Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a broad‐based study that initially investigated a possible gap in global inputs into the fight against HIV/AIDS and TB co‐infection, and outputs in terms of results achieved. It is proposed that such a gap may be hypothesized to be due, at least in part, to inappropriate management regimes within the global health governance structure. The research does not simply question the effectiveness of the management of programs and projects, but rather the inappropriateness resulting from the lack of addressing cross‐cultural issues.

The factors facilitating or hampering project service delivery were examined, by looking at 12 case studies in Botswana and South Africa. These data were complemented with seven semi‐structured interviews with donor organizations and NGOs, conducted in the North. Cultural interactions were investigated by using the concept of “interfaces”.

The results suggest that there is a disjuncture between the global and local level that affects project delivery. The main issues hampering project outcomes can be summarized as systemic, structural and cultural.

The article's main contributions are both theoretical, looking at global project delivery from a cross‐cultural management perspective, as well as to development praxis by highlighting the need to focus more critically on cross‐cultural management issues within the global health governance structure, and indeed within international development as a whole.

The chapter summarizes key literature, including emerging ideas, that is pertinent to the question of how organizations and their leadership deal with and are resilient through crises – highlighting what works in surviving unexpected crises. The chapter presents an illustration of organizational response; it concludes with an analysis of what is missing from the literature and recommends a path forward to expanding actionable knowledge in this area. Multiple, interdependent factors that foster resilience are identified including (1) being sensitive to possible threats – even seemingly small failures, (2) not relying on simple interpretations of events but rather seeking diversity to create a complete view of the environment, (3) leadership that embraces communication, transparency, and continuous learning, (4) valuing expertise and allowing expert staff to make decisions during a crisis, and (5) a cultural commitment to a resiliency mindset that accepts failures as opportunities to learn and improve. Emerging concepts that may foster resilience but require more research include managing paradox, emotional ambivalence and diversity. Additional areas for fruitful research include: the impact of short-term versus long-term, or successive, crises; external versus internal shocks and the framing of the source of shocks; how crisis affect the pace of innovation and change; the role of diversity in organizational responses to crises; and a set of methodological opportunities to leverage natural experiments or simulations in ways that allow for longitudinal data illuminating the full cycle of crises across organizations from anticipation, to response, to longer-term adaptation to the new normal.

Global health challenges and threats could be confronted by collaborative efforts of international community. Governance for global health is a set of formal and informal processes, operating beyond state boundaries, and refers to institutions and mechanisms established at the national, regional and international levels. Nordic countries demonstrated a long-standing commitment to development assistance for health (DAH), and more recently to governance for global health. Governance for global health tools could be used effectively to achieve collective solutions for the maintenance and promotion of health as a common good, could ensure accountability and transparency, and reconcile the interests of different actors on the international and national levels. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of tools and approaches in support of eight sub-functions of governance for global health applied by the Nordic countries. This will help international audience to compare those mechanisms with similar mechanisms that are available or planned in their countries and regions, and may benefit policy scholars and practitioners.

This study uses qualitative review of research literature, policy documents and information available from institutional websites related to the governance of global health in four Nordic countries. In total, 50 selected publications were analyzed using framework synthesis, mapping all findings to 8 dimensions (sub-functions) of governance for global health and related tools.

Review reveals which tools are available, how they have been applied by the Nordic countries and influenced all domains (sub-functions) of governance for global health at different levels: national governments, agencies and networks; bilateral and multilateral partnerships; inter-governmental institutions and international health-related organizations. Common trends and approaches in governance for global health have been formulated.

This study is unique in relation to the prior literature as it looks at the role of Nordic countries in the governance for global health system through the lens of tools applied in support to its sub-functions.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare three different principles – the culpability, capacity and concern principles – for allocating responsibility for governance in a multi‐level context of addressing sustainable development.

The principles are first analysed from a theoretical and normative standpoint, linking to earlier literature on for example, the contribution principle, subsidiarity and global citizenship. Then the three principles are analysed in an empirical setting. The selected case is the issue complex around the health and environmental concerns from pesticide use in developing countries. Document analysis and semi‐structured interviews were carried out with relevant stakeholders from local, national and global governance levels on themes which enabled analysis of the workability and justness of the principles and whether they were already applied to some degree.

Analysis of the case shows the mutual complementarity of the three principles for allocating responsibility for governance, especially when culpability and capacity are dispersed across different agents and levels. However, the concern and capacity principles emerged as more important and promising. The results indicated the need for moving the value basis of agents towards more selfless global concern in order to create an effective multi‐level governance system.

The results may help policymakers at different levels to analyse more systematically who should assume responsibility for sustainable development governance and why.

Extends the analysis of principles for allocating responsibility for global issues.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how “manias” in global health governance lead to health inequalities even before, during and in the aftermath of acute health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. “Manias” as used here refer to obsessive ir/rational behaviors, misguided policy/strategic choices and the exercise of power that benefit the major global health actors at the expense of stakeholders.

