Search

Colonialism, which involves the systemic domination of lands, markets, peoples, assets, cultures or political institutions to exploit, misappropriate and extract wealth and resources, affects health in many ways. In recent years, interest has grown in the decolonization of global health with a focus on correcting power imbalances between high-income and low-income countries and on challenging ideas and values of some wealthy countries that shape the practice of global health. We argue that decolonization of global health must also address the relationship between global health actors and contemporary forms of colonialism, in particular the current forms of corporate and financialized colonialism that operate through globalized systems of wealth extraction and profiteering. We present a three-part agenda for action that can be taken to decolonize global health. The first part relates to the power asymmetries that exist between global health actors from high-income and historically privileged countries and their counterparts in low-income and marginalized settings. The second part concerns the colonization of the structures and systems of global health governance itself. The third part addresses how colonialism occurs through the global health system. Addressing all forms of colonialism calls for a political and economic anticolonialism as well as social decolonization aimed at ensuring greater national, racial, cultural and knowledge diversity within the structures of global health., ((c) 2024 The authors; licensee World Health Organization.)

Background: International food standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), have become more prominent in international trade politics, since being referenced by various World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. We examine how this impacts implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes ., Methods: Using trade in commercial milk formulas (CMFs) as a case study, we collected detailed data on interventions across various WTO bodies between 1995 and 2019. We used language from these interventions to guide data collection on member state and observer positions during the CAC review of the Codex Standard for Follow-up Formula (CSFUF), and during CAC discussions on the relevance of WHO policies and guidelines., Results: Exporting member states made 245 interventions regarding CMFs at the WTO, many citing deviations from standards set by the CAC. These did not occur in formal disputes, but in WTO Committee and Accession processes, toward many countries. In Thailand, complaints are linked to weakened regulation. Exporters also sought to narrow the CSFUF at the CAC in a way that is at odds with recommendations in the International Code . Tensions are growing more broadly within the CAC regarding relevance of WHO recommendations. Countries coordinated during WTO committee processes to advocate for reapportioning core WHO funding to the CAC and in order to further influence standard-setting., Conclusion: The commercial interests of the baby food industry are magnifying inconsistencies between health guidelines set by the WHO, standard-setting at the CAC, and functions of the WTO. This poses serious concerns for countries' abilities to regulate in the interests of public health, in this case to protect breastfeeding and its benefits for the health of infants, children and mothers., (© 2021 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

A recent article by Sol Benatar calls on the global health community to reassess its approach to twin crises of global poverty and climate change. I build on his article by challenging mainstream narratives that claim satisfactory progress in efforts to reduce poverty and improve health for all, and arguing that any eradication of poverty that is consistent with environmental sustainability will require a more explicit emphasis on the redistribution of power and wealth. I suggest that the global health community has been largely socialised into accepting that progress and future solutions can be attained through more neoliberal development, technological advancement and philanthropic endeavour and that a more critical global health is required. I propose three steps that the global health community should take: first, create more space for the social, political and political sciences within global health; second, be more prepared to act politically and challenge power; and third, do more to bridge the global-local divide in recognition of the fact that progressive change requires mobilisation from the bottom-up in conjunction with top-down policy and legislative change., (© 2017 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

The articles in this special issue have demonstrated how unprecedented transitions have come with both challenges and opportunities for health financing. Against the background of these challenges and opportunities, the Working Group on Health Financing at the Chatham House Centre on Global Health Security laid out, in 2014, a set of policy responses encapsulated in 20 recommendations for how to make progress towards a coherent global framework for health financing. These recommendations pertain to domestic financing of national health systems, global public goods for health, external financing for national health systems and the cross-cutting issues of accountability and agreement on a new global framework. Since the Working Group concluded its work, multiple events have reinforced the group's recommendations. Among these are the agreement on the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa and the release of the Panama Papers. These events also represent new stepping stones towards a new global framework.

