Related Articles

Harley Feldbaum and Joshua Michaud consider the important interplay between foreign policy and global health interests, and introduce a series on Global Health Diplomacy beginning this week in PLoS Medicine.

Health has long been intertwined with the foreign policies of states. In recent years, however, global health issues have risen to the highest levels of international politics and have become accepted as legitimate issues in foreign policy. This elevated political priority is in many ways a welcome development for proponents of global health, and it has resulted in increased funding for and attention to select global health issues. However, there has been less examination of the tensions that characterize the relationship between global health and foreign policy and of the potential effects of linking global health efforts with the foreign-policy interests of states. In this paper, the authors review the relationship between global health and foreign policy by examining the roles of health across 4 major components of foreign policy: aid, trade, diplomacy, and national security. For each of these aspects of foreign policy, the authors review current and historical issues and discuss how foreign-policy interests have aided or impeded global health efforts. The increasing relevance of global health to foreign policy holds both opportunities and dangers for global efforts to improve health.

Health has long been intertwined with the foreign policies of states. In recent years, however, global health issues have risen to the highest levels of international politics and have become accepted as legitimate issues in foreign policy. This elevated political priority is in many ways a welcome development for proponents of global health, and it has resulted in increased funding for and attention to select global health issues. However, there has been less examination of the tensions that characterize the relationship between global health and foreign policy and of the potential effects of linking global health efforts with the foreign-policy interests of states. In this paper, the authors review the relationship between global health and foreign policy by examining the roles of health across 4 major components of foreign policy: aid, trade, diplomacy, and national security. For each of these aspects of foreign policy, the authors review current and historical issues and discuss how foreign-policy interests have aided or impeded global health efforts. The increasing relevance of global health to foreign policy holds both opportunities and dangers for global efforts to improve health.

Background

In much of the world, President George W. Bush was not admired for his foreign policy and diplomacy. It is therefore ironic that Bush’s single most uncontested foreign policy triumph was an instance of what has now become known as “health diplomacy”. In 2003 Bush launched the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a five-year $15 billion initiative to fight HIV/AIDS, mostly in Africa. The president’s pragmatic health diplomacy may well save his foreign policy legacy. This article argues that a middle power such as South Africa should consider a similar instrumental AIDS diplomatic strategy, to rehabilitate its public health as well as foreign policy images.

Discussion

This article reflects on the emergence and contemporary practice of health diplomacy. In particular, it explores the potential of niche areas within health diplomacy to become constructive focal points of emerging middle powers’ foreign policies. Middle powers often apply niche diplomacy to maximise their foreign policy impact, particularly by pursuing a multilateral agenda. The literature on middle powers indicates that such foreign policy ambitions and concomitant diplomacy mostly act to affirm the global status quo. Instead, this paper argues that there may well be niches within health diplomacy in particular that can be used to actually challenge the existing global order. Emerging middle powers in particular can use niche areas within health diplomacy in a critical theoretical manner, so that foreign policy and diplomacy become a project of emancipation and transformation, rather than an affirmation of the world as it is.

Summary

The article first describes the emergence and contemporary practice of health diplomacy; this is followed by a discussion of niche diplomacy, in particular as it applies to the foreign policy agendas of emerging middle powers. It then reviews South African foreign policy and diplomacy, before situating these policies within the context of emerging mechanisms of south-south multilateralism. The article concludes by synthesizing these elements and advocating for a South African AIDS diplomacy, emphasizing its potential to galvanize a global project of emancipation.

An incident that involved withholding avian influenza virus samples illustrates the importance and limitations of international law in global health diplomacy.

Indonesia’s decision to withhold samples of avian influenza virus A (H5N1) from the World Health Organization for much of 2007 caused a crisis in global health. The World Health Assembly produced a resolution to try to address the crisis at its May 2007 meeting. I examine how the parties to this controversy used international law in framing and negotiating the dispute. Specifically, I analyze Indonesia’s use of the international legal principle of sovereignty and its appeal to rules on the protection of biological and genetic resources found in the Convention on Biological Diversity. In addition, I consider how the International Health Regulations 2005 applied to the controversy. The incident involving Indonesia’s actions with virus samples illustrates both the importance and the limitations of international law in global health diplomacy.

Background

Study-based global health interventions, especially those that are conducted on an international or multi-site basis, frequently require site-specific adaptations in order to (1) respond to socio-cultural differences in risk determinants, (2) to make interventions more relevant to target population needs, and (3) in recognition of ‘global health diplomacy' issues. We report on the adaptations development, approval and implementation process from the Project Accept voluntary counseling and testing, community mobilization and post-test support services intervention.

