|
|
||||||||
EDITORIAL |
The authors are with the Office of International and Refugee Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Md.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Ruth B. Walkup, PhD, Office of International and Refugee Health, Room 18-105, 5600 Fishers La, Rockville, MD 20857 (e-mail: rwalkup{at}osophs.dhhs.gov).
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We held discussions with 29 international health leaders in government, nongovernmental, professional, multilateral, and academic organizations during July and August 1999. We asked 3 questions eliciting their theoretical and practical associations with the concept of global health in the context of their past experiences, current work, and future initiatives:
What concepts do you see as fundamental to the globalization of health?
In what tangible ways does the globalization of health affect your work and organization?
Has globalization changed the meaning and direction of your initiatives and involvements?
The respondents fell into 2 groups. One group recognized worldwide commonalties in health approaches, but felt it unnecessary to coin a new phrase to describe business as usual. They believed that "global health" was mere jargon. "Nothing has changed," commented a Senate aide. "Saying global health instead of international health doesn't change anything." The other group emphasized profound differences between "international" and "global." "International" elicited conceptualizations of coordination constrained by nation-state boundaries, whereas "global" held a more positive connotation associated with improvement. Interestingly, "globalization" suggested many of the negative effects of increasing worldwide linkages in commerce, travel, and communication. "I associate globalization with bad problems that involve the whole world," commented one professor. Overall, most people interviewed believed that "global health" was a loaded but meaningful term. We present our analysis of the respondents' interpretations here under 4 themes: definitions of health norms, health status, health care provision, and health ethics.
| DEFINITION OF HEALTH NORMS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| HEALTH STATUS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| HEALTH CARE PROVISION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although pharmaceutical companies have made drugs more globally accessible, they have also fostered dilemmas concerning exclusive manufacturing rights and antibiotic resistance. "We need to protect drug developers in the global market," remarked a WHO health attaché, "but we also need to ensure access to drugs." Questions of health care funding have risen in importance as corporate providers expand their geographic scope. One professor noted, "We're seeing increasing commonalities in the components of health care systems because basic health needs are similar worldwide." Respondents noted that these concerns evoke questions concerning the politics of global health care provisionwho decides and who pays?
| HEALTH ETHICS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Global health agenda-setters, most of whom come from regions with adequate resources, may remain unresponsive to the health priorities of resourcelimited communities, as depth must often be sacrificed for breadth in the search for global scope. Globalizing health does not necessarily confer equal voice and power. "We must use the new momentum of globalization to grapple with the old problem of inequalities and health disparities," insisted a professor. "We need to listen to poor people of the world and their priorities." Inequities will continue if the right to health care is not taken seriously.
| CONTEXTS OF THE PARADIGM SHIFT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Concepts of general global connectedness were first clearly articulated in 1974 by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein.12 Wallerstein argued that global economic and political relationships are characterized by relations between strong, wealthy "core" states and less influential "peripheral" states. Although world-systems theory was criticized for its simplistic dichotomous structure, some of its mechanisms are evident today. Markets and trade are indeed controlled by the developed world, whose influence is expanding across the globe with greater speed and reach than ever before. Wealthier nations still wield greater political influence in a world where individual countries strive to retain nominal autonomy. However, the complete global homogenization of cultures that many people feared has not occurred.
These theoretical underpinnings of globalization are woven into global health discourse today, as evidenced by our data, by academic commentary, and by politics. The worldwide dynamics of growing markets, modernization, and struggles for national and ethnic identities have become inextricably linked to health care politics. Some scholars, for example, argue that WHO is losing health policy leadership to the World Bank, an economic institution influenced by wealthy countries.13 Health policy theorist Vicente Navarro charges that multilateral organizations involved in health, including WHO, UNICEF, the United Nations Development Program, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, have not been deliberate in their political roles toward equitable globalization of health.14
The Institute of Medicine's document America's Vital Interest in Global Health argues that the United States' involvement and leadership in global health can be justified on grounds of national security, good economic sense, and as a mechanism for continued global authority.15 WHO officials Derek Yach and Douglas Bettcher posit that legal and media communities have a new role in influencing global health politics, enforcement, and advocacy.16, 17 In practical terms, Howson et al. stress that, for a healthier world, there must be a reevaluation of traditional national borders and demographic divisions.18
One of the most far-reaching changes is a broadening sense of place in the greater world. Health planners, activists, academics, and consumers have an expanding mental vision of the world, and this expanded vision greatly influences their discussions about global health and how they envision their role in it.19 Our research suggests that US public health leaders are indeed appreciating their changed roles in a world of increased global linkages.
| CONCLUSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Remarks by the president to the 54th session of the United Nations General Assembly, September 21, 1999. Available at: http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19990921_1.html. Accessed July 27, 2001
3. Remarks as prepared for delivery by Vice President Al Gore, UN Security Council Session on AIDS in Africa, January 10, 2000 [press release]. Available at: http://www.un.int/usa/00_002.htm. Accessed July 27, 2001.
4. Satcher D. My priorities. Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/myjob/priorities.htm. Accessed July 27, 2001.
5. The Advancement of Global Health Act, HR 2399, 106th Cong, 1st Sess (1999).
6. Global Health Act of 2000, HR 3862/S.2387, 106th Cong, 2nd Sess (2000).
7. United Nations General Assembly. Global strategy for health for all by the year 2000. Available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r043.htm. Accessed July 27, 2001.
8. World Health Organization. Definition of health. Available at: http://www.who.org/aboutwho/en/definition.html. Accessed July 27, 2001.
9. Zacher MW. Global epidemiological surveillance: international cooperation to monitor infectious diseases. In: Kaul I, Grunberg I, Stern MA, eds. Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1999:266283.
10. Brundtland GH. Speech to the 51st World Health Assembly, Geneva, 13 May 1998. Available at: http://www.malaria.org/SPEECH.HTM. Accessed July 27, 2001.
11.
Cohen HW, Gould RM, Sidel VW. Bioterrorism initiatives: public health in reverse? Am J Public Health.1999;89:16291630.
12. Wallerstein IM. The Modern World-System. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1974.
13. Berlinguer G. Globalization and global health. Int J Health Serv.1999;29:579595.[Medline]
14. Navarro V. Health and equity in the world in the era of "globalization." Int J Health Serv.1999;29:215226.[Medline]
15. Institute of Medicine. America's Vital Interest in Global Health: Protecting Our People, Enhancing Our Economy, and Advancing Our International Interests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
16.
Yach D, Bettcher D. The globalization of public health, I: threats and opportunities. Am J Public Health.1998;88:735738.
17.
Yach D, Bettcher D. The globalization of public health, II: the convergence of self-interest and altruism. Am J Public Health.1998;88:738741.
18. Howson CP, Fineburg HV, Bloom BR. The pursuit of global health: the relevance of engagement for developed countries. Lancet.1998;351:58690.[Medline]
19. Keane C. Globality and constructions of world health. Med Anthropol Q.1998;12:226240.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. M. Brown, M. Cueto, and E. Fee The World Health Organization and the Transition From "International" to "Global" Public Health Am J Public Health, January 1, 2006; 96(1): 62 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |