Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    1/23

    1

    UNPACKING GLOBAL HEALTH GOVERNANCE:

    Understanding the relationship between the World Health Organization and

    the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from a health equity perspective

    In the face of rising infectious disease such as AIDS, TB, and malaria, and the

    increasing marginalization of health problems that do not affect the developed

    world, the importance of an international, independent organization that is brave,

    aggressive and vocal in its defense of global public health has never been more

    important (Ford and Piedagnel quoted in Lee, et al, 2009, p.419).

    INTRODUCTION

    The last twenty years has seen a shift from international health to global

    health, where intergovernmental actors have been replaced by transnational institutions(Birn, et al, 2009; Brown, et al, 2006). Private foundations, non-governmental

    organizations (NGOs), and global health partnerships have gained power and prestige as

    United Nations (UN) organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), have

    seen their agency undermined. Changes in the governance structure of global health,

    especially the entry of extremely powerful private institutions, have affected the quest for

    global health equity in a number of ways. This paper looks at the implications of this

    transition on health equity at a global level by looking specifically at the growth of the

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    2/23

    2

    Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its relationship with the WHO. 1 First, it establishes

    a framework within which to understand health equity. Then, it provides a historical

    perspective of the diminished capacity of the WHO while examining the rise in

    prominence of the Gates Foundation, and also their relationship to each other. Finally,

    the paper discusses the impact of the rise and fall of these two institutions on health

    equity at an international level.

    A FRAMEWORK FOR HEALTH EQUITY

    According to Braveman and Gruskin (2003), equity in health is the absence of

    systematic disparities in health (or in the major social determinants of health) between

    groups with different levels of underlying social advantage/disadvantagethat is, wealth,

    power, or prestige. A look at indicators of health across the globe and within countries,

    including life expectancy and maternal mortality, makes it clear that health equity

    remains a goal rather than an achievement. Since the early 20 th Century, cooperation to

    address health across national borders has occurred, but it was not until the Declaration of

    Alma Ata in 1978 that the notion of health for all gained prominence in public discourses

    around health (Birn, et al, 2009). In recent years, health has been viewed through a

    human rights framework and in terms of the social determinants of health (Farmer, 2005;

    WHO, 2008). The notion of health equity encompasses most of these perspectives andforms the basis of this papers argument.

    1 In McCoy, et al (2009b)s recent article entitled The Gates Foundations grant making program for globalhealth, the authors suggest that one investigation that would bring greater clarity to the structure of globalhealth governance is the critical examination of the nature and effets of the relationship between the GatesFoundation and the World Bank, World Health Organization and key global health partnerships (p. 1651).This paper attempts to respond directly to this suggestion.

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    3/23

    3

    Loewenson (2009) suggests that there are four elements that support the

    achievement of health equity: health for all; health in all policies; health equity; and

    social empowerment. First, health for all involves ensuring that every person has access

    to health care. For example, that they do not face financial or geographical barriers to

    accessing health care facilities. Second, health in all policies suggests that health issues

    are considered in all policy development, from international financial regulations to

    municipal level housing planning. Third, health equity requires a redistribution of

    resources throughout the health system that cannot be left to the market. And finally, it

    involves social empowerment where there is recognition that people make up the centralrole in health systems.

    At an international level, there is a push for health equity from a number of

    sources, one of which is the Global Health Watch (GHW). The WHO is often seen as the

    actor best positioned to lead the quest for global health equity both because of its policy

    setting mandate and its representation of 193 countries. The most recent Global Health

    Watch (2008) argues for a centralized, accountable and effective multilateral global

    health agency, driven by a desire to promote health with the understanding that the

    distribution of health and health care is a core marker of social justice (p. 224). Since its

    establishment on April 7, 1948, the World Health Organization has sought to fill this role

    (Birn, et al, 2009).

    THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    4/23

    4

    The World Health Organization is a membership based intergovernmental agency

    created as part of the UN system to deal with health issues on an international level. The

    WHOs mission is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health

    (Birn et al, 2009, p. 73). This mission includes specific references to health equity and

    reaching poor and underserved populations (WHOb). In particular, the WHO performs

    the following functions: providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging

    in partnerships where joint action is needed; shaping the research agenda and stimulating

    the generation, translation and dissemination of valuable knowledge; setting norms and

    standards and promoting and monitoring their implementation; articulating ethical andevidence-based policy options; providing technical support, catalyzing change, and

    building sustainable institutional capacity; and monitoring the health situation and

    assessing health trends (WHOa). In essence, the WHO has a role in both policy and

    practice, and is the closest thing we have to a Ministry of Health at the global level

    (GHW, 2008a, p. 225).

    Over the years, however, the WHOs ability to carry out its mission has changed,

    primarily as a result of changing approaches of its funders. Traditionally, governments

    fund UN organizations with the donations being determined by a calculation involving

    both the countrys population and the size of its economy. Once the WHO receives the

    money, it is up to its governing bodies the World Health Assembly and the Executive

    Board to determine how the money will be spent (Birn, et al, 2009). These pre-determined contributions make up what is known as the regular budget funds (RBFs) and

    have traditionally been supplemented by extra-budget funds (EBFs) (GHW, 2008a, p.

    225). These extra-budgetary funds are donated on a voluntary basis by governments or

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    5/23

    5

    private organizations and are subject to the conditions of those who donate them (Birn, et

    al, 2009, p. 75). Since the 1970s when the majority of WHO spending utilized regular

    budget funds (80 percent of spending), there has been a shift to the point where three-

    quarters of the WHOs spending in 2008 came from extra-budgetary funds (GHW,

    2008a, p. 226). The implication of this transition is that control over spending has moved

    from the hands of the WHOs governing structure and into the hands of a multitude of

    private and public donors. Lee, et al (2009) gives an example of the WHO

    accommodating the pharmaceutical industry as a result of its dependence on extra-

    budgetary support from private donors, though its perceived support of industry-discounted rather than generic drugs (p. 419; GHW, 2008a, p. 230).

    According to the Global Health Watch (2008a), this change in investment from

    regular budget funds to extra-budgetary funds came partly as a result of a broader change

    in UN system financing. In 1980, UN members pushed for a policy that ensured that

    their contributions would account for inflation, but not grow beyond the current level. In

    1993, they decided further to stop even this adjustment for inflation and introduced a

    policy of zero nominal growth, effectively freezing funding for all UN organizations

    (GHW, 2008a, p. 227). They also explain that the problem of late and non-payment of

    contributions (to the tune of US$35 million to the UN overall in 1999) played a role in

    increasing the WHOs reliance on extra-budgetary funds (GHW, 2008a, p. 227). Birn, et

    al (2009) suggests that regular budget funds for the WHO were also diminished as aresult of the World Banks entry into international health in the early 1980s which

    redirected funds away from the WHO (p.75). As well, perceived politicization of UN

    organizations, such as the WHOs campaign against irrational prescribing of medicines

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    6/23

    6

    and breast milk substitutes, led to the decreased interest in providing regular budget

    funds to the WHO (GHW, 2008a p. 227). Lee, et al (2009) notes that another reason

    behind reduced support for the WHO could be because of the perceived threat to vested

    economic interests (p.420). In general, however, a much greater reliance on EBFs

    reflect[s] the preference of donors towards having greater control over their money

    (GHW, 2008a, p.226).

    THE BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION

    One of the actors that has emerged as a major extra-budgetary supporter of the

    WHO in the last ten years is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. After amassing great

    wealth as the founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, decided in 1994 to

    establish the Gates Foundation (GFc). Currently, the Foundation works in three areas:

    global development, education, and global health. It is the latter initiative that is the

    focus of this paper. At the end of 2008, the Gates Foundation reported assets of just

    under US$30 billion and distribution of grants totaling just under $5.5 billion (GF, 2008).

    To put these figures into perspective, Piller, et al (2007) note that the Foundations

    endowment is greater that the gross domestic product of 70 percent of the worlds

    nations.

