Contemporary Global Health Governance: Origins, Functions, and Challenges

Batniji, Rajaie; Songane, Francisco

doi:10.1002/9781118509623.ch3

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there is no consensus on the understanding and use of the term global health governance in scholarship or practice,67–69 our findings support a conceptualisation of global health governance that is multisectoral, taking place in multiple sites and on multiple levels 6670 This leads us to question the empirical salience of conceptual distinctions between global health governance and global governance for health69 as systems targeted by NPGH because the two designs target alike actors for whom health is the main objective and actors for whom it is not.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are national policies on global health in fact national policies on global health governance? A comparison of policy designs from Norway and Switzerland

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSince the signing of the Oslo Ministerial Declaration in 2007, the idea that foreign policy formulation should include health considerations has gained traction on the United Nations agenda as evidenced by annual General Assembly resolutions on global health and foreign policy. The adoption of national policies on global health (NPGH) is one way that some member states integrate health and foreign policymaking. This paper explores what these policies intend to do and how countries plan to do it.MethodsUsing a most similar systems design, we carried out a comparative study of two policy documents formally adopted in 2012. We conducted a directed qualitative content analysis of the Norwegian White Paper on Global health in foreign and development policy and the Swiss Health Foreign Policy using Schneider and Ingram's policy design framework. After replicating analysis methods for each document, we analysed them side by side to explore the commonalities and differences across elements of NPGH design.ResultsAnalyses indicate that NPGH expect to influence change outside their borders. Targeting the international level, they aim to affect policy venues, multilateral partnerships and international institutions. Instruments for supporting desired changes are primarily those of health diplomacy, proposed as a tool for negotiating interests and objectives for global health between multiple sectors, used internally in Switzerland and externally in Norway.ConclusionFindings suggest that NPGH designs contribute to constructing the global health governance system by identifying it as a policy target, and policy instruments may elude the health sector actors unless implementation rules explicitly include them. Research should explore how future NPGH designs may construct different kinds of targets as politicised groups of actors on which national governments seek to exercise influence for global health decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are national policies on global health in fact national policies on global health governance? A comparison of policy designs from Norway and Switzerland

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critics argue that governments and international institutions have compromised their own accountability mechanisms by entering into partnerships with private sector actors [ 16 ]. Others note however that partnerships have incorporated mechanisms to enhance their internal governance models in ways that may in fact be increasing the democratic nature of governance in global and country settings, such as through stakeholder inclusion or open-door board meetings [ 30 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A concept in flux: questioning accountability in the context of global health cooperation

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAccountability in global health is a commonly invoked though less commonly questioned concept. Critically reflecting on the concept and how it is put into practice, this paper focuses on the who, what, how, and where of accountability, mapping its defining features and considering them with respect to real-world circumstances. Changing dynamics in global health cooperation - such as the emergence of new health public-private partnerships and the formal inclusion of non-state actors in policy making processes - provides the backdrop to this discussion.DiscussionAccountability is frequently reduced to one set of actors holding another to account. Changes in the global health landscape and in relations between actors have however made the practice of accountability more complex and contested. Currently undergoing a reframing process, participation and transparency have become core elements of a new accountability agenda alongside evaluation and redress or enforcement mechanisms. However, while accountability is about holding actors responsible for their actions, the mechanisms through which this might be done vary substantially and are far from politically neutral.Accountability in global health cooperation involves multipolar relationships between a large number of stakeholders with varying degrees of power and influence, where not all interests are realised in that relationship. Moreover, accountability differs across finance, programme and governance subfields, where each has its own set of policy processes, institutional structures, accountability relations and power asymmetries to contend with. With reference to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, this paper contributes to discussions on accountability by mapping out key elements of the concept and how it is put into practice, where different types of accountability battle for recognition and legitimacy.SummaryIn mapping some defining features, accountability in global health cooperation is shown to be a complex problem not necessarily reducible to one set of actors holding another to account. Clear tensions are observed between multi-stakeholder participatory models and more traditional vertical models that prioritise accountability upwards to donors, both of which are embodied in initiatives like the Global Fund. For multi-constituency organisations, this poses challenges not only for future financing but also for future legitimacy.

show abstract

“…Roemer [31] , Field [12] and Wendt et al [42] expand the number of actors, going beyond the public–private mix, acknowledging particularly the role of social insurance contributions and non-profit organizations in financing, delivering and managing healthcare. This universe of actors seems justifiable in earlier typologies, when the influence of transnational and international organizations was still overshadowed by public and for-profit actors [3] . However, typologies developed over the last decade still fail to account for the influence of global actors, despite their considerable role in Latin America, Africa and Asia (ibid).…”

Section: Extant Healthcare System Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing apples to oranges? Minimizing typological biases to better classify healthcare systems globally

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary Global Health Governance: Origins, Functions, and Challenges

Cited by 6 publications

References 31 publications

Are national policies on global health in fact national policies on global health governance? A comparison of policy designs from Norway and Switzerland

Are national policies on global health in fact national policies on global health governance? A comparison of policy designs from Norway and Switzerland

A concept in flux: questioning accountability in the context of global health cooperation

Comparing apples to oranges? Minimizing typological biases to better classify healthcare systems globally

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About