From post-colonial and historical perspectives, this study delineates how the major global health actors influence outcomes in global health governance and international business when they interact at the national–global level using an illustration from an emerging economy.

Power asymmetry in global health governance is constructed around the centralization of economic influence, medico-techno-scientific innovation and the geopolitical hegemony of a conglomerate of super-rich/powerful actors. They cluster these powers and resources in the core region (industrialized economies) and use them to influence the periphery (developing economies) through international NGOs, hybrid organizations, MNCs and multilateral/bilateral agreements. The power of actors to maintain manias lies in not only how they influence the periphery but also the consequences of the periphery’s “passivity” and “voluntary” renunciation of sovereignty in medical innovations and global health policies/politics.

As a quintessential feature of manias, power asymmetry makes it harder for weaker actors to actually change the institutional conditions that produce structural inequalities in global health.

This timely and multidisciplinary study calls for a novel architecture of global health governance. Thus, democratizing global health governance with sufficiently foresighted investments that prioritize equitable access by and the inclusiveness of vulnerable stakeholders will help dismantle institutionalized manias while decreasing health inequalities.

The purpose of this paper is to defend the appropriateness of a global governance framework for the transnational pharmaceutical corporations (TNPCs) as a way to tackle the problems resulting out of a non‐implementation or violation of the “right to health” by a lack of accessibility of vital medicines in developing countries, and control the risks of the TNPCs themselves and to provide for more accountability and trust on their part. The aim is to show that such a framework can prepare the ground for a win‐win‐situation for all stakeholders and for a sustainable combination of interests in profits, human rights, especially the “right to health”, and human welfare.

This is a conceptual paper on the basis of step‐by‐step analytical and interdiscinplinary approach that requires to pick up arguments from economics, business ethics, law, political science as well as aspects of the human rights and the health governance discourse. A broad spectrum of literature and various information sources are referred to: scientific articles and monographs, newspaper and magazine articles, internet sources and information provided by the corporations themselves and by NGOs (non‐governmental organizations), as well as recent academic and institutional publications. Desk research is the underlying technique to analyze the sources in a heuristic and interpretative way. For a better understanding, first the complexity of the implementation of “the right to health” and the role of different actors will be outlined and second, advantages, positive impacts and deficits of existing health‐related CSR (corporate social responsibility) and multistakeholder initiatives by the TNPCs will be pointed out. This is to prepare a ground for arguing in favor of a global governance framework for the TNPCs and to underline the existence of external and internal drivers for the TNPCs to adhere to a global governance framework.

Especially in developing countries the “right to health” is poorly implemented. TNPCs could contribute to improvements and partly already do so. Yet, the existing approaches are deficitary, insufficient and not sustainable. The problem calls for more accountability in regard to the access to vital medicines. A global governance frameworks for the TNPCs would pose a win‐win‐opportunity: While the TNPCs can benefit from more accountability, precisely defined responsibilities as well as efficiency by constructive, strategic partnerships on a stable level‐playing‐field and a legitimized conduct, their stakeholders benefit from an improved accessibility to vital medicines and an enhanced implementation of the “right to health”.

The paper contributes to the ongoing debate on how to improve the implementation of “right to health” by improving the accessibility of vital medicines, especially in developing (and emerging) countries. It proposes new modes of CSR‐based conduct and partnerships of the TNPCs and a framework of global governance that are urgently required to tackle with a long‐term perspective the problems and threats that pandemics pose on a global scale and to cut down risks for the TNPCs while also widening their markets.

The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of the World Health Organization’s Global Healthcare Workforce Alliance (GHWA). Based on a commissioned evaluation of GHWA, it applies network theory and key concepts from systems thinking to explore network emergence, effectiveness, and evolution to over a ten-year period. The research was designed to provide high-level strategic guidance for further evolution of global governance in human resources for health (HRH).

Methods included a review of published literature on HRH governance and current practice in the field and an in-depth case study whose main data sources were relevant GHWA background documents and key informant interviews with GHWA leaders, staff, and stakeholders. Sampling was purposive and at a senior level, focusing on board members, executive directors, funders, and academics. Data were analyzed thematically with reference to systems theory and Shiffman’s theory of network development.

Five key lessons emerged: effective management and leadership are critical; networks need to balance “tight” and “loose” approaches to their structure and processes; an active communication strategy is key to create and maintain support; the goals, priorities, and membership must be carefully focused; and the network needs to support shared measurement of progress on agreed-upon goals. Shiffman’s middle-range network theory is a useful tool when guided by the principles of complex systems that illuminate dynamic situations and shifting interests as global alliances evolve.

This study was implemented at the end of the ten-year funding cycle. A more continuous evaluation throughout the term would have provided richer understanding of issues. Experience and perspectives at the country level were not assessed.

Design and management of large, complex networks requires ongoing attention to key issues like leadership, and flexible structures and processes to accommodate the dynamic reality of these networks.

This case study builds on growing interest in the role of networks to foster large-scale change. The particular value rests on the longitudinal perspective on the evolution of a large, complex global network, and the use of theory to guide understanding.