The BRIC countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India, and China, have experienced rapid economic development over the past few years (Chibba 75). Upon a thorough review of the human development index and growth indicators, it is evident that a lot has been done to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In order to assess the current levels of development and progress made by the BRIC countries, it is crucial to use indicators such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), health expenditure, net enrollment for universal education, poverty ratio, and infant mortality rates that align with the MDGs (Chibba 77). For instance, in order to reduce child mortality, BRIC countries have improved the provision of healthcare services. Statistics indicate that the amount of budget allocated for healthcare has been increasing since the year 2000 (Chibba 83). It is irrefutable that these countries have laid a lot of emphasis on children’s healthcare needs. Strategies have been put up to raise the number of children undergoing immunization each year. This has decimated cases of infant mortality occasioned by measles (Chibba 85). Moreover, life expectancy at birth has also improved among the BRIC member states.
We will write a custom Report on Millenium Goals in Brazil, Russia, India, China specifically for you
301 certified writers online
One of the objectives of MDGs is poverty reduction. Statistical analysis of the BRIC countries reveals a positive growth trend in terms of the Gross Domestic Product. The poverty index has gone down significantly alongside a stable rise in public spending since the year 2000. Using statistics on gross enrollment in educational institutions, it is vivid that Brazil is among the leading countries with an enrollment rate of 90.2%. Nevertheless, this country has been registering a gradual decline since the year 2000, whereas other BRIC countries have maintained a positive trend in enrollment for universal education.
Chibba, Michael. “The Millennium Development Goals: key current issues and challenges.” Development Policy Review 29.1 (2011): 75-90. Print.