Methods

We reviewed all relevant documentation collected during the study intervention period (e.g. monthly progress reports; bi-annual steering committee presentations) and conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with project directors and between 12 and 23 field staff at each study site in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Thailand and Tanzania during 2009. Respondents were asked to describe (1) the adaptations development and approval process and (2) the most successful site-specific adaptations from the perspective of facilitating intervention implementation.

Results

Across sites, proposed adaptations were identified by field staff and submitted to project directors for review on a formally planned basis. The cross-site intervention sub-committee then ensured fidelity to the study protocol before approval. Successfully-implemented adaptations included: intervention delivery adaptations (e.g. development of tailored counseling messages for immigrant labour groups in South Africa) political, environmental and infrastructural adaptations (e.g. use of local community centers as VCT venues in Zimbabwe); religious adaptations (e.g. dividing clients by gender in Muslim areas of Tanzania); economic adaptations (e.g. co-provision of income generating skills classes in Zimbabwe); epidemiological adaptations (e.g. provision of ‘youth-friendly’ services in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Tanzania), and social adaptations (e.g. modification of terminology to local dialects in Thailand: and adjustment of service delivery schedules to suit seasonal and daily work schedules across sites).

Conclusions

Adaptation selection, development and approval during multi-site global health research studies should be a planned process that maintains fidelity to the study protocol. The successful implementation of appropriate site-specific adaptations may have important implications for intervention implementation, from both a service uptake and a global health diplomacy perspective.

As part of the PLoS Medicine series on Global Health Diplomacy, Lai-Han Chan and colleagues provide a case study of China's growing engagement in global health diplomacy following the SARS epidemic.

As part of the PLoS Medicine series on Global Health Diplomacy, Kerri-Ann Jones provides a perspective from the Inited States Department of State on current complexities and challenges in global health diplomacy.

As part of the PLoS Medicine series on Global Health Diplomacy, Kelley Lee and colleagues provide a case study of Brazil's growing influence in international relations and global health, using as an example that country's role and use of “soft power” in the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

As part of the PLoS Medicine series on Global Health Diplomacy, David Fidler provides a case study of the difficult negotiations to increase equitable access to vaccines for highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) and pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1).

Brazil's large-scale, successful HIV/AIDS treatment programme is considered by many to be a model for other developing countries aiming to improve access to AIDS treatment. Far less is known about Brazil's important role in changing global norms related to international pharmaceutical policy, particularly international human rights, health and trade policies governing access to essential medicines. Prompted by Brazil's interest in preserving its national AIDS treatment policies during World Trade Organisation trade disputes with the USA, these efforts to change global essential medicines norms have had important implications for other countries, particularly those scaling up AIDS treatment. This paper analyses Brazil's contributions to global essential medicines policy and explains the relevance of Brazil's contributions to global health policy today.

Health has gained importance on the global agenda. It has become recognized in forums where it was once not addressed. In this article three issues are considered: global health policy actors, global health priorities and the means of addressing the identified health priorities. I argue that the arenas for global health policy-making have shifted from the public spheres towards arenas that include the transnational for-profit sector. Global health policy has become increasingly fragmented and verticalized. Infectious diseases have gained ground as global health priorities, while non-communicable diseases and the broader issues of health systems development have been neglected. Approaches to tackling the health problems are increasingly influenced by trade and industrial interests with the emphasis on technological solutions.

To examine ways of ensuring access to health services within the framework of primary health care (PHC), since the goal of PHC to make universal health care available to all people has become increasingly neglected amid emerging themes of globalization, trade, and foreign policy. From a public health point of view, we argue that the premise of PHC can unlock barriers to health care services and contribute greatly to determining collective health through the promotion of universal basic health services. PHC has the most sophisticated and organized infrastructure, theories, and political principles, with which it can deal adequately with the issues of inequity, inequality, and social injustice which emerge from negative economic externalities and neo-liberal economic policies. Addressing these issues, especially the complex social and political influences that restrict access to medicines, may require the integration of different health initiatives into PHC. Based on current systems, PHC remains the only conventional health delivery service that can deal with resilient public health problems adequately. However, to strengthen its ability to do so, we propose the revitalization of PHC to incorporate scholarship that promotes human rights, partnerships, research and development, advocacy, and national drug policies. The concept of PHC can improve access; however, this will require the urgent interplay among theoretical, practical, political, and sociological influences arising from the economic, social, and political determinants of ill health in an era of globalization.