    The Gates Foundation mission is to target diseases and health conditions thatcause the greatest illness and death in developing countries, yet receive little attention and

    resources (GFa). It does this by discovering, developing and delivering new disease-

    fighting technology, as well as engaging in advocacy to build awareness of global health

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    7/23

    7

    issues. At present, the Gates Foundation invests heavily in research and delivery of

    vaccines and medicines, putting the GAVI Alliance, PATH, Aeras Global TB Vaccine

    Foundation, International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, Global Alliance for TB Drug

    Development, Medicines for Malaria Venture and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB

    and Malaria among the top recipients of its funds (McCoy, et al, 2009b, p.1648).

    Through its extensive grant-making capabilities, the Gates Foundation has seen its

    influence on global health policy and priorities strengthen over time, resulting in

    extensive financial influence across a wide spectrum of global health stakeholders

    (GHW, 2008b, p. 251). At present, the Foundation is a funder and board member of various massive global health initiatives, including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,

    Tuberculosis and Malaria, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, and the

    Stop TB Partnership, to name a few (GHW, 2008b, p. 249). In 2007, the Gates

    Foundation joined with the WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNAIDS, GFATM, GAVI, and

    the World Bank to form an informal group of eight health-related organizations, known

    as the H8(IHP, 2007). Like its namesake, the G8, this group of health actors represents

    significant power over the global health agenda and at present, the Gates Foundation is

    the only private organization represented within this group.

    A CRITIQUE OF THE GATES FOUNDATION APPROACH

    The position of the Gates Foundation has enabled it to achieve recognizable

    success in several areas, especially in the area of vaccines and immunizations. However,

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    8/23

    8

    there are some that question the Foundations approach to global health, particularly in

    terms of accountability, funding sources, programmatic method, and pro-business focus.

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    As poignantly articulated by Andre Damon (2007) in an article for the World

    Socialist Web Site,

    what is inherent but unstated in the much vaunted rise of venturephilanthropy is the transfer of social wealth and social power from the public

    sector where at least, theoretically, some form of democratic control or

    influence is possible to a wealthy elite accountable to no one but themselves.

    The Gates Foundation is one of the practitioners of venture philanthropy to which

    Damon refers. Unlike public organizations like the WHO, the Gates Foundation lacks

    accountability to any type of board or governing council. Even without mechanisms of

    accountability similar to those found in the public sector, the Gates Foundation is

    essentially subsidized by public coffers: foundation endowments are tax free (Birn, et al,

    2009, p.99; McCoy, et al, 2009a, p.4). McCoy, et al (2009a) estimate that US$225

    billion in holdings by US foundations actually belongs to the American public in thesense that it is money foregone by the state through tax exemptions (p.4).

    The Gates Foundation has also been accused of failing to fairly tender its grant

    monies. In his detailed investigation of Gates Foundation grant making, McCoy, et al

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    9/23

    9

    (2009b) notes that grant making by the Gates Foundation seems to be largely managed

    through an informal system of personal networks rather than by a more transparent

    process based on independent technical and peer review (p.1650). The Global Health

    Watch (2008b) notes that the absence of robust systems of accountability becomes

    particularly pertinent in light of the foundations extensive influence (p. 250). Despite

    this lack of accountability, the Foundation still manages to have significant influence

    within the global health industry.

    VERTICAL PROGRAMS

    A survey of the Gates Foundations programs on its website indicates that its

    focus is often disease-based. For example, large portions of Gates Foundation funding go

    towards HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, polio and measles. Known as vertical

    programming this approach to health operates in contrast to a health systems approach

    which works to build capacity to provide health care for a multitude of different ailments.

    It has further been argued that health care on its own is insufficient: the structural

    determinants of health must be addressed through a health equity approach (like the one

    outlined at the start of this paper), if health for all is to be achieved.

    Birn (2005) notes that the Gates Foundation approach is often technology based.

    She suggests that their approach arises from an assumption that the problems of globalhealth stem from a shortage of scientific knowledge, translated into technical solutions

    (Birn, 2005, p. 4). The Global Health Watch (2008b) uses the example of the Gates

    Foundations approach to child mortality. It suggests that the Foundations research

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    10/23

    10

    focuses disproportionately on development of new technology rather than overcoming

    barriers to delivery or utilization of existing technology (p. 253).

