Alexandros Kentikelenis, Leonard Seabrooke, Ole Jacob Sending
{"title":"霸权阴影下的全球卫生专业知识","authors":"Alexandros Kentikelenis, Leonard Seabrooke, Ole Jacob Sending","doi":"10.1007/s12116-023-09405-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What enables actors to shape norms in global health governance? Scholarship on global health has highlighted the role of experts and expertise in operationalizing norms across a variety of issues. The degree of expert consensus or dissensus and the negotiation processes between expert communities—for example, in international organizations, NGOs or academia—are commonly identified as centrally important for explaining these processes. In this article, we posit that norm-making in global health governance occurs in the shadow of hegemony; a system of status and stratification that is centered on economic and security concerns and maintained by countries at the core of the world system. These countries—notably the USA and other major economies in the Global North—project their hegemonic position in the world system across areas of global organizing, including in global health. We explore the relationship between epistemic consensus and hegemonic interests as parameters that shape the outcome of norm-making processes. To pursue this argument, we examine this relationship in the context of the development of policy norms to counter non-communicable diseases in developing countries and to pursue the securitization of global health.","PeriodicalId":47488,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Comparative International Development","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global Health Expertise in the Shadow of Hegemony\",\"authors\":\"Alexandros Kentikelenis, Leonard Seabrooke, Ole Jacob Sending\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12116-023-09405-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract What enables actors to shape norms in global health governance? Scholarship on global health has highlighted the role of experts and expertise in operationalizing norms across a variety of issues. The degree of expert consensus or dissensus and the negotiation processes between expert communities—for example, in international organizations, NGOs or academia—are commonly identified as centrally important for explaining these processes. In this article, we posit that norm-making in global health governance occurs in the shadow of hegemony; a system of status and stratification that is centered on economic and security concerns and maintained by countries at the core of the world system. These countries—notably the USA and other major economies in the Global North—project their hegemonic position in the world system across areas of global organizing, including in global health. We explore the relationship between epistemic consensus and hegemonic interests as parameters that shape the outcome of norm-making processes. To pursue this argument, we examine this relationship in the context of the development of policy norms to counter non-communicable diseases in developing countries and to pursue the securitization of global health.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Comparative International Development\",\"volume\":\"100 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Comparative International Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-023-09405-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Comparative International Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-023-09405-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract What enables actors to shape norms in global health governance? Scholarship on global health has highlighted the role of experts and expertise in operationalizing norms across a variety of issues. The degree of expert consensus or dissensus and the negotiation processes between expert communities—for example, in international organizations, NGOs or academia—are commonly identified as centrally important for explaining these processes. In this article, we posit that norm-making in global health governance occurs in the shadow of hegemony; a system of status and stratification that is centered on economic and security concerns and maintained by countries at the core of the world system. These countries—notably the USA and other major economies in the Global North—project their hegemonic position in the world system across areas of global organizing, including in global health. We explore the relationship between epistemic consensus and hegemonic interests as parameters that shape the outcome of norm-making processes. To pursue this argument, we examine this relationship in the context of the development of policy norms to counter non-communicable diseases in developing countries and to pursue the securitization of global health.
期刊介绍:
Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID) is an interdisciplinary journal that addresses issues concerning political, social, economic, and environmental change in local, national, and international contexts. Among its major emphasis are political and state institutions; the effects of a changing international economy; political-economic models of growth and distribution; and the transformation of social structure and culture.The journal has a tradition of presenting critical and innovative analytical perspectives that challenge prevailing orthodoxies. It publishes original research articles on the developing world and is open to all theoretical and methodical approaches.