The European eHealth Strategies study analyzed policy development and strategy planning, implementation measures as well as progress achieved with respect to national and regional eHealth solutions in 34 European countries, with emphasis on barriers and enablers beyond technology. The focus was on infrastructure elements and selected solutions emphasized in the European Union eHealth Action Plan of 2004. At the governance level, issues around administrative responsibility and competence centers, stakeholder engagement, legal and regulatory facilitators, financing and reimbursement, and evaluation activities were surveyed. Solutions analyzed included patient summaries and electronic health records, ePrescription, telehealth, electronic identifiers, eCards as well standardization aspects. Results indicate that across Europe eHealth has matured from a policy debate to a very tangible, implementation oriented endeavor.

Background

'Innovation' has become a policy focus in its own right in many states as they compete to position themselves in the emerging knowledge economies. Innovation in biomedicine is a global enterprise in which 'Rising Power' states figure prominently, and which undoubtedly will re-shape health systems and health economies globally. Scientific and technological innovation processes and policies raise difficult issues in the domains of science/technology, civil society, and the economic and healthcare marketplace. The production of knowledge in these fields is complex, uncertain, inter-disciplinary and inter-institutional, and subject to a continuing political struggle for advantage. As part of this struggle, a wide variety of issues - regulation, intellectual property, ethics, scientific boundaries, healthcare market formation - are raised and policy agendas negotiated.

Methods

A range of social science disciplines and approaches have conceptualised such innovation processes. Against a background of concepts such as the competition state and the developmental state, and national innovation systems, we give an overview of a range of approaches that have potential for advancing understanding of governance of global life science and biomedical innovation, with special reference to the 'Rising Powers', in order to examine convergences and divergences between them. Conceptual approaches that we focus on include those drawn from political science/political economy, sociology of technology; Innovation Studies and Science & Technology Studies. The paper is part of a project supported by the UK ESRC's Rising Powers programme.

Results

We show convergences and complementarities between the approaches discussed, and argue that the role of the national state itself has become relatively neglected in much of the relevant theorising.

Conclusions

We conclude that an approach is required that enables innovation and governance to be seen as 'co-producing' each other in a multi-level, global ecology of innovation, taking account of the particular, differing characteristics of different emerging scientific fields and technologies. We suggest key points to take account of in order in the future to move toward a satisfactory integrative conceptual framework, capable of better understanding the processes of the emergence, state steerage and transnational governance of innovative biomedical sectors in the Rising Powers and global context.

This article describes recent events in the governance of standard-setting for 2 areas of US health policy — states' decisions about which prescription drugs to cover under Medicaid and other public programs and making health an aspect of foreign policy — and whether these events offer lessons for policy making. In prescription drug coverage, methodologic advances in research that evaluates health services and the politics of restraining the rate of growth in health expenditures enabled policy makers in most states to establish new public processes for assessing and applying evidence about the effectiveness of competing drugs. Their counterparts in foreign policy, in contrast, made few changes in existing processes for choosing which interventions to support. The history of governance in each area of policy making for health explains the selection of standards to evaluate evidence about interventions and whether and how to use this evidence to guide policy.

This paper discusses key issues in the science–policy interface. It stresses the importance of linking the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity to the Millennium Development Goals and to issues of immediate concern to policy-makers such as the economy, security and human health. It briefly discusses the process of decision-making and how the scientific and policy communities have successfully worked together on global environmental issues such as stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change, and the critical role of international assessments in providing the scientific basis for informed policy at the national and international level. The paper also discusses the drivers of global environmental change, the importance of constructing plausible futures, indicators of change, the biodiversity 2010 target and how environmental issues such as loss of biodiversity, stratospheric ozone depletion, land degradation, water pollution and climate change cannot be addressed in isolation because they are strongly interconnected and there are synergies and trade-offs among the policies, practices and technologies that are used to address these issues individually.

Many western industrialized countries are currently suffering from a crisis in health human resources, one that involves a debate over the recruitment and licensing of foreign-trained doctors and nurses. The intense public policy interest in foreign-trained medical personnel, however, is not new. During the 1960s, western countries revised their immigration policies to focus on highly-trained professionals. During the following decade, hundreds of thousands of health care practitioners migrated from poorer jurisdictions to western industrialized countries to solve what were then deemed to be national doctor and nursing 'shortages' in the developed world. Migration plummeted in the 1980s and 1990s only to re-emerge in the last decade as an important debate in global health care policy and ethics. This paper will examine the historical antecedents to this ethical debate. It will trace the early articulation of the idea of a 'brain drain', one that emerged from the loss of NHS doctors to other western jurisdictions in the 1950s and 1960s. Only over time did the discussion turn to the 'manpower' losses of 'third world countries', but the inability to track physician migration, amongst other variables, muted any concerted ethical debate. By contrast, the last decade's literature has witnessed a dramatically different ethical framework, informed by globalization, the rise of South Africa as a source donor country, and the ongoing catastrophe of the AIDS epidemic. Unlike the literature of the early 1970s, recent scholarship has focussed on a new framework of global ethics.