    Finally, as will be more closely examined in the section on the Gates

    Foundations pro-business approach, it is important to note that 95 percent of Gates

    Foundation funding is given to recipients based in industrialized countries (McCoy et al,

    2009b, p1649). It is possible to question whether the answers to the worlds health

    problems can be found outside of the areas that carry the largest burden of infectious

    disease and the lowest capacity to care for their sick.

    FUNDING SOURCES

    The Gates Foundation endowment is invested each year to ensure the

    sustainability of their programming over time. However, it has become clear that there

    has been no effort to coordinate this investment with the charitable mission of the

    organization. In fact, it seems that in several cases, the investment of the Gates

    Foundations endowment directly contravene its good works (Piller, et al, 2007). More

    specifically, the negative health outcomes caused by industry invested in by the

    Foundation negates their efforts at disease control and eradication. For example, in

    Nigeria, a community receiving vaccines from the Gates Foundation against polio and

    measles has simultaneously been suffering from a disproportionately high incidence of debilitating respiratory problems from a neighbouring petroleum refinery that is financed

    through contributions from the Gates Foundation endowment (Piller, et al, 2007). After

    the discovery of this hypocrisy in 2007, the Gates Foundation has, instead of becoming

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    11/23

    11

    more responsible investors, worked to try to better separate their endowment from their

    charity on paper.

    PRO-BUSINESS APPROACH

    Bill Gates business background has had a considerable influence on the Gates

    Foundation approach to global health. Global health has been impacted by Microsofts

    actions prior to the Gates Foundation involvement, especially around the issue of

    intellectual property rights and pharmaceuticals. For example, Microsoft was a strongadvocate for strict regulations in the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual

    Property Rights (TRIPS), which continues to affect access to essential medicines around

    the world. The Gates Foundation maintains strong ties with the pharmaceutical industry,

    including the appointment of a former GlaxoSmithKline executive Dr. Tadataka Yamada

    as the president of their Global Health Program. McCoy, et al (2009a) argue that

    pharma companies benefit considerably from global health programs that emphasize

    delivery of medical commodities and treatment, as the Gates Foundation approach does

    (p. 9).

    To this day, the Gates Foundation remains strongly confident in the private

    sectors ability to solve global public health problems. In fact, the Global Health Watch

    (2008b) goes so far as to accuse the Gates Foundation of converting global healthproblems into business opportunities (p. 255). This is further illustrated by McCoy, et al

    (2009b)s point that only five percent of Gates Foundation funding is directed towards

    lower or middle income countries (p.1649). In other words, most of the Gates

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    12/23

    12

    Foundation funding remains in North America, sustaining think tanks, universities,

    NGOs, research facilities, and, surprisingly, private business. .

    One of the ways that Gates pro business approach manifests itself is through the

    promotion of what are known as public-private partnerships for health. These

    partnerships bring together public and private sector actors to tackle a particular health

    issue, such as HIV/AIDS or malaria, usually with a focus on delivery of treatment or

    immunization. The public-private partnership model for global health, such as the Stop

    TB Partnership, Roll Back Malaria, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and

    Malaria, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, almost by definitionsupport vertical programming. As Birn, et al (2009) notes, there is no [public-private

    partnership] for primary health care! (p. 106). They go on to suggest that most [public-

    private partnerships] channel public money into the private sector, not the other way

    around (Birn, et al, 2009, p.106).

    Though this section has not included an exhaustive examination of the

    controversy surrounding the Gates Foundations approach to global health policy making

    and practice, it hints at the serious issues of the rise of an unaccountable, market-oriented,

    private institution in setting the agenda for global health. It is impossible to separate the

    factors that have weakened the international administrative body for health (the WHO)

    and allowed for the growth in power and reach of private philanthropy for health (in

    particular, the Gates Foundation). Next, we look at the specific ways in which these twoinstitutions interact, with a specific focus on how the Gates Foundations role as a donor

    to practically every global health actor gives it power to set policy and even co-opt the

    WHO into policies that undermine its mandate.

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    13/23

    13

    THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WHO AND THE GATES

    FOUNDATION

    As well as providing funding to numerous NGOs, universities, global health

    partnerships and research institutes, the Gates Foundation is a major funder of the WHO

    (McCoy, et al, 2009b). Since 1998, the Foundation has contributed over US$505 million

    in extra-budgetary support to the WHO through a total of 87 different grants, (GFb).

