Institutional heterogeneity in globalization: Co-development of western-allopathic medicine and traditional-alternative medicine

Abstract

Are globalized social interactions accompanied by homogeneous or heterogeneous institutions? Which social factors are at work in each case? As an investigation of this cultural-institutional aspect of globalization, this article reflects on relationships between traditional-alternative medicine (TAM) and western-allopathic medicine (WAM) through a quantitative cross-national analysis. First, it is found that the global scene of medical institutional developments is characterized by institutional heterogeneity in which locally diverse TAMs develop simultaneously with WAM. This co-development relationship supports the heterogeneity thesis over the homogeneity thesis regarding the global character of national institutional developments. Second, this heterogeneous institutional arrangement is found to be stronger with a rising mortality burden. Third, this medical institutional heterogeneity is yet open to an antithetical development toward homogenization, depending on the extent to which the world polity pressure for WAM develops. However, the authors suggest a qualification of any notion of the unconditional significance of the world polity's homogenizing force.

From Ebola to COVID-19: what explains institutionalized manias and the ultimate preference for non-optimal solutions in global health governance?

“…The constant dependence on imported best practices in some cases ignores essential local nuances and complexities. Consistent with Shim et al (2011), there is theoretical and empirical evidence with direct causes and effects to explain the skewed nature of the national-global linkages between supranational organizations and national health organizational systems in emerging Africa. In Figure 5, the solid arrows indicate how the core region with the centers of policy and medico-techno-scientific resources exerts influence on the periphery.…”

“…Moreover, Shim et al (2011), explain how legitimized, highly institutionalized systems of global health governance (e.g. WHO) require conformity of the lower order systems to their prescriptions (Meyer and Rowan, 1977;Shim et al, 2011). Second, their historical role and lopsided control of medico-techno-scientific resources and political status suggest a certain level of uncontested credibility and bargaining power.…”

“…Hence, they cannot be meaningfully studied in silos. IB and global health have existed as codependent and intertwined and have shaped what we now know as globalization (Huynen et al, 2005;Shim et al, 2011), modern geopolitics and international trade (Ahen, 2019;Cipolla, 2002). To further clarify the link between IB and global health, it is instructive to mention a commonly used word during this pandemic -"quarantine", which is an epidemiological term with IB origins.…”

The coordination of plural logics of action and its consequences: Evidence from plural medical systems

“…Medical practices are found to be pluralist for economic, cultural, and medical reasons in the developed as well as developing world [33, 54, 55]. A majority of countries have official policies on popular alternative medicine practices, such as Ayurveda, Chinese medicine, homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, bone-setting, herbal medicine, and spiritual/religious therapies [33].…”

The Relationship Between the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the Use of Biomedical Services

“…The presence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is significant in the number of CAM users in the world 1,2 as well as in Asia 3-7 and the national policies and regulations for CAM. 8,9 Since CAM is based on theories of health and illness that are distinct from those of biomedicine, 10 this popularity invites a set of questions about the health behavior of CAM users. Is CAM use substitutive or complementary to the use of biomedicine?…”