Background: Alongside the major health risks posed by environmental pollution in China are recent achievements on several environmental issues that have affluent Western nations racing to catch up. The country has propelled itself to a position of leadership in clean energy and efficiency, for instance, with important consequences for public health.

Objectives: We comment on China’s challenges and recent accomplishments in addressing environmental problems from domestic pollution to global climate change. We compare China’s commitment to clean energy technology with that of other leading nations and discuss key achievements in other areas, including vehicle efficiency standards and transportation policy.

Discussion: We discuss policy directions that would secure much-needed improvements to environmental quality and health in China, along with actions that could motivate global action on issues of energy conservation and pollution reduction.

Conclusions: A comprehensive regulatory and institutional framework for environmental policy is within reach in China but will require addressing major hurdles such as the lack of an independent monitoring mechanism and the need for greater transparency and enforcement in environmental matters. Meanwhile, China can continue to set important examples by investing in renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

This article forms part of a six-part Series on trade and health, and sets the stage for this Series by analysing key aspects of the relationship between trade and health. The Series takes stock of this relation and provides timely analysis of the key challenges facing efforts to achieve an appropriate balance between trade and health across a diverse range of issues. This introductory article reviews how trade and health have risen and expanded on global policy agendas in the past decade in unprecedented ways, describes how trade and health issues are respectively governed in international relations, examines the ongoing search for policy coherence between the two policy spheres, and highlights the topics of the remaining articles in the Series.

Background

Globally, chronic diseases are responsible for an enormous burden of deaths, disability, and economic loss, yet little is known about the optimal health sector response to chronic diseases in poor, post-conflict countries. Liberia's experience in strengthening health systems and health financing overall, and addressing HIV/AIDS and mental health in particular, provides a relevant case study for international stakeholders and policymakers in other poor, post-conflict countries seeking to understand and prioritize the global response to chronic diseases.

Methods

We conducted a historical review of Liberia's post-conflict policies and their impact on general economic and health indicators, as well as on health systems strengthening and chronic disease care and treatment. Key sources included primary documents from Liberia's Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, published and gray literature, and personal communications from key stakeholders engaged in Liberia's Health Sector Reform. In this case study, we examine the early reconstruction of Liberia's health care system from the end of conflict in 2003 to the present time, highlight challenges and lessons learned from this initial experience, and describe future directions for health systems strengthening and chronic disease care and treatment in Liberia.

Results

Six key lessons emerge from this analysis: (i) the 2007 National Health Policy's 'one size fits all' approach met aggregate planning targets but resulted in significant gaps and inefficiencies throughout the system; (ii) the innovative Health Sector Pool Fund proved to be an effective financing mechanism to recruit and align health actors with the 2007 National Health Policy; (iii) a substantial rural health delivery gap remains, but it could be bridged with a robust cadre of community health workers integrated into the primary health care system; (iv) effective strategies for HIV/AIDS care in other settings should be validated in Liberia and adapted for use in other chronic diseases; (v) mental health disorders are extremely prevalent in Liberia and should remain a top chronic disease priority; and (vi) better information systems and data management are needed at all levels of the health system.

Conclusions

The way forward for chronic diseases in Liberia will require an increased emphasis on quality over quantity, better data management to inform rational health sector planning, corrective mechanisms to more efficiently align health infrastructure and personnel with existing needs, and innovative methods to improve long-term retention in care and bridge the rural health delivery gap.

Background

A world divided by health inequalities poses ethical challenges for global health. International and national responses to health disparities must be rooted in ethical values about health and its distribution; this is because ethical claims have the power to motivate, delineate principles, duties and responsibilities, and hold global and national actors morally responsible for achieving common goals. Theories of justice are necessary to define duties and obligations of institutions and actors in reducing inequalities. The problem is the lack of a moral framework for solving problems of global health justice.

Aim

To study why global health inequalities are morally troubling, why efforts to reduce them are morally justified, how they should be measured and evaluated; how much priority disadvantaged groups should receive; and to delineate roles and responsibilities of national and international actors and institutions.