    This total makes the WHO the fourth largest recipient of Gates Foundation funding andthe largest intergovernmental organization grant recipient (McCoy, 2009b, p. 1649). The

    Gates Foundations contributions to the WHO exceed the contributions of most

    governments, the only exceptions being the United States and Britain. Currently, the

    Foundation ties for third largest funder of the WHO with Japan (GHW, 2008a, p. 227).

    The Gates Foundation supports the WHOs through vertical programming with

    some operational support. According to the Foundation website, its grants to the WHO

    fall into 14 categories (see Table 1). Most of these grants are focused on specific

    diseases, including HIV/AIDS and malaria, with vaccines and maternal, newborn and

    child health also receiving significant attention. Most interestingly, the category that

    received the most amount of grant money between 1999 and 2009 was left uncategorized.

    A closer look at the details of these grants suggests that they are more geared to WHOoperations than the other grants. Since 1998, the Gates Foundation has contributed

    almost US$100 million towards often ambiguous projects like [engaging] the global

    health community in a creative and robust process to guide the future of health. Though

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    14/23

    14

    these types of projects have been granted less frequently in the last few years, as recently

    as 2006, the Gates Foundation contributed US$5 million to support the transition of the

    WHO Director-General Elect (GFb). This type of involvement suggests a more

    politicized role in the WHO than the Gates Foundation would usually admit to.

    Grant CategoryTotal Amount

    (US$)Number of

    GrantsHIV/AIDS $48,829,284 16Malaria $77,672,587 14Uncategorized $98,133,259 14Vaccines $39,105,673 10Maternal, Newborn & Child Health $61,886,392 9Advocacy & Public Policy $51,950,517 6Neglected Diseases $11,494,448 4Tuberculosis $18,351,509 4Polio $68,711,412 3Diarrhea $5,550,684 2Pneumonia & Flu, Vaccines $15,676,537 2Emergency Relief $625,000 1Nutrition $6,477,697 1Water, Sanitation & Hygiene $293,800 1

    Table 1: Grants made to WHO by Gates Foundation between 1998 and 2009(accessed from the Gates Foundation website, July 2009)

    It is important to note explicitly here that although the WHO has a mandate and

    mission that supports the development of health systems and supports work to improve

    the social determinants of health, it is no doubt constrained by the fact that its third

    biggest donor is determined to fund vertical programs and politically-motivated

    leadership initiatives. Clearly, the power of the Gates Foundation through its grants to

    the WHO affects the organizations ability to work towards health equity or a human

    rights approach to health.

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    15/23

    15

    The Gates Foundation effects the WHOs agency both directly through grant

    making and also by its involvement with other global health stakeholders in policy

    making. Competition for Gates Foundation funds has caused a trend towards aligning

    with its priorities among several global health institutions. As well, the Gates Foundation

    has created a number of new institutions, such as the GAVI Alliance and the Institute for

    Health Metrics and Evaluation that have an affect on the global health landscape.

    Because it is often not represented in these new institutions, WHO priorities are often

    sidelined.

    One of the big ways that the WHO has been affected by the Gates Foundationsrise in power both directly and indirectly, is the change towards a market-oriented global

    health sector. While the Gates Foundation is not the only catalyst in this direction, it is

    certainly acting on this interest at a very high level, for example through its participation

    in the H8. In the policy statements of the Meeting of Global Health Leaders (H8) in

    2007, five objectives were laid out that are particularly market-oriented, and make

    explicit reference to the private sectors role in delivering health services, in financing

    health care, and in bringing new technologies to market (UNICEF, 2007). The fact that

    the Gates Foundation is a funder of all of the other members of the H8 likely puts it in a

    unique position of power within this group.

