2019 respectively.Thailand had a total number of 33 UNDP projects in 2015; 27 in 2016; 24 in 2017; 25 in 2018; and 18 in 2019 (UNDP 2019tp). Thailand’s average expense per project was $0.152 million per project in 2015; $0.205 million per project in 2016; $0.18 million per project in 2017; $0.177 million per project in 2018; and $0.211 million per project in 2019.Findings on SDG Project EffectivenessIn the cases of Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand, there was no clear pattern indicating the level of expenditure had any impact on a country’s poverty level as measured by the MPI. Nor was there a clear pattern indicating that average expense per project affected the country’s poverty. While Cambodia’s expenditure per capita and expenditure per project both decreased from 2017 to 2019, the same time frame the country’s MPI increased, it was the only country in the case study that responded in accordance with my hypothesizes. Lao’s expenditure per capita from 2018 to 2019 decreased by over half despite the country’s MPI values also significantly decreasing. However, Lao’s overall expenditure per capita, despite decreasing, was still higher than the other three countries. Still, the mutual decrease in expenditure per capita and MPI is indicative that there is not a positive connection between these two variables. Vietnam’s expenditure per capita was more consistent than Cambodia and Laos’s, but also considerably lower. Thailand was the only country to experience a consistence decrease in expenditure per capita once SDG projects began in 2016. There is also a general pattern of a decrease in expenditure per capita since 2017, with significant decrease from 2018 to 2019. Expenditure per project had less identifiable patterns. Thailand consistently maintained the lowest expenditure per project values. Vietnam’s project expenditure decreased from 2015 to 2016 and increased until 2018 before decreasing again in 2019. Cambodia’s project expenditure decreased in 2016, then nearly doubled in 2017 before steadily decreasing in 2018 and 2019. Laos had a relatively consistent decrease in project expenditure. The data shows almost the inverse of what I expected to find. Countries with lower levels of poverty overall had lower expenditure per capita and lower project expenditure. Thailand consistently had the lowest expenditure values despite having the lowest MPI in ASEAN. Vietnam, a country with a low HDI but also the second lowest MPI in ASEAN, often had the second lowest values. Cambodia and Laos fluctuated depending on if it was expenditure per capita or expenditure per project. There are several reasons why expenditure, as evaluated per capita and per project, did not show a clear impact on poverty in ASEAN countries. The total expense of UNDP projects year-to-year is inconsistent. The inconsistencies in project expenses could possibly be due to changes in the number of donors a country has per year or just because if a project is active does not mean it is at a stage in its implementation that requires significant funding. For example, I did not account for projects that are in their post-project evaluation stages.Project impact could also depend on what the funding is being spent on. Expense changes and lack of funding for certain project’s initiatives could also mean that projects are not being carried out to the full capacity of their designs. Also, there are 17 SDGs a country could focus on, meaning that even with how integrated the SDGs, are designed to be some initiatives will have a less direct and measurable impact on poverty. Projects focused on environmental conservation and clean energy may have a positive impact on reducing poverty, but the results of these projects efforts would be delayed.Another reason for the lack of correlation could also be that because Thailand and Vietnam already have low MPIs, so their UNDP projects are focusing on SDGs that deal with social changes and policy that require less funding then projects focused on economic development. Laos could be having a decrease in expenditure per capita and a decrease in MPI because it implemented projects that aim to reduce poverty but are more self-sustaining and require less funding. There could also be factors external to UNDP projects such as trade deals outside of collective ASEAN trade agreement, changes in domestic policy or natural growth in the domestic economy. Likewise, factors external to UNDP projects could have negatively affect a country’s MPI, potentially what happened in Cambodia, including natural distances and poor domestic economic policies. To prove any of these potential alternatives as to why higher expenditure doesn’t decrease poverty, a more in-depth look into each nation’s UNDP SDG projects, donors and break-down of how the funding is being spend would be required, as well as more research into each nations domestic policy and developmental progress not connected to the UNDP. Case Study 2: SDG 1 Projects and Domestic Governance CambodiaIn 2016, Cambodia had two SDG 1 projects which decreases to only one projects in 2017. During both of these years, all projects aimed to support the government in developing more effective and holistic approaches to domestic issues and strengthening the resilience of sub-national government systems (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). The number of SDG 1 projects increased significantly in 2018 to a total of 11 projects, six of which focused on governance. These projects included initiatives to help with “the design of policies, and the design of institutional capacity,” supporting the government in strengthening existing capacities and systems, and working with government agencies to ensure “national and sub-national institutions are more accountable and responsive” (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). The number of SDG 1 projects increased again in 2019 to 17 projects. Many of the ten projects addressing areas of governance focused on support the coordination and implementation of policy (United Nations Development Programme, 2020).LaosLaos had four SDG 1 projects in 2016, and three of those projects focused on “improve capacity of the civil service at national and sub-national level,” “strengthening legal and institutional frameworks for effective public administration and improved service delivery,” and enabling policy and capacity building (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). In 