Discussion and conclusions

Duties and obligations of international and state actors in reducing global health inequalities are outlined. The ethical principles endorsed include the intrinsic value of health to well‐being and equal respect for all human life, the importance of health for individual and collective agency, the concept of a shortfall from the health status of a reference group, and the need for a disproportionate effort to help disadvantaged groups. This approach does not seek to find ways in which global and national actors address global health inequalities by virtue of their self‐interest, national interest, collective security or humanitarian assistance. It endorses the more robust concept of “human flourishing” and the desire to live in a world where all people have the capability to be healthy. Unlike cosmopolitan theory, this approach places the role of the nation‐state in the forefront with primary, though not sole, moral responsibility. Rather shared health governance is essential for delivering health equity on a global scale.

The International Health Regulations (2005) [IHR(2005)] represent a potentially revolutionary change in global health governance. The use of the regulations by the World Health Organization (WHO) to respond to the outbreak of pandemic influenza A 2009-H1N1 highlights the importance of the regulations to protecting global health security. As the 2009-H1N1 pandemic illustrated, the IHR(2005) have provided a more robust framework for responding to public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), through requiring reporting of serious disease events, strengthening how countries and WHO communicate concerning health threats, empowering the WHO Director-General to declare the existence of PHEICs and to issue temporary recommendations for responding to them, and requiring countries not to implement measures that unnecessarily restrict trade and travel or infringe on human rights. However, limitations to the effectiveness of the IHR(2005) revealed in the 2009-H1N1 pandemic include continuing inadequacies in surveillance and response capacities within some countries, violations of IHR(2005) rules and a potentially narrowing scope of application only to influenza-like pandemic events. These limitations could undermine the IHR(2005)’s potential to contribute to national and global efforts to detect and mitigate future public health emergencies. Support for the IHR(2005) should be broadened and deepened to improve their utility as a tool to strengthen global health security.

Background

The governments and citizens of the developed nations are increasingly called upon to contribute financially to health initiatives outside their borders. Although international development assistance for health has grown rapidly over the last two decades, austerity measures related to the 2008 and 2011 global financial crises may impact negatively on aid expenditures. The competition between national priorities and foreign aid commitments raises important ethical questions for donor nations. This paper aims to foster individual reflection and public debate on donor responsibilities for global health.

Methods

We undertook a critical review of contemporary accounts of justice. We selected theories that: (i) articulate important and widely held moral intuitions; (ii) have had extensive impact on debates about global justice; (iii) represent diverse approaches to moral reasoning; and (iv) present distinct stances on the normative importance of national borders. Due to space limitations we limit the discussion to four frameworks.

Results

Consequentialist, relational, human rights, and social contract approaches were considered. Responsibilities to provide international assistance were seen as significant by all four theories and place limits on the scope of acceptable national autonomy. Among the range of potential aid foci, interventions for health enjoyed consistent prominence. The four theories concur that there are important ethical responsibilities to support initiatives to improve the health of the worst off worldwide, but offer different rationales for intervention and suggest different implicit limits on responsibilities.

Conclusions

Despite significant theoretical disagreements, four influential accounts of justice offer important reasons to support many current initiatives to promote global health. Ethical argumentation can complement pragmatic reasons to support global health interventions and provide an important foundation to strengthen collective action.

There is an emerging evidence base that global trade is linked with the rise of chronic disease in many low and middle-income countries (LMICs). This linkage is associated, in part, with the global diffusion of unhealthy lifestyles and health damaging products posing a particular challenge to countries still facing high burdens of communicable disease. We developed a generic framework which depicts the determinants and pathways connecting global trade with chronic disease. We then applied this framework to three key risk factors for chronic disease: unhealthy diets, alcohol, and tobacco. This led to specific 'product pathways', which can be further refined and used by health policy-makers to engage with their country's trade policy-makers around health impacts of ongoing trade treaty negotiations, and by researchers to continue refining an evidence base on how global trade is affecting patterns of chronic disease. The prevention and treatment of chronic diseases is now rising on global policy agendas, highlighted by the UN Summit on Noncommunicable Diseases (September 2011). Briefs and declarations leading up to this Summit reference the role of globalization and trade in the spread of risk factors for these diseases, but emphasis is placed on interventions to change health behaviours and on voluntary corporate responsibility. The findings summarized in this article imply the need for a more concerted approach to regulate trade-related risk factors and thus more engagement between health and trade policy sectors within and between nations. An explicit recognition of the role of trade policies in the spread of noncommunicable disease risk factors should be a minimum outcome of the September 2011 Summit, with a commitment to ensure that future trade treaties do not increase such risks.