    This pro-market approach to health has led to the rise of the public-private

    partnerships for health discussed above. Through their support of these programs, theGates Foundation affects the agency of the WHO to determine global health policy. Birn,

    et al (2009) states that the WHOs ability to tackle major international health problems

    is inhibited by the public-private partnership model by fragmenting health care, and

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    16/23

    16

    providing insufficient accountability and low cost-effectiveness (p. 107). Public-private

    partnerships entrench vertical programs, jeopardizing health systems development and

    impeding integrated approaches (Birn, et al, 2009, p. 106). However, as public private

    partnerships have become a donor priority they have thus have gained resources and

    support from the WHO. Even by providing support, the WHO remains marginal in the

    decision-making processes of these public-private partnerships; it does not have a vote on

    several of the partnerships boards (Birn, et al 2009, p. 107).

    CONCLUSION

    Overall we have looked at how the Gates Foundation, through its considerable

    grant making capabilities, has affected the ability of the World Health Organization to

    fulfill its mission of the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health

    (Birn et al, 2009). Returning to Loewensons (2009) conceptualization of global health

    equity, it is possible to see how the changing governance structures of global health have

    negatively effected the achievement of health equity. By prioritizing vertical

    programming above health system strengthening, health for all has become treatment

    of certain diseases. The voices, such as the World Health Organization, that should

    promote health in all policies have been co-opted and now toe the donor line. The

    redistribution of resources necessary to achieve health equity has been derailed byincreasing reliance on public-private partnerships to deliver treatment that prioritize

    health commodities from industrialized countries. And finally, increased competition for

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    17/23

    17

    donor funds, a pro-business approach, and emphasis on technology-based solutions have

    precluded the social empowerment necessary to put people first in health systems.

    The balance of power between public and private actors in global health must be

    restored, in particular between the World Health Organization and the Gates Foundation.

    Like the Global Health Watch (2008a) asserts,

    It is worth aspiring to an accountable and effective multilateral global health

    agency, driven by a desire to promote health with the understanding that the

    distribution of health and health care is a core marker of social justice (p. 224).

    To restore the policymaking power of the WHO, the Gates Foundation must

    recognize the value of an independent, publicly accountable international governing body

    for health. This recognition should lead to direct budgetary support to the WHO without

    donor conditionalities and active representation of the WHO in all institutions related to

    global health including public-private partnerships and the Gates Foundation itself. As

    well, the Gates Foundation should acknowledge that the achievement of health for all will

    only occur through changes to structural factors that undermine health, as well as

    considerable inputs to promote health. Perhaps it is idealistic, but with this recognition

    could come responsible investing, greater support for health systems strengthening, and

    more involvement of stakeholders from the developing world. Otherwise, we risk thecomplete takeover of global public institutions for health by private organizations that fial

    to prioritize health equity.

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    18/23

    18

    REFERENCES

    Birn, A., (2005). Gatess grandest challenge: transcending technology as public healthideology. The Lancet , p. 1-6.

    Birn, A., Holtz, T., & Pillay, Y. (2009). Chapter 3: International Health Agencies,Activities and Other Actors. Textbook of International Health: Global Health in aDynamic World. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 61-131.

    Braveman, P., & Gruskin, S. (2003). Defining equity in health. Journal of Epidemiologyand Community Health , 57, p. 254-258.

    Brown, T., Cueto, M., & Fee, E. (2006). The World Health Organization and thetransition from international to global public health. American Journal of Public

    Health , 96, 1, p. 62-72.

    Damon, A. (2007). The Gates Foundation and the rise of free market philanthropy.World Socialist Web Site , January 22. Retrieved July 31, 2009, fromhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/gate-j22.shtml

    Gates Foundation. (2008). Annual Report. Retrieved July 29, 2009 fromhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/annualreport/2008/Pages/combined-statements-financial-position.aspx

    Gates Foundation. Global Health Program. Retrieved July 29, 2009 fromhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/global-health/Pages/overview.aspx

    Gates Foundation. Grants. Retrieved July 29, 2009 fromhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx

    Gates Foundation. Timeline. Retrieved July 29, 2009 fromhttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-timeline.aspx

    Global Health Watch. (2008). Chapter D1.2: The World Health Organization and theCommission on the Social Determinants of Health. Global Health Watch 2: An

    Alternative World Health Report . London: Zed Books, p. 224-239.

