Maternal health development programs: comparing priorities of bilateral and private donors

Abstract

BackgroundThe face of international aid for health and development is changing. Private donors such as foundations and corporations are playing an increasingly important role, working in international development as direct operators or in partnerships with governments. This study compares maternal health programs of new development actors to traditional governmental donors. It aims to investigate what maternal health programs large governmental donors, foundations and corporate donors are conducting, and how and why they differ.MethodsA total of 263 projects were identified and analyzed. We focus on nine categories of maternal health programs: family planning services, focus on specific diseases, focus on capacity building, use of information and communication technology (ICT), support of research initiatives, cooperation with local non-state or state partners and cooperation with non-local non-state or state partners. Data analysis was carried out using Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models (GLMER).ResultsMaternal health policies of public and private donors differ with regard to strategic approaches, as can be seen in their diverging positions regarding disease focus, family planning services, capacity building, and partner choice. Bilateral donors can be characterized as focusing on family planning services, specific diseases and capacity-building while disregarding research and ICT. Bilateral donors cooperate with local public authorities and with governments and NGOs from other developed countries. In contrast, corporations focus their donor activities on specific diseases, capacity-building and ICT while disregarding family planning services and research. Corporations cooperate with local and in particular with non-local non-state actors. Foundations can be characterized as focusing on family planning services and research, while disregarding specific diseases, capacity-building and ICT. Foundations cooperate less than other donors; but when they do, they cooperate in particular with non-state actors, local as well as non-local.ConclusionsThese findings should help developing coordination mechanisms that embrace the differences and similarities of the different types of donors. As donor groups specialize in different contexts, NGOs and governments working on development and health aid may target donors groups that have specialized in certain issues.

Responding to non-communicable diseases in Zambia: a policy analysis

“…This study showed that the development of the NCD strategic plan was largely influenced by international agencies like WHO and, as a result, the interventions and strategic directions were based on the WHO Global Action Plan for NCDs 2013–2030 and the 4 × 4 approach. Several studies in developing countries have shown how international donors and multilateral agencies like WHO can influence health policy agendas on issues like malaria [ 35 ], maternal health [ 36 , 37 ] and childhood vaccination [ 38 ]. The inadequate domestication resulted in the NCD strategic plan focusing on the four ‘traditional’ NCDs as identified by WHO [ 39 ] and without interventions for conditions like mental illness, epilepsy, eye conditions, injuries and sickle cell disease, which are common in Zambia according to health facility data.…”

Compliance with national standards of decentralized public services: The case of preschool services in Albania

“…Donations from private or non‐profit organization are a common means to finance public service delivery in a situation of scarce resources, especially in developing countries. However, donations influence the quality of public services and especially the compliance with national standards because they divert LGUs’ attention away from national standards and more towards the agenda of the donors (Deleye & Lang, 2014; Van Der Kamp et al., 2017). In Albania, LGUs rely, to varying degrees, on general or specific fiscal support as well as material donations to support the provision of preschool education.…”