2017, six of Laos’ seven SDG 1 projects address matters of governance. These efforts included “national policy advocacy,” advising in national policy drafting and implementation, improving existing frameworks and increasing government capacity (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). The number of SDG 1 projects in 2018 decreased to five, two of which focused on governance. Specifically, the two projects had elements targeting the improvement of government capacity and policy advocacy and implementation (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). In 2016, the number of SDG 1 projects increased slightly to six projects, though the number of projects target government performance remained at two and addressed similar issues as the previous year.VietnamIn both 2016 and 2017, Vietnam had 10 SDG 1 targeted projects with nine and seven of those projects, respectively, having a focus on improving governance (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). These projects included advising policy reform, providing technical assistance and capacity development support to the national government, “improving performance of civil servants and quality of public administrative services delivery,” training programs for government officials, “policy dialogues between central and local levels,” and supporting enhanced capacity mechanisms for several national government services (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). In both 2018 and 2019, there were 12 SDG 1 projects with six and four projects respectively focused on improving governance (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). Key phrases from these projects included creating “clear institutional roles,” new policies being designed and approved, improving methods of monitoring and measuring “the performance of governance and public administration,” and helping devise policy implementation guidelines (United Nations Development Programme, 2020).ThailandThailand had only one SDG 1 project in 2016 and elements focusing on improving government capacity and commitment to issue policy (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). The number of SDG 1 projects increased to four in 2017, with two of the projects aimed at helping the government with capacity development (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). In 2018, SDG 1 projects decreased to three projects with two focused on capacity development and domestic policy (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). Similarity, there were three SDG 1 projects in 2019 focused on capacity development and supporting the “Royal Thai Government” and assisting in informing policy formulation (United Nations Development Programme, 2020).Findings on SDG 1 Projects and Domestic GovernanceWhile Cambodia had a low number of SDG 1 projects to start in 2016, it experienced the largest increase in projects. The number of projects focused on governance also increased. Many of these projects served mainly as support roles for the government in its policy and implementation approaches. Of the four countries, Laos had a mid-range number of SDG 1 programs, and though nearly all the projects had an element focused on governance in 2016 and 2017, that number decreased in 2018 and only around one-third of projects had governance related programing. These projects focused on capacity building, policy advocacy, and strengthening the frameworks used by public administration to provide services. Thailand consistently had the lowest number of SDG 1 projects, and the government-centered project elements focused on fostering innovation and capacity development, which helps give the government the means to make improve its institutions but does not guarantee there will be change. Vietnam consistently had between ten and twelve SDG 1 projects, but from 2016 to 2019 the number of projects with elements targeting the government decreased each year from 90 percent to only one-third of projects. The content analysis of SDG 1 projects in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand support my hypothesis that projects focused on reducing extreme poverty are not focusing on impacting the policy and government functions of the host country. This is supported by the inconsistent portion of projects concerned with governance year-to-year in each country, and the passive language used in the project plans. Initiatives that included a focus on government policies and institutions were usually only one section of a larger SDG 1 projects. While each country had at least one SDG 1 project for each year that had elements related to improving governance, the language used in the project plans indicated a more passive role in creating change. The project designs used phrasing such as “advising on,” “helping devise guidelines,” “supporting the government in…,” “assisting in informing policy,” and “monitors and measures the performance of governance and public administration.” These suggest that the projects initiatives and the success of creating changes in the government depend on the host government’s receptiveness to the policy and system advice or that the projects serve as more of observing entities then influential actors. The projects in Thailand had a low focus on governance and the number of government focused projects in Vietnam decreased because of the low levels of extreme poverty and there not be a perceived need for significant improvements in governance. This could also explain the decrease in government related initiatives in Laos and the increase in projects in Cambodia as the countries poverty rates were decreasing and increasing respectively in during the same time frame. However, I did not develop a method to evaluate host governments receptiveness to government focused initiatives nor did I conduct an in-depth evaluation of each countries government to determine its existing capacities and ability to improve its domestic institutions effectively.ConclusionThe SDGs have only been in progress for four years, and there are still another 11 years to go before they need to be achieved. Viewing the SDGs optimistically, they have great potential to make positive and lasting change in the world socially, economically and environmentally. But before we near the end date in 2030, the way the SDGs are evaluated need to be better defined and more comprehensive methods of measuring their progress