    Global Health Watch. (2008). Chapter D1.3: The Gates Foundation. Global Health

    Watch 2: An Alternative World Health Report . London: Zed Books, p. 240-259.International Health Partnership. (2007). About: Health 8 Agencies. Retrieved July 29,2009 from http://www.internationalhealthpartnership.net/ihp_plus_about_agencies.html

    Lee, K., Sridhar, D., & Patel, M. (2009) Bridging the divide: global governance of tradeand health. The Lancet , 373, p. 416-422.

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    19/23

    19

    Loewenson, R. (2009). Dimensions and drivers of equity oriented health systems inAfrica. Lecture, June 24.

    McCoy, D., Chand, S., & Sridhar, D. (2009). Global health funding: how much, where itcomes from and where it goes. Health Policy and Planning , 1-11.

    McCoy, D., Kembhavi, G., Patel, J., & Luintel, A. (2009). The Bill & Melinda GatesFoundations grant-making programme for global health. Lancet, 373, p. 164553.

    Piller, C., Sanders, E., & Dixon, R. (2007). Dark clouds over the good works of theGates Foundation. Los Angeles Times , January 7.

    UNICEF (2007). Informal Meeting of Global Health Leaders. New York: 19 July.Retrieved August 2, 2009 fromwww.unicef.org/health/.../Meeting_of_Global_Health_Leaders_-_Final_Summary.pdf

    World Health Organization (2008). Commission on the Social Determinants of Health.Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/

    World Health Organization. The role of the WHO in public health. Retrieved July 29,2009 from http://www.who.int/about/role/en/index.html

    World Health Organization. The WHO Agenda. Retrieved July 29, 2009 fromhttp://www.who.int/about/agenda/en/index.html

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    20/23

    20

    ANNEX 1Grants made by the Gates Foundation to the World Health Organization between 1998

    and 2009. From the Gates Foundation Website.

    YearGrantRecipient Category Program Grant Amount (US$)

    Number of Grants

    2008 WHO Advocacy & Public Policy Global Health $999,263

    2007 WHO Advocacy & Public Policy Global Health $50,000,000

    2005 WHO Advocacy & Public Policy Global Health $430,095

    2005 WHO Advocacy & Public Policy Global Health $358,687

    2004 WHO Advocacy & Public Policy Global Health $124,069

    2003 WHO Advocacy & Public Policy Global Health $38,403

    Advocacy & Public Policy Total $51,950,517 6 grants2006 WHO Diarrhea Global Health $5,504,8892005 WHO Diarrhea Global Health $45,795

    Diarrhea Total $5,550,684 2 grants

    2002 WHO Emergency Relief GlobalDevelopment $625,000

    Emergency Relief Total $625,000 1 grant2008 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $43,767

    2008 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $500,1382007 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $70,0002007 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $9,210,6302006 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $15,214,3202006 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $19,885,1762006 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $183,5492005 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $44,0782005 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $99,5982005 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $273,4902005 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $952,3622004 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $287,811

    2004 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $994,4002003 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $25,0002002 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $50,0002001 WHO HIV/AIDS Global Health $994,965

    HIV/AIDS Total $48,829,284 16 grants2009 WHO Malaria Global Health $7,828,4702008 WHO Malaria Global Health $22,485,496

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    21/23

    21

    2008 WHO Malaria Global Health $13,839,3362008 WHO Malaria Global Health $6,620,0002008 WHO Malaria Global Health $2,977,3492007 WHO Malaria Global Health $3,226,4722007 WHO Malaria Global Health $4,943,750

    2007 WHO Malaria Global Health $165,0002007 WHO Malaria Global Health $4,540,3402006 WHO Malaria Global Health $2,000,0002006 WHO Malaria Global Health $2,157,8302006 WHO Malaria Global Health $5,056,4682004 WHO Malaria Global Health $1,454,0762006 WHO Malaria, Vaccines Global Health $378,000

    Malaria Total $77,672,587 14 grants

    2006 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $35,096,912

    2006 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $3,490,000

    2005 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $999,500

    2005 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $401,629

    2005 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $198,351

    2004 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $710,000

    2002 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $990,000

    2000 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $10,000,000

    1999 WHO Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Global Health $10,000,000Maternal, Newborn & Child Health Total $61,886,392 9 grants

