The Dynamics of Power Flow From the Global Health Financing; Comment on “Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

2 School of Politics and International Studies (POLIS), University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Abstract

This article agrees with Lassa et al that biomedical paradigms and medical professionals are a dominating force within the policy dynamics of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) and that there needs to be greater community involvement in how global health initiatives (GHIs) are adopted, designed, implemented and evaluated. However, we argue that many of the conditions identified are entrenched and perpetuated by how GHIs are financed and the financing modalities employed in Development Aid for Health (DAH), particularly in low resource settings. As a result, the dynamics of power not only flow from traditionally entrenched epistemic authorities but are disproportionally sustained by global health financing modalities that favour particular GHIs over others. As we argue, these DAH modalities can exert forms of power with problematic effects on policy-making.

Keywords

References

  1. Lassa S, Saddiq M, Owen J, Burton C, Balen J. Power dynamics among health professionals in Nigeria: a case study of the global fund policy process. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6097
  2. World Health Organization. WHO Global Report on Traditional and Complementary Medicine 2019. WHO; 2019. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/312342. Accessed May 31, 2020.
  3. Fields JM. Dangers of scientific bias against herbal drugs for coronavirus disease 2019. J Integr Med. 2020;18(6):459-461. doi:1016/j.joim.2020.09.005
  4. Lee K. Revealing power in truth: comment on "Knowledge, moral claims and the exercise of power in global health". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(4):257-259. doi:15171/ijhpm.2015.42
  5. Paul E, Brown GW, Ridde V. COVID-19: time for paradigm shift in the nexus between local, national and global health. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(4):e002622. doi:1136/bmjgh-2020-002622
  6. Brown GW, Bridge G, Martini J, et al. The role of health systems for health security: a scoping review revealing the need for improved conceptual and practical linkages. Global Health. 2022;18(1):51. doi:1186/s12992-022-00840-6
  7. Holst J, van de Pas R. The biomedical securitization of global health. Global Health. 2023;19(1):15. doi:1186/s12992-023-00915-y
  8. Barnes A, Brown GW. The idea of partnership within the millennium development goals: context, instrumentality and the normative demands of partnership. Third World Q. 2011;32(1):165-180. doi:1080/01436597.2011.543821
  9. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. UNDP; 2015. https://www.undp.org/publications/paris-declaration-aid-effectiveness.
  10. Brown GW. Multisectoralism, participation, and stakeholder effectiveness: increasing the role of nonstate actors in The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Glob Gov. 2009;15(2):169-177.
  11. Brugha R, Donoghue M, Starling M, et al. The Global Fund: managing great expectations. Lancet. 2004;364(9428):95-100. doi:1016/s0140-6736(04)16595-1
  12. Brown GW. Safeguarding deliberative global governance: the case of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Rev Int Stud. 2010;36(2):511-530.
  13. Barnes A, Brown GW, Harman S. Locating health diplomacy through African negotiations on performance‐based funding in global health. J Health Diplomacy. 2015;1(3):1-18.
  14. Kadungure A, Brown GW, Loewenson R, Gwati G. Adapting results-based financing to respond to endogenous and exogenous moderators in Zimbabwe. J Health Organ Manag. 2021;35(3):287-305. doi:1108/jhom-06-2020-0215
  15. Loewenson R, Accoe K, Bajpai N, et al. Reclaiming comprehensive public health. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(9):e003886. doi:1136/bmjgh-2020-003886
  16. Kates J, Michaud J, Isbell M. Civil Society Inclusion in a New Financial Intermediary Fund: Lessons from Current Multilateral Initiatives. Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF); 2022. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/civil-society-inclusion-in-a-new-financial-intermediary-fund-lessons-from-current-multilateral-initiatives/. Accessed August 27, 2022.
  17. Elbe S. The pharmaceuticalisation of security: molecular biomedicine, antiviral stockpiles, and global health security. Rev Int Stud. 2014;40(5):919-938. doi:1017/s0260210514000151
  18. Bump JB. Your call could not be completed as dialled: why truth does not speak to power in global health. Comment on "Knowledge, moral claims and the exercise of power in global health". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(6):395-397. doi:15171/ijhpm.2015.63
  19. Bhakuni H, Abimbola S. Epistemic injustice in academic global health. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(10):e1465-e1470. doi:1016/s2214-109x(21)00301-6
  20. E&K Consulting Firm. Comparative Analysis of Selected Global Financing Facility-related Investments. E&K Consulting Firm; 2020.
  21. Hurd S, Wilson R, Cody A. Civil Society Engagement in the Global Financing Facility: Analysis and Recommendations. Global Health Visions and Catalyst for Change;2016. https://www.csogffhub.org/resources/civil-society-engagement-in-the-global-financing-facility-analysis-and-recommendations/.
  22. Warren A, Cordon R, Told M, de Savigny D, Kickbusch I, Tanner M. The Global Fund's paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique. Global Health. 2017;13(1):89. doi:1186/s12992-017-0308-7
  23. Moon S, Armstrong J, Hutler B, et al. Governing the access to COVID-19 tools accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability. Lancet. 2022;399(10323):487-494. doi:1016/s0140-6736(21)02344-8

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 08 November 2022
  • Revise Date: 21 March 2023
  • Accept Date: 03 April 2023
  • First Publish Date: 05 April 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics