求助PDF
{"title":"From Ebola to COVID-19: what explains institutionalized manias and the ultimate preference for non-optimal solutions in global health governance?","authors":"Frederick Ahen","doi":"10.1108/CPOIB-05-2020-0057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: 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 Design/methodology/approach: 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 Findings: 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 Social implications: 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 Originality/value: 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 © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited","PeriodicalId":46124,"journal":{"name":"Critical Perspectives on International Business","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Perspectives on International Business","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/CPOIB-05-2020-0057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
引用
批量引用
从埃博拉到新冠肺炎:是什么解释了制度化的狂热和全球卫生治理中对非最佳解决方案的最终偏好?
目的:本文的目的是调查全球卫生治理中的“狂热”如何在新冠肺炎大流行等急性卫生危机之前、期间和之后导致健康不平等,误导性的政策/战略选择和以牺牲利益相关者为代价使全球主要卫生行为者受益的权力行使设计/方法/方法:从后殖民主义和历史的角度来看,本研究以一个新兴经济体为例,描述了全球主要卫生行为者在国家-全球层面互动时如何影响全球卫生治理和国际商业的结果,医学技术科学创新和超级富豪/强大行为者集团的地缘政治霸权他们将这些权力和资源聚集在核心地区(工业化经济体),并利用它们通过国际非政府组织、混合组织、,跨国公司和多边/双边协议行动者维持躁狂的力量不仅在于他们如何影响外围国家,还在于外围国家在医疗创新和全球卫生政策/政治中“被动”和“自愿”放弃主权的后果社会影响:作为躁狂的一个典型特征,权力不对称使较弱的行为者更难真正改变导致全球卫生结构性不平等的制度条件。原创性/价值:这项及时的多学科研究呼吁建立一种新的全球卫生治理架构。因此,通过足够前瞻性的投资实现全球卫生治理的民主化,优先考虑弱势利益相关者的公平获取和包容性,将有助于消除制度化的狂热,同时减少健康不平等©2021,Emerald Publishing Limited
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。