Will achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals create economic self-sufficiency?

A neat trick - if you're a bored electrical engineering student - is to rig up an oscilloscope as a rough-'n-ready electrocardiography device. Then you can while away time at afternoon practicals watching your heart beat and concentrating on lowering or raising your pulse rate.

What you can measure and visualise you can influence.

With only five years left to achieve the UN's Millennium Development Goals world leaders swooped in to New York for a major conference from 20 to 22 September. At its heart is the question: will the laudable goal of halving global poverty by 2015 be achieved?

The UN is already preparing the ground for failure and identifying the scapegoats. “Despite aid flows at an all-time high of $120 billion in 2009, among the most urgent areas identified in the report is a current shortfall of about $20 billion in the annual level of aid as agreed five years ago by the Group of Eight.”

The UN believes that tackling poverty will not be possible until the wealthiest nations get their act together. Some scholars agree.

Professor Hans Rosling, of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, has an engaging way with beautifully-rendered charts and demonstrates them at trendy conferences. From Rosling one can watch, in full colour, as increased aid leads to increased life-expectancy.

However, correlation is easy to manufacture. You could plot refrigerator sales on life-expectancy and come to the conclusion that giving these away would yield similar improvement.

Life-expectancy changes slowly whereas cash transfers are easier to measure. Could it be that rising wealth leads people to buy refrigerators and make other improvements to their welfare thus resulting in an increased lifespan?

Even with the most generous spirit it is hard to see how any amount of charity would assist bug-fests like Zimbabwe, Somalia, Burma or North Korea in halving poverty.

Countries with some of the highest proportions of aid tend to have the least to show for it. Africa has received $43.9 billion in direct aid from the members of the G8, 36% of the total.

However, China has loaned some $14 billion to African nations in order to build infrastructure to support extractive industries. Is the sudden economic growth spurt in Africa a result of aid, financing schools and clinics, or of Chinese-financed mines, roads and harbours exporting commodities?

Despite the UN's fears, halving world poverty is likely to be met because India and China are both on track to surpass their objectives. China receives some $1.49 billion a year in development aid, less than 0.03% of its GDP. India receives $2.11 billion, less than 0.2% of GDP. The countries with 33% of the world's population receive just 3% of its charitable aid.

Charity doesn't appear to be the qualifying factor in economic development for a number of reasons.

Firstly, poverty is relative. In the UK a report points to a trend that means government is failing to achieve the reduction of child poverty. The indicators? Children in the UK are getting less pocket-money and going on fewer vacations.

Secondly, by definition, charity has to come from those who are wealthy to those who are poor. A reliance on such donations is going to perpetuate income inequality. Only those who can generate wealth for themselves can break their dependency and social inequality.

Amongst all this confusion of definitions and correlation is one very important achievement. There is now an ever-growing database of economic and social data for just about every country in the world.

Jus the reality of this data is resulting in improvement as different governments prioritise different criteria in order to deliver change. The data is monitored by so many third-parties that, unlike ballot-stuffing, governments can do little to lie about their own indicators.

These priorities may not be the same as those selected by international worthies but it is always better when good data allows individuals to choose development that suites themselves. Measurement is doing far more to alleviate poverty than any amount of good will, global summits, or charity.