Power and Politics in the Global Health Landscape: Beliefs, Competition and Negotiation Among Global Advocacy Coalitions in the Policy-Making Process

Abstract

Background: Advocacy coalitions play an increasingly prominent role within the global health landscape, linking actors and institutions to attract political attention and resources. This paper examines how coalitions negotiate among themselves and exercise hidden forms of power to produce policy on the basis of their beliefs and strategic interests. Methods: This paper examines the beliefs and behaviours of health advocacy coalitions using Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as an informal theoretical lens. Coalitions are further explored in relation to the concept of transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink) and of productive power (Shiffman). The ACF focuses on explaining how policy change takes place when there is conflict concerning goals and technical approaches among different actors. This study uses participant observation methods, self-reported survey results and semistructured qualitative interviews to trace how a major policy project of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) era, the Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health, was constructed through negotiations among maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) advocacy coalitions. Results:The Global Strategy represented a new opportunity for high-level political attention. Despite differing policy beliefs, MNCH and SRHR actors collaborated to produce this strategy because of anticipated gains in political attention. While core beliefs did not shift fundamentally and collaboration was primarily a short-term tactical response to a time-bound opportunity, MNCH actors began to focus more on human rights perspectives and SRHR actors adopted greater use of quantifiable indicators and economic argumentation. This shift emphasises the inherent importance of SRHR to maternal and child health survival. Conclusion: As opportunities arise, coalitions respond based on principles and policy beliefs, as well as to perceptions of advantage. Global health policy-making is an arena of contested interests, power and ideas, shaped by the interaction of coalitions. Although policy-making is often seen as a process that should be guided by evidence rather than interest-based politics, this study concludes that a participatory process of debate among different actorcoalitions is vital to progress and can lend greater legitimacy, accountability and transparency to the policy process. Implications for policy makers • The increase of global resources for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) is a result of intensified coordination of actors in the effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). • Understanding how transnational policy coalitions think, compete and negotiate with each other is vital to understanding how they have come to wield increasing influence in global health at a time of declining state dominance. • Global-level policy-making is legitimated and made more accountable by the participation of multi-constituency actor coalitions, including coal...

The Roles of Experts and Expert‐Based Information in the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations Based on the Acid Mine Drainage Case Study in Gauteng, South Africa

“…Several studies have contributed innovative additions or alterations to the ACF related to the topic of the roles of experts and expert‐based information and/or presented amended or additional hypotheses. These studies have covered themes such as the further characterization of types of advocacy coalition actors (e.g., Heintz & Jenkins‐Smith, 1988; Witting & Dudley, 2019); the dynamics of expert‐based information within different types of policy subsystems (e.g., Rietig, 2018; Weible, 2008; Weible, Pattinson, & Sabatier, 2010); the impact of expert‐based information versus political dynamics on policy subsystems (e.g., Fischer, Ingold, & Ivanova, 2017; Lodge & Matus, 2014; McDougall, 2016); and whether or not experts behave as neutral actors in policy processes (e.g., Ingold & Gschwend, 2014; Lodge & Matus, 2014; Montpetit, 2011). Some studies also question perceived existing shortcomings and contradictions within the ACF (e.g., James & Jorgensen, 2009; Montpetit, 2011; Weible & Sabatier, 2005) pertaining to the topic of experts and expert‐based information.…”

Establishing political priority for global mental health: a qualitative policy analysis

“…With respect to political contexts, the main obstacles are missed policy windows and absence of a strong global governance structure. Although increasing collaborations with other policy communities has widened policy windows, competition and negotiation among actors hamper efforts, as experienced by other policy communities, for instance, collaborations on the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health by the maternal, newborn and child health and the sexual and reproductive health and rights policy communities ( McDougall, 2016 ). The poor global governance structure in the 2000s concurs with the literature ( Tomlinson and Lund, 2012 ), yet results unveil its strengthening over the past decade.…”

A gendered content analysis of the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 guidance and policies

“…We also noted where gender was not mentioned, particularly within those issue areas recognized as gendered in other literature and policy documents. We then sought to distill our findings amongst contemporary debates about the role of WHO in global health governance, and amid the discourse on gender and global health, recognizing that policy is not made in a vacuum, and that the context of the actor and contemporary environment and debates are important to the trajectory of policymaking [31].…”