Background: Principal Recipients (PRs) receive money from the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) to manage and implement programs. However, little research has gone into understanding their opinions and experiences. This survey set out to describe these, thereby providing a baseline against which changes in PR opinions and experiences can be assessed as the recently introduced new funding model is rolled out., Methodology: An internet based questionnaire was administered to 315 PRs. A total of 115 responded from 69 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The study was conducted between September and December 2012., Findings: Three quarters of PRs thought the progress update and disbursement request (PU/DR) system was a useful method of reporting grant progress. However, most felt that the grant negotiation processes were complicated, and that the grant rating system did not reflect performance.While nearly all PRs were happy with the work being done by sub-Recipients (92%) and Fund Portfolio Managers (86%), fewer were happy with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Non-government PRs were generally less happy with the OIG's work compared to government PRs.Most PRs thought the Global Fund's Voluntary Pooled Procurement system made procurement easier. However, only 29% said the system should be made compulsory.When asked which aspects of the Global Fund's operations needed improvement, most PRs said that the Fund should re-define and clarify the roles of different actors, minimize staff turnover at its Secretariat, and shorten the grant application and approval processes. All these are currently being addressed, either directly or indirectly, under a new funding model. Vigorous assessments should nonetheless follow the roll-out of the new model to ensure the areas that are most likely to affect PR performance realize sustained improvement., Conclusions: Opinions and experiences with the Global Fund were varied, with PRs having good communication with Fund Portfolio Managers and sub-Recipients, but being unhappy with the grant negotiation and grant rating systems. Recommendations included simplifying grant processes, finding performance assessment methods that look beyond numbers, and employing Local Fund Agents who understand public health aspects of programs.

David McCoy and colleagues critique the dominance of "lives saved" models of assessing the impact of health programs, using The Global Fund as a case study. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

The idea of a Framework Convention for Global Health (FCGH), using the treaty-making powers of the World Health Organization (WHO), has been promoted as an opportunity to advance global health equity and the right to health. The idea has promise, but needs more thought regarding risks, obstacles, and strategies. The reform of global health governance must be based on a robust analysis of the political economy out of which the drivers of inequality and the denial of the right to health arise. Some of the published commentary has focused on using the proposed FCGH to institutionalize a paradigm change regarding international aid for health care, i.e., reconceptualizing such aid as obligatory, based on human solidarity rather than strategic considerations, based on global stability and national security. We warn against limiting the project to questions of inter-governmental financial transfers because of the risk of neglecting the underlying structural determinants of health injustice. Such neglect would help to legitimize an unjust and unsustainable global economic regime. We raise further questions about the strategic logic informing any campaign for a FCGH. The governments of the United States and Europe have put considerable effort into weakening WHO through tight donor controls, and it would require heavy pressure to persuade them to sign on to a FCGH. Generating such pressure would require strong popular mobilization around the local and diverse priorities of different communities across the globe, and recognition of a common need for effective regulation at the global level. We argue for a broad-based campaign from which the need for more effective global health regulation (and a FCGH) would emerge as a common theme arising from myriad more specific claims. This type of campaign would respond to local needs, and would also be understood within a global, political, and economic perspective., (Copyright © 2013 Haynes, Legge, McCoy, Sanders, Schuftan. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Obesity is widely assumed to be associated with economic affluence; it has therefore been assumed to become more common with economic development. However, obesity has also been associated with poverty. These contrary findings highlight the need for an examination of the contribution of social and economic factors to the global distribution of obesity. Males and females may be differently exposed to social and economic inequality, however few studies have considered possible gender differences in the association between socio-economic indices and obesity prevalence. We analysed between-country associations between obesity prevalence and three social or economic indices: per capita gross domestic product (GDP), the Gini index of national wealth inequality, and the gender inequality index (GII). We considered the genders separately, the gender average, and also the gender difference (female excess) in obesity prevalence. Across 68 countries listing sample size, there were 3 obese women for every 2 obese men. Within populations, obesity prevalence in males and females was strongly correlated (r = 0.74), however, only 17% of the female excess prevalence was accounted for by the gender-average prevalence. In both genders, there was a positive association between obesity prevalence and GDP that attenuated at higher GDP levels, with this association weaker in females than males. Adjusting for GDP, both the Gini index and GII were associated with excess female obesity. These analyses highlight significant gender differences in the global distribution of obesity, and a gender difference in the association of obesity prevalence with socio-economic factors. The magnitude of female excess obesity is not constant across populations, and is greater in countries characterised by gender inequality and lower GDP. These findings indicate that improving women's status may be a key area for addressing the global obesity epidemic over the long term, with potential benefits for the women themselves and for their offspring., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which provides an international agreement on how to deliver aid, has recently been reviewed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Health sector aid effectiveness is important, given the volume of financial aid and the number of mechanisms through which health assistance is provided. Recognizing this, the international community created the International Health Partnership (IHP+), to apply the Paris Declaration to the health sector. This paper, which presents findings from an independent monitoring process (IHP+Results), makes a valuable contribution to the literature in the context of the recent 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, Korea., Methods: IHP+Results monitored commitments made under the IHP + using an agreed framework with twelve measures for IHP + Development Partners and ten for IHP + recipient country governments. Data were collected through self-administered survey tools. IHP+Results analyzed these data, using transparent criteria, to produce Scorecards as a means to highlight progress against commitments and thereby strengthen mutual accountability amongst IHP + signatories., Results: There have been incremental improvements in the strengthening of national planning processes and principles around mutual accountability. There has also been progress in Development Partners aligning their support with national budgets. But there is a lack of progress in the use of countries' financial management and procurement systems, and in the integration of duplicative performance reporting frameworks and information systems., Discussion and Conclusions: External, independent monitoring is potentially useful for strengthening accountability in health sector aid. While progress in strengthening country ownership, harmonisation and alignment seems evident, there are ongoing challenges. In spite of some useful findings, there are limitations with IHP + monitoring that need to be addressed. This is not surprising given the challenge of rigorously monitoring Development Partners across multiple recipient countries within complex global systems. The findings presented here suggest that the health sector is ahead of the game--in terms of having an established mechanism to promote alignment and harmonisation, and a relatively advanced monitoring framework and methods. But to capitalise on this, IHP + signatories should: a) reaffirm their commitments to the IHP+; b) actively embrace and participate in monitoring and evaluation processes; and c) strengthen in-country capacity notably amongst civil society organizations.