created. The changes made to the global MPI indicators to better reflect the SDGS is a step in the right direction. Despite the emphasis UNDP has places on the SDGs integrated approach to development and acknowledgment that many global issues have interlinking causes, it has not provided clear methods for how to measure the success of integrated solutions. This lack of measurement criteria was an issue I faced developing my project. The benefits of having quantitative methods of evaluating goals are providing clear criteria for comparison both globally and within regions, allowing for the exchange information with clear and defined criteria to help further development efforts. Future research should consider examining the success of the individual SDGs rather than viewing them as a collective. Measurable criteria would need to be determined, but it would be beneficial to figure out how the SDGs interact with each other. Understanding how the SDGs interact will allow for analysis of changes in SDG indicators even if certain SDGs do not have specific projects targeting them at the time. Though, as with any interconnected goals, causation would be hard to prove. A more in-depth examination of one of the countries from the case study could also provide significant insight. For Cambodia, looking at the types of projects the country is implementing to assess if progress in other areas of development are influencing the increase in poverty. Similarly, for Laos, a more comprehensive and focused case study focused on its specific UNDP projects could provide an explanation for what caused the immense decrease in MPI in 2018. Other potential influences to consider for research are who is funding the projects in each country, what level of donations are project specific, and the effect that has on projects success, and what type of private sector partnerships countries are forming and why. All these could provide additional information regarding what external entities perceive a country or regions area of need to be.For research in the long run, evaluating the rate at which ASEAN member states achieved the goal of no poverty and the types of projects used to reach that goal would be valuable. These projects would be beneficial at either the two-third mark in 2025 or post the completion of the SDGs in 2030 because the SDGs are a 15-year initiative and the effects of development projects are best evaluated over time. Such research would provide information regarding potential methods of further development or examples for other countries who may not have reached the goal. BibliographyASEAN. "ASEAN Economic Community." ASEAN. n.d. . "Overview." ASEAN. n.d. , James. “Poverty Trap.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 26 Apr. 2019, terms/p/poverty-trap.asp.Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment. “Financing the SDGs, Privatization, and Human Rights: A Discussion with Jeffrey Sachs and Philip Alston.” Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Jan. 2019, ccsi.columbia.edu/2019/01/30/financing-the-sdgs-privatization-and-human-rights-a-discussion-with-jeffrey-sachs-and-philip-alston/.Columbia University. “Content Analysis.” Search the Website, Columbia University, 2019, mailman.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis.Elayah, Moosa. “Lack of Foreign Aid Effectiveness in Developing Countries between a Hammer and an Anvil.” Contemporary Arab Affairs, vol. 9, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 82–99., doi:10.1080/17550912.2015.1124519.George, Abraham. “Why the Fight against Poverty Is Failing: A Contrarian View,” October 31, 2006. ák, Tomá?, Svatava Janou?ková, and Bed?ich Moldan. "Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators."?Ecological Indicators?60 (2016), 565-573. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003.Kaufmann, Daniel. “Aid Effectiveness and Governance: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Brookings, Brookings, 17 Mar. 2009, brookings.edu/opinions/aid-effectiveness-and-governance-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/.Lu, Yonglong, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Martin Visbeck, and Anne-Sophie Stevance. 2015. "Policy: Five priorities for the UN Sustainable Development Goals."?Nature?520, no. 7548, 432-433. doi:10.1038/520432a.Morgan, Helen. “Q&A: Jeff Sachs on Anti-Poverty Financing - a Failure of Moral Imagination and Will?” Devex, Devex, 12 June 2017, news/q-a-jeff-sachs-on-anti-poverty-financing-a-failure-of-moral-imagination-and-will-90469.Mubecua, Mandla?A., and Ojochenemi?J. David. "So far so good? Tracking the poverty eradication goal of SDGs in Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa."?Journal of Public Affairs, 2019, e1964. doi:10.1002/pa.1964.Nilsson, M?ns, Dave Griggs, and Martin Visbeck. 2016. "Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals."?Nature?534, no. 7607 (June 2016), 320-322.Office of the United States Trade Representative. "Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)." United States Trade Representative. Last modified April 30, 2019. Poverty & Human Development Initiative. "About." OPHI | Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. n.d. Poverty & Human Development Initiative. "Global Comparisons." Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. n.d. Poverty & Human Development Initiative. "Policy - A Multidimensional Approach." Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. n.d. Poverty & Human Development Initiative. "The New Global MPI 2018: Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals." Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. n.d. Poverty & Human Development Initiative. "What is the global MPI?" Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. n.d. Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2018: Cambodia (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2018.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2018: Indonesia (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, n.d.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2018: Laos (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2018.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2018: Myanmar (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2018.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2018: Philippines (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2018.