    2006 WHO Neglected Diseases Global Health $5,030,092

    2005 WHO Neglected Diseases Global Health $2,407,284

    2004 WHO Neglected Diseases Global Health $2,057,072

    2002 WHO Neglected Diseases Global Health $2,000,000

    Neglected Diseases Total $11,494,448 4 grants2004 WHO Nutrition Global Health $6,477,697

    Nutrition Total $6,477,697 1 grant

    2003 WHO Pneumonia & Flu, Vaccines Global Health $4,218,402

    2002 WHO Pneumonia & Flu, Vaccines Global Health $11,458,135

    Pneumonia & Flu, Vaccines Total $15,676,537 2 grants2006 WHO Polio Global Health $39,773,912

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    22/23

    22

    2005 WHO Polio Global Health $25,000,0002005 WHO Polio Global Health $3,937,500

    Polio Total $68,711,412 3 grants2008 WHO Tuberculosis Global Health $1,869,3592006 WHO Tuberculosis Global Health $5,632,150

    2005 WHO Tuberculosis Global Health $850,0002000 WHO Tuberculosis Global Health $10,000,000

    Tuberculosis Total $18,351,509 4 grants2008 WHO Vaccines Global Health $647,1392008 WHO Vaccines Global Health $1,047,1772007 WHO Vaccines Global Health $28,507,8522007 WHO Vaccines Global Health $999,5322007 WHO Vaccines Global Health $150,1772006 WHO Vaccines Global Health $52,3822006 WHO Vaccines Global Health $6,842,3142006 WHO Vaccines Global Health $65,7072004 WHO Vaccines Global Health $543,3931998 WHO Vaccines Global Health $250,000

    Vaccines Total $39,105,673 10 grants

    2007 WHO Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Global Health $293,800

    Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Total $293,800 1 grant2007 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $5,000,0002006 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $5,000,0002006 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $303,8482005 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $917,5602005 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $7,053,0352004 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $49,605,9682004 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $198,2632004 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $4,740,8012004 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $937,9002003 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $5,000,0002003 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $350,0002002 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $10,121,4732002 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $4,951,953

    1999 WHO Uncategorized Global Health $3,952,458Uncategorized Total $98,133,259 14 grants

  • 8/14/2019 Jongbloed-Unpacking Global Health Governance

    23/23

    ANNEX 2Details of Uncategorized Grants made by the Gates Foundation to the World Health

    Organization. From the Gates Foundation Website.

    Date PurposeGrantAmount

    Duration of Grant Location

    Dec-07Purpose: to support the Global Health Workforce Alliance inaddressing the global crisis in human resources for health $5,000,0002 years Global

    Nov-06Purpose: to support the transition of the WHO Director-General Elect $5,000,000

    2 years and1 month Global

    Oct-06Purpose: to support a conference on strengthening healthleadership and management in low income countries $303,8487 months Global

    Jul-05Purpose: to engage the global health community in a creativeand robust process to guide the future of health $917,560 5 years Global

    Jun-05Purpose: to accelerate the development and introduction of prophylactic HPV vaccines in developing countries $7,053,035 5 years Global

    Dec-04Purpose: to support the Health Metrics Network (HMN) $49,605,9667 years Global

    Sep-04Purpose: to provide general operating support for theMinisterial Summit on Health Research $198,263 6 months Global

    Jun-04Purpose: to train young professionals from developingcountries to become future leaders in public health $4,740,801 4 years Global

    Jun-04

    Purpose: to define the structure and range of activities for theHealth Metrics Network through a collaborative process withpartners and stakeholders across the globe $937,900 1 year Global

    Jun-03 Purpose: for general operating support $5,000,000 1 year Europe

    May-03Purpose: to support activities for the surveillance andcontainment of drug resistance in malaria, HIV and TB $350,000 1 year Global

    Oct-02

    Purpose: to support follow-up on the Commission of Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) report at the country,regional, and global levels $10,121,473

    3 years and2 months Global

    Aug-02 Purpose: to build mapping tools for rapid analysis of infectious disease incidence and prevalence $4,951,953 5 years Global

    Sep-99

    Purpose: to support an alliance of five agencies to workcollaboratively on preventing cervical cancer in developingcountries $3,952,4582 years

    Africa,Asia