Adam Kamradt-Scott

Framing global health: The governance challenge

Abstract With the emergence of global health comes governance challenges which are equally global in nature. This article identifies some of the initial limitations in analyses of global health governance (GHG) before discussing the focus of this special supplement: the framing of global health issues and the manner in which this impacts upon GHG. Whilst not denying the importance of material factors (such as resources and institutional competencies), the article identifies how issues can be framed in different ways, thereby creating particular pathways of response which in turn affect the potential for and nature of GHG. It also identifies and discusses the key frames operating in global health: evidence-based medicine, human rights, security, economics and development.

The securitisation of pandemic influenza: Framing, security and public policy

Abstract This article examines how pandemic influenza has been framed as a security issue, threatening the functioning of both state and society, and the policy responses to this framing. Pandemic influenza has long been recognised as a threat to human health. Despite this, for much of the twentieth century it was not recognised as a security threat. In the decade surrounding the new millennium, however, the disease was successfully securitised with profound implications for public policy. This article addresses the construction of pandemic influenza as a threat. Drawing on the work of the Copenhagen School, it examines how it was successfully securitised at the turn of the millennium and with what consequences for public policy.

The 2011 Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework: Global Health Secured or a Missed Opportunity?

In early 2007 the Indonesian government announced that it would cease sharing H5N1 influenza virus samples with the World Health Organizations Global Influenza Surveillance Network. At the heart of the governments complaint was the fact that samples were being passed by the WHO to pharmaceutical companies which developed, and patented, influenza vaccines that the Indonesian authorities could not purchase. The decision gained widespread support among advocates of greater equity of access to medicines, and in response the WHO established an intergovernmental process to agree a framework for influenza virus sharing. The process officially concluded in April 2011 and a new Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIPF) was agreed at the 64th World Health Assembly in May 2011. This article investigates the events that prompted the re-examination of a technical cooperation system that has provided effective global health security on influenza for 60 years, and evaluates the framework that has now been agreed. Drawing the distinction between functional and moral-political benefits, the article argues that PIPF more accurately represents a diplomatic stand-off – one that has now been effectively sidelined with the passage of the agreement – rather than genuine reform. In fact, the PIPF papers over fundamental disagreements regarding authority in global health governance, the relationship between the WHO and governments, and the role of private industry. The article concludes by examining an alternative mechanism that would arguably better address the inherent tensions between national and collective interests, and accomplish the functional and moral-political benefits that the negotiations set out to achieve.

WHO’s to blame? The World Health Organization and the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa

Abstract Since 2001 the World Health Organization (WHO) has been actively promoting its credentials for managing ‘global health security’. However, the organisation’s initial response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa has attracted significant criticism, even prompting calls for its dissolution and the creation of a new global health agency. Drawing on principal–agent theory and insights from previous disease outbreaks, this article examines what went wrong, the extent to which the organisation can be held to account, and what this means for the WHO’s global health security mandate.

The multiple meanings of global health governance: a call for conceptual clarity

BackgroundThe term global health governance (GHG) is now widely used, with over one thousand works published in the scholarly literature, almost all since 2002. Amid this rapid growth there is considerable variation in how the term is defined and applied, generating confusion as to the boundaries of the subject, the perceived problems in practice, and the goals to be achieved through institutional reform.MethodologyThis paper is based on the results of a separate scoping study of peer reviewed GHG research from 1990 onwards which undertook keyword searches of public health and social science databases. Additional works, notably books, book chapters and scholarly articles, not currently indexed, were identified through Web of Science citation searches. After removing duplicates, book reviews, commentaries and editorials, we reviewed the remaining 250 scholarly works in terms of how the concept of GHG is applied. More specifically, we identify what is claimed as constituting GHG, how it is problematised, the institutional features of GHG, and what forms and functions are deemed ideal.ResultsAfter examining the broader notion of global governance and increasingly ubiquitous term “global health”, the paper identifies three ontological variations in GHG scholarship - the scope of institutional arrangements, strengths and weaknesses of existing institutions, and the ideal form and function of GHG. This has produced three common, yet distinct, meanings of GHG that have emerged – globalisation and health governance, global governance and health, and governance for global health.ConclusionsThere is a need to clarify ontological and definitional distinctions in GHG scholarship and practice, and be critically reflexive of their normative underpinnings. This will enable greater precision in describing existing institutional arrangements, as well as serve as a prerequisite for a fuller debate about the desired nature of GHG.

Evidence-based medicine and the governance of pandemic influenza

Abstract The conventional response of governments to protect their populations against the threat of influenza has been to ensure adequate vaccine production and/or access to supplies of vaccines and antiviral medications. This focus has, in turn, shaped the global governance structures around pandemic influenza, with collective efforts centred on facilitating virus sharing, maintaining and increasing vaccine production, and ensuring access to pharmaceuticals – responses that remain unattainable for many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the short to medium term. This paper argues that this emphasis on pharmacological responses reflects a particular view of biomedicine that pays inadequate attention to the weak capacity of many health systems. In more recent years, this dynamic has been further exacerbated by the influence of evidence-based medicine (EBM) that preferences certain types of biomedical knowledge and practice. This paper explores the role that EBM has played in shaping the global governance of pandemic influenza, and how it has served to reinforce and reify the authority of particular groups of actors, including policy-makers, elected officials and the medical community. The paper concludes that only by unpacking these structures and revealing the political authority in play can alternative policy responses more appropriate to LMICs be considered.

Disease outbreaks and health governance in the Asia-Pacific: Australia's role in the region

The revised International Health Regulations (IHR) entered into force on 15 June 2007. In accordance with this new international treaty, every member state of the World Health Organization has been given five years in which to review their existing health systems and structures, and where necessary, improve their capacity for the detection, reporting, assessment of, and response to public health emergencies of international concern. Of course, for developed countries, it is unlikely that establishing and maintaining these core capabilities will be difficult. For many less developed countries, however, the revised IHR obligations pose a challenge on a number of fronts. This article explores some of the challenges that less developed countries face in meeting their new IHR obligations prior to discussing the role that the Australian government can play in assisting its Asia-Pacific neighbours achieve these measures.

The transformation of global health governance

The authors examine how health governance is being transformed amid globalization, characterized by the emergence of new actors and institutions, and the interplay of competing ideas about global health. They explore how this has affected the governance of specific health issues and how it relates to global governance more broadly.

Changing perceptions of pandemic influenza and public health responses.

According to the latest World Bank estimates, over the past decade some US

WHO must remain a strong global health leader post Ebola

4.3 billion has been pledged by governments to combat the threat of pandemic influenza. Presidents, prime ministers, and even dictators the world over have been keen to demonstrate their commitment to tackling this disease, but this has not always been the case. Indeed, government-led intervention in responding to the threat of pandemic influenza is a relatively recent phenomenon. I explore how human understandings of influenza have altered over the past 500 years and how public policy responses have shifted accordingly. I trace the progress in human understanding of causation from meteorological conditions to the microscopic, and how this has prompted changes in public policy to mitigate the diseases impact. I also examine the latest trend of viewing pandemic influenza as a security threat and how this has changed contemporary governance structures and power dynamics.