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2018: Thailand (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2018.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2018: Viet Nam (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2018.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2019: Cambodia (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2019.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2019: Indonesia (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2019.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2019: Lao PDR (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2019.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2019: Myanmar (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2019.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2019: Philippines (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2019.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2019: Thailand (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2019.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?Global MPI Country Briefing 2019: VietNam (East Asia and the Pacific). Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2019.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing 2017: Cambodia. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2017.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing 2017: Indonesia. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2017.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing 2017: Lao PDR. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2017.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing 2017: Myanmar. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2017.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing 2017: Philippines. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2017.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing 2017: Thailand. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2017.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing 2017: Viet Nam. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2017.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing December 2016: Cambodia. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2016.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing December 2016: Lao PDR. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2016.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing December 2016: Philippines. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2016.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing December 2016: Thailand. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2016.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.?OPHI Country Briefing June 2016: Indonesia. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2016.Sachs, D., and Jeff Rey. 2012 "From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals."?The Lancet?379, no. 9832 (June), 2206-11. (12)60685-0.Sachs, J., Fajans-Turner, V., Smith, T., Kennedy-Cuomo, C. Parejo, T., & Loni, S. (2018, December). Closing the SDG Budget Gap. Human Act Foundation.Schultz, C. (2016). Poverty: Global Perspectives, Challenges and Issues of the 21st Century. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.Sengupta, Mitu. 2018 "Transformational Change or Tenuous Wish List? A Critique of SDG 1 ('End Poverty in All Its Forms Everywhere')."?Social Alternatives?37, 12-17.Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Hale Thomas. "International Relations, Principal Theories."?Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2013. doi:10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e722.Swanson, Ana. “Does Foreign Aid Always Help the Poor?” World Economic Forum, World Economic Forum, 23 Oct. 2015, agenda/2015/10/does-foreign-aid-always-help-the-poor/.Swedlund, Haley J. “Can Foreign Aid Donors Credibly Threaten to Suspend Aid? Evidence from a Cross-National Survey of Donor Officials.” Review of International Political Economy, vol. 24, no. 3, 2017, pp. 454–496., doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1302490.United Nations Development Programme. "Human Development Data (1990-2017)." Human Development Reports. Last modified January 31, 2019. Nations Development Programme. "Human Development Index (HDI)." Human Development Reports. n.d. Nations Development Programme. "Human Development Reports." Human Development Reports | United Nations Development Programme. Last modified 2018. Nations Development Programme. “Projects.” UNDP Transparency Portal, Last modified March 31, 2020. Nations Development Programme. "Sustainable Development Goals." UNDP. n.d. Nations Development Programme. "The 2018 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)." Human Development Reports. n.d. Nations Development Programme. "UNDP Transparency Portal." United Nations Development Programme. Last modified September 30, 2019. Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations Development Programme, and Asia Development Bank.?Making it Happen: Technology, Finance and Statistics for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, 2015.United Nations. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and United?Nations Programme. New York: 2003.United Nations. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and United?Nations Programme. New York: 2003.United Nations. “INTERVIEW: UN Adviser Stresses 2015 Critical to Setting World on Safer, More Prosperous Path | UN News.” United Nations, United Nations, 4 May 2015, news.en/story/2015/05/497722-interview-un-adviser-stresses-2015-critical-setting-world-safer-more-prosperous#.VUe6dvlVhBc.United Nations.?The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. New York: United Nations, 2015.United Nations. "25th Anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development." Declaration on the Right to Development at 25. Last modified 2011. Nations. "Background." Declaration on the Right to Development at 25. Last modified 2011. Nations. "Background." Millennium Development Goals and Beyond 2015. n.d. Nations. "Sustainable Development Goals." Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. n.d. Nations. "Sustainable Development Goals." Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. n.d. Nations. "United Nations Millennium Development Goals." United Nations. n.d. Population Review. "2019 World Population by Country." World Population Review. Last modified 2019. . ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download