This article examines the development of health system metrics by international organizations, exploring their relationship to the politics of world health. Current historiography treats measurement either as progressive illumination or adopts a critical stance, viewing indicators as instruments of global governance by powerful nations. We draw on diverse statistical publications to provide an empirical overview of change and continuity, beginning with the League of Nations Health Organization, which initiated health system statistics, and concluding with the World health report 2000, with its controversial comparative rankings. We then develop analysis and explanation of these trends. Population indicators appeared consistently owing to their protective function and compatibility with development thinking. Others, related to provision, financing, and coverage, appeared more sporadically, owing to changing trends and assumptions in international health. While partly affirming the critical literature, metrics were also used by peripheral or resistant actors to challenge or influence policy at the centre.

The 1972 Robens Report is widely regarded to have provided the underlying rationale for the ‘modern’ system of occupational health and safety regulation in Britain, embodied in the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSW Act) 1974. The HSW Act advanced a new, more flexible system of regulation, premised on the ideal of self-regulation by industry. This article advances a more nuanced historical understanding of the Report and its ethos—the ‘Robens philosophy’—than hitherto developed, situating its assumptions about accidents, regulation and the role of the state in the social, economic and political context of Britain in the 1960s and early 1970s. Highlighting the interaction between these trends and long-established regulatory practices, the article argues that the turn to ‘self-regulation’ heralded by the Robens Report was highly convincing from a political and regulatory perspective at the time it was promulgated.

This article discusses the early postwar history of international engagement with the strengthening of health services by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Standard narratives emphasise that the WHO prioritised vertical programmes against specific diseases rather than local capacity-building, at least until the Alma Ata Declaration of 1978 launched a policy focus on primary health care. There was, however, a longer lineage of advisory work with member states, and our aim is to examine this intellectual and policy history of health services planning and administration. We begin by surveying the relevant secondary literature, noting that this theme appears only briefly in the institution's first official histories, with minimal contextualisation and analysis. We then proceed chronologically, identifying an early phase in the 1950s when, despite its marginalisation at the WHO, the interwar European social medicine tradition kept alive its ideals in work on health planning. However, the sensitivities of the USA and of the colonial powers meant that consideration of social security, health rights and universal coverage was absent from this discussion. Instead it was initially concerned with propounding Western models of organisation and administration, before switching to a focus on planning techniques as an aspect of statecraft. In the 1960s such practices became incorporated into economic development plans, aligning health needs with infrastructure and labour force requirements. However, these efforts were entangled with Western soft power, and proved unsuccessful in the field because they neglected issues of financing and capacity. In the 1970s the earlier planning efforts gave rise to a systems analysis approach. Though in some respects novel, this too provided a neutral, apolitical terrain in which health policy could be discussed, void of issues of rights and redistribution. Yet it too foundered in real-world settings for which its technocratic models could not account.