Vaccine nationalism: a predicament in ending the COVID-19 pandemic

Lagman, James Darwin N

doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdab088

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Though vaccine donations have the potential to bridge vaccine inequality across the globe effectively and efficiently, these timely rescues are often negatively referred to as and narrowly summed into "vaccine diplomacy", often without offering a definition of the term [35][36][37]. However, particularly in light of vaccine nationalism [38], while the use and abuse of the term vaccine diplomacy could harm global vaccine collaborations (e.g., vaccine donations and vaccine loans [39]), there is a dearth of research in the literature. Thus, to address the research gap, this study sets out to investigate the characteristics and effects of vaccine diplomacy in the context of COVID-19 vaccine distribution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Vaccine Donations—Vaccine Empathy or Vaccine Diplomacy? A Narrative Literature Review

McDonnell

et al. 2021

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Vaccine inequality inflames the COVID-19 pandemic. Ensuring equitable immunization, vaccine empathy is needed to boost vaccine donations among capable countries. However, damaging narratives built around vaccine donations such as “vaccine diplomacy” could undermine nations’ willingness to donate their vaccines, which, in turn, further exacerbate global vaccine inequality. However, while discussions on vaccine diplomacy are on the rise, there is limited research related to vaccine diplomacy, especially in terms of its characteristics and effects on vaccine distribution vis-à-vis vaccine empathy. Thus, to bridge the research gap, this study aims to examine the defining attributes of vaccine diplomacy and its potential effects on COVID-19 immunization, particularly in light of vaccine empathy. Methods: A narrative review was conducted to shed light on vaccine diplomacy’s defining attributes and effects in the context of COVID-19 vaccine distribution and dissemination. Databases such as PubMed and Medline were utilized for literature search. Additionally, to ensure up-to-date insights are included in the review, validated reports and reverse tracing of eligible articles’ reference lists in Google Scholar have also been conducted to locate relevant records. Results: Vaccine empathy is an individual or a nation’s capability to sympathize with other individuals or nations’ vaccine wants and needs, whereas vaccine diplomacy is a nation’s vaccine efforts that aim to build mutually beneficial relationships with other nations ultimately. Our findings show that while both vaccine empathy and vaccine diplomacy have their strengths and weaknesses, they all have great potential to improve vaccine equality, particularly amid fast-developing and ever-evolving global health crises such as COVID-19. Furthermore, analyses show that, compared to vaccine empathy, vaccine diplomacy might be a more sustainable solution to improve vaccine donations mainly because of its deeper and stronger roots in multilateral collaboration and cooperation. Conclusion: Similar to penicillin, automated external defibrillators, or safety belts amid a roaring global health disaster, COVID-19 vaccines are, essentially, life-saving consumer health products that should be available to those who need them. Though man-made and complicated, vaccine inequality is nonetheless a solvable issue—gaps in vaccine distribution and dissemination can be effectively addressed by timely vaccine donations. Overall, our study underscores the instrumental and indispensable role of vaccine diplomacy in addressing the vaccine inequality issue amid the COVID-19 pandemic and its potentials for making even greater contributions in forging global solidarity amid international health emergencies. Future research could investigate approaches that could further inspire and improve vaccine donations among capable nations at a global scale to advance vaccine equity further.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Vaccine Donations—Vaccine Empathy or Vaccine Diplomacy? A Narrative Literature Review

McDonnell

et al. 2021

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the right half of Figure 2, if COVID-19 vaccines are monopolized as national private goods and supplied according to a non-open supply strategy at the global level, vaccine-producing countries will be reluctant to work with each other on vaccine supply and will implement a nationalistic strategy to monopolize vaccine yield for exclusive use by their own citizens while denying access to other countries [27,28]. As a result, COVID-19 vaccines will manifest high exclusiveness at the global level (global-wide high exclusiveness, GHE).…”

Section: Game Analysis Under a Non-open Supply Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Demand vs. Limited Supply—How to Serve the Global Fight against COVID-19 through Proper Supply of COVID-19 Vaccines

Liu

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccination plays an essential role in the fight against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The currently insufficient vaccine production capacity makes it difficult to balance supply with demand, which has led to a contradiction between command demand and limited supply. According to analysis based on game theory, the attributes of COVID-19 vaccines vary with supply strategies formulated by vaccine-producing countries. This means that vaccine-receiving countries can only be motivated to prepare operable vaccine distribution plans through the supply of COVID-19 vaccines as global public goods. The rational distribution of global public goods must be guaranteed by a global supply institution system. To that end, Elinor Ostrom’s eight design principles provide a basis for designing such a global supply system. This paper proposes a nested institution solution for guaranteeing the global supply of COVID-19 vaccines based on the design principles, which include clearly defined boundaries, proportional equivalence between benefits and costs, collective-choice arrangements, monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict-resolution mechanisms, minimal recognition of rights to organize, and nested enterprises. To win this global fight against COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines must not only be treated as global public goods, but countries must also be urged to coordinate cooperation in global institutional design, thus ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines can truly benefit all mankind.

show abstract

“…"Vaccine nationalism" or the "my country first" approach is about "prioritization of domestic needs at the expense of others" regarding vaccine allocation in a world grappling with "unilateralism and limited resources" (Lagman, 2021). Richer countries that invested heavily in the vaccine development reserved billions of doses for their country even before clinical trials were conducted (Wouters et al, 2021).…”

Section: Covid and Vaccine (Non) Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond technology transfer: Innovation cooperation to advance sustainable development in developing countries

Pandey

Coninck

Sagar

2021

WIREs Energy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While technology continues to be seen as a key element in the move to sustainable development, international efforts around technology to support sustainable development transitions in developing countries have failed to yield results congruent with the needs. This review paper aims to contribute to, and help change, the conversation on international technology transfer (ITT) such that it leads to more productive international cooperative efforts for sustainable development in developing nations. We examine ITT in the health, agriculture, and climate and energy areas, juxtaposing it with relevant literature. Supporting domestic and international actors and processes, we highlight what are key elements for success in these areas of action to more effectively implement the SDGs in energy and environment in developing countries. Finally, we suggest that “innovation cooperation” is a better framing than “technology transfer” for advancing international efforts on technology for sustainable development. Such a framing allows for a broader and more comprehensive perspective on technology‐related cooperation between countries. It also emphasizes the need for equitable partnerships rather than donor–recipient relationships and for development of local innovation capabilities, leading to more effective marshaling of technologies to help developing countries achieve sustainable development. This article is categorized under: Energy Policy and Planning > Economics and Policy Energy and Climate > Systems and Infrastructure Energy Research & Innovation > Climate and Environment

show abstract

Vaccine nationalism: a predicament in ending the COVID-19 pandemic

Cited by 28 publications

References 6 publications

COVID-19 Vaccine Donations—Vaccine Empathy or Vaccine Diplomacy? A Narrative Literature Review

COVID-19 Vaccine Donations—Vaccine Empathy or Vaccine Diplomacy? A Narrative Literature Review

Common Demand vs. Limited Supply—How to Serve the Global Fight against COVID-19 through Proper Supply of COVID-19 Vaccines

Beyond technology transfer: Innovation cooperation to advance sustainable development in developing countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About