Matt Berkley

The central problem is not the World Bank "poverty" claims. It is the widespread use of "income" (often in fact spending) estimates to make unsupported claims about economic gains and losses to people. Claims on "income inequality" or "real income" can have similar problems.

Although Fukuda-Parr and Hulme mention that UN members later reiterated the Millennium Declaration, it seems difficult to find any account of global goals which states the correct position: UN members routinely reaffirm existing development agreements.

The misleadingly-named "MDG" framework, whose official list falsely claims the 1990-baseline targets are "from the Millennium Declaration", was largely redundant because UN members reaffirmed the Declaration.

It is highly convenient for politicians and civil servants that academics in general promote some easier targets, rather than what leaders and governments actually agree. Academics in this area generally look at administrative history - what politicians want them to look at.

I have myself repeated propaganda, assuming that the academic and campaigning consensus on global goals was based in reality.https://twitter.com/mattberkley/status/1001622383252443136 …

A similar point can be made about human rights agreements. It is sometimes said that timed goals are less ambitious than those. It is, in my view, crucial to keep in mind that nations do not only set goals, but continually reaffirm existing agreements.https://twitter.com/mattberkley/status/993568121628880896 …