Global health funding has increased in recent years. This has been accompanied by a proliferation in the number of global health actors and initiatives. This paper describes the state of global heath finance, taking into account government and private sources of finance, and raises and discusses a number of policy issues related to global health governance. A schematic describing the different actors and three global health finance functions is used to organize the data presented, most of which are secondary data from the published literature and annual reports of relevant actors. In two cases, we also refer to currently unpublished primary data that have been collected by authors of this paper. Among the findings are that the volume of official development assistance for health is frequently inflated; and that data on private sources of global health finance are inadequate but indicate a large and important role of private actors. The fragmented, complicated, messy and inadequately tracked state of global health finance requires immediate attention. In particular it is necessary to track and monitor global health finance that is channelled by and through private sources, and to critically examine who benefits from the rise in global health spending.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major contributor to global health; its influence on international health policy and the design of global health programmes and initiatives is profound. Although the foundation's contribution to global health generally receives acclaim, fairly little is known about its grant-making programme. We undertook an analysis of 1094 global health grants awarded between January, 1998, and December, 2007. We found that the total value of these grants was US$8.95 billion, of which $5.82 billion (65%) was shared by only 20 organisations. Nevertheless, a wide range of global health organisations, such as WHO, the GAVI Alliance, the World Bank, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, prominent universities, and non-governmental organisations received grants. $3.62 billion (40% of all funding) was given to supranational organisations. Of the remaining amount, 82% went to recipients based in the USA. Just over a third ($3.27 billion) of funding was allocated to research and development (mainly for vaccines and microbicides), or to basic science research. The findings of this report raise several questions about the foundation's global health grant-making programme, which needs further research and assessment.

Growing poverty, collapsing health care systems, the AIDS pandemic and the widening of health and health care inequities within and between countries all point to the limited success of global public health interventions over the past few decades. Notwithstanding the efforts of multilateral agencies such as the World Health Organization and the many existing contributions from the Canadian community of health professionals, this commentary argues and appeals for further action particularly in relation to the social and political impediments to better health and justice. Specifically, it calls for the development of a robust instrument to assess the impact of Canada as a whole on the state of global health, and to monitor the performance of key Canadian institutions. It is suggested that such an instrument would result in a process that enhances global citizenship and public accountability, and buttresses the efforts of civil society to forge trans-national links in pursuit of a fairer and healthier world. Public health professionals, by virtue of their social standing as well as the nature and tools of their discipline, should be at the forefront of such civic efforts.

The paper traces the evolution and working of the Global Equity Gauge Alliance (GEGA) and its efforts to promote health equity. GEGA places health equity squarely within a larger framework of social justice, linking findings on socioeconomic and health inequalities with differentials in power, wealth, and prestige in society. The Alliance's 11 country-level partners, called Equity Gauges, share a common action-based vision and framework called the Equity Gauge Strategy. An Equity Gauge seeks to reduce health inequities through three broad spheres of action, referred to as the 'pillars' of the Equity Gauge Strategy, which define a set of interconnected and overlapping actions. Measuring and tracking the inequalities and interpreting their ethical import are pursued through the Assessment and Monitoring pillar. This information provides an evidence base that can be used in strategic ways for influencing policy-makers through actions in the Advocacy pillar and for supporting grassroots groups and civil society through actions in the Community Empowerment pillar. The paper provides examples of strategies for promoting pro-equity policy and social change and reviews experiences and lessons, both in terms of technical success of interventions and in relation to the conceptual development and refinement of the Equity Gauge Strategy and overall direction of the Alliance. To become most effective in furthering health equity at both national and global levels, the Alliance must now reach out to and involve a wider range of organizations, groups, and actors at both national and international levels. Sustainability of this promising experiment depends, in part, on adequate resources but also on the ability to attract and develop talented leadership.