Search

Successful prevention and control of the epidemic of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) cannot be achieved by the health sector alone: a wide range of organisations from multiple sectors and across government must also be involved. This requires a new, inclusive approach to advocacy and to coordinating, convening and catalysing action across civil society, best achieved by a broad-based network. This comment maps the experience of the NCD Alliance (NCDA) on to Shiffman’s challenges for global health networks – framing (problem definition and positioning), coalition-building and governance – and highlights some further areas overlooked in his analysis.

This study contributes to the literature on informal governance by examining politics of informal agenda-setting in the European Commission. As a 'hard case', the paper examines how the European Commission exceeds limited legal Treaty provisions in foreign and security policy (CFSP). This system, where the Commission has come to play a more prominent role than stipulated in the treaties, is interpreted as a normalization of CFSP governance. Three complementary propositions on the informal agenda-setting role of the Commission are developed: agenda leadership (#1), coalition-building (#2), and community framing (#3). To illuminate these propositions, we examine their relevance across three empirical cases: (i) EU's Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS), (ii) EU's Arctic policies, and (iii) EU's naval mission against human smuggling in the Mediterranean, EU Sophia. These cases suggest that informal agenda governance by the European Commission is mainly shaped by agenda leadership in combination with EU-level coalition-building, but also strengthened by community framing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global health networks, webs of individuals and organizations with a shared concern for a particular condition, have proliferated over the past quarter century. They differ in their effectiveness, a factor that may help explain why resource allocations vary across health conditions and do not correspond closely with disease burden. Drawing on findings from recently concluded studies of eight global health networks—addressing alcohol harm, early childhood development (ECD), maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, pneumonia, surgically-treatable conditions, tobacco use, and tuberculosis—I identify four challenges that networks face in generating attention and resources for the conditions that concern them. The first is problem definition: generating consensus on what the problem is and how it should be addressed. The second is positioning: portraying the issue in ways that inspire external audiences to act. The third is coalition-building: forging alliances with these external actors, particularly ones outside the health sector. The fourth is governance: establishing institutions to facilitate collective action. Research indicates that global health networks that effectively tackle these challenges are more likely to garner support to address the conditions that concern them. In addition to the effectiveness of networks, I also consider their legitimacy, identifying reasons both to affirm and to question their right to exert power.

Successful prevention and control of the epidemic of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) cannot be achieved by the health sector alone: a wide range of organisations from multiple sectors and across government must also be involved. This requires a new, inclusive approach to advocacy and to coordinating, convening and catalysing action across civil society, best achieved by a broad-based network. This comment maps the experience of the NCD Alliance (NCDA) on to Shiffman's challenges for global health networks -- framing (problem definition and positioning), coalition-building and governance -- and highlights some further areas overlooked in his analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global health networks, webs of individuals and organizations with a shared concern for a particular condition, have proliferated over the past quarter century. They differ in their effectiveness, a factor that may help explain why resource allocations vary across health conditions and do not correspond closely with disease burden. Drawing on findings from recently concluded studies of eight global health networks--addressing alcohol harm, early childhood development (ECD), maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, pneumonia, surgically-treatable conditions, tobacco use, and tuberculosis--I identify four challenges that networks face in generating attention and resources for the conditions that concern them. The first is problem definition: generating consensus on what the problem is and how it should be addressed. The second is positioning: portraying the issue in ways that inspire external audiences to act. The third is coalition-building: forging alliances with these external actors, particularly ones outside the health sector. The fourth is governance: establishing institutions to facilitate collective action. Research indicates that global health networks that effectively tackle these challenges are more likely to garner support to address the conditions that concern them. In addition to the effectiveness of networks, I also consider their legitimacy, identifying reasons both to affirm and to question their right to exert power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]