技术能力不断提高而全球治理水平却很低的悖论:对自愿性国家审查的可持续发展目标健康相关指标的审查。

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ana Luisa Jorge Martins, Rômulo Paes-Sousa
{"title":"技术能力不断提高而全球治理水平却很低的悖论:对自愿性国家审查的可持续发展目标健康相关指标的审查。","authors":"Ana Luisa Jorge Martins, Rômulo Paes-Sousa","doi":"10.1186/s12992-024-01051-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study delves into the States' accountability for health-related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators from 2016 to 2020. An analysis of Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) is employed as an instrument to scrutinize the alignment of States' indicators with the global indicator framework, shedding light on global health governance within the context of the 2030 Agenda and States' strategic prioritization. A curation of 60 health-related indicators from 195 VNRs, produced during the aforementioned period, is organized into thematic groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results highlight a concerning discrepancy in the reporting frequency of various health-related themes. The findings reveal a paradoxical coexistence characterized by the concurrent strengthening and diminution of the global health governance articulated in the Agenda's global health governance. This manifests in the increased utilization and consistency of health-related indicators over the study years, coupled with an emphasis on infectious diseases and child and maternal health indicators. Conversely, a discernible governance decline is evidenced by the inadequate representation of health-related indicators in VNRs, notably within the domains of universal health coverage and health system indicators. Furthermore, High-Income States exhibit diminished accountability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VNRs unveil a paradox wherein burgeoning technical capacity coexists with governance deficits, a phenomenon attributable to both statistical capabilities and political preferences. The prevalent use of proxy indicators in VNRs oversimplifies the presentation of official indicators, thereby compromising the aspirational goal of pioneering statistical innovations for measuring intricate issues in the SDGs. In light of our conceptualization of the 2030 Agenda's global health as a regime complex governance, we advocate for comprehensive investigations into each health regime cluster. This approach aims to unravel disputes, discern patterns, and elucidate States' preferences concerning specific thematic areas. Functioning as an accountability mechanism for the Agenda's governance, VNRs underscore States' adaptability and short-term learning capabilities, offering valuable insights for identifying harmful goal prioritization. The discretionary nature of indicator selection by States in the VNRs, enabled by the Agenda's proposition of a contextual adaptation of the SDGs and a blind eye to the guideline's request to review all SDG indicators, highlights a critical flaw in the VNR as an accountability mechanism.</p>","PeriodicalId":12747,"journal":{"name":"Globalization and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11193190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The paradox of growing technical capacities with low global governance: a review of Voluntary National Reviews' SDG health-related indicators.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Luisa Jorge Martins, Rômulo Paes-Sousa\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12992-024-01051-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study delves into the States' accountability for health-related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators from 2016 to 2020. An analysis of Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) is employed as an instrument to scrutinize the alignment of States' indicators with the global indicator framework, shedding light on global health governance within the context of the 2030 Agenda and States' strategic prioritization. A curation of 60 health-related indicators from 195 VNRs, produced during the aforementioned period, is organized into thematic groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results highlight a concerning discrepancy in the reporting frequency of various health-related themes. The findings reveal a paradoxical coexistence characterized by the concurrent strengthening and diminution of the global health governance articulated in the Agenda's global health governance. This manifests in the increased utilization and consistency of health-related indicators over the study years, coupled with an emphasis on infectious diseases and child and maternal health indicators. Conversely, a discernible governance decline is evidenced by the inadequate representation of health-related indicators in VNRs, notably within the domains of universal health coverage and health system indicators. Furthermore, High-Income States exhibit diminished accountability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VNRs unveil a paradox wherein burgeoning technical capacity coexists with governance deficits, a phenomenon attributable to both statistical capabilities and political preferences. The prevalent use of proxy indicators in VNRs oversimplifies the presentation of official indicators, thereby compromising the aspirational goal of pioneering statistical innovations for measuring intricate issues in the SDGs. In light of our conceptualization of the 2030 Agenda's global health as a regime complex governance, we advocate for comprehensive investigations into each health regime cluster. This approach aims to unravel disputes, discern patterns, and elucidate States' preferences concerning specific thematic areas. Functioning as an accountability mechanism for the Agenda's governance, VNRs underscore States' adaptability and short-term learning capabilities, offering valuable insights for identifying harmful goal prioritization. The discretionary nature of indicator selection by States in the VNRs, enabled by the Agenda's proposition of a contextual adaptation of the SDGs and a blind eye to the guideline's request to review all SDG indicators, highlights a critical flaw in the VNR as an accountability mechanism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Globalization and Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11193190/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Globalization and Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01051-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Globalization and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01051-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究深入探讨了 2016 年至 2020 年各国对与健康相关的可持续发展目标(SDG)指标的问责情况。通过对自愿性国家审查(VNR)的分析,仔细检查各国指标与全球指标框架的一致性,从而揭示 2030 年议程背景下的全球卫生治理以及各国的战略优先次序。我们将上述期间编制的 195 份自愿国家报告中与卫生有关的 60 项指标按专题分组进行了整理:结果:我们的研究结果表明,各种健康相关主题的报告频率存在令人担忧的差异。调查结果揭示了一种矛盾的共存现象,其特点是《议程》全球卫生治理中阐述的全球卫生治理同时加强和削弱。这表现在与健康有关的指标的利用率和一致性在研究期间有所提高,同时强调了传染病以及儿童和孕产妇健康指标。相反,与卫生有关的指标在自愿国家报告中的代表性不足,特别是在全民医保和卫生系统指标领域,这证明了明显的治理衰退。此外,高收入国家的问责制也有所削弱:自愿国家报告揭示了一个悖论,即技术能力不断提高与治理能力不足并存,这一现象既可归因于统计能力,也可归因于政治偏好。自愿国家报告中普遍使用的替代指标过度简化了官方指标的表述,从而损害了开拓统计创新以衡量可持续发展目标中复杂问题的理想目标。鉴于我们将 2030 年议程的全球健康概念化为一种复杂的治理制度,我们主张对每个健康制度集群进行全面调查。这种方法旨在揭示争端、辨别模式并阐明各国在特定专题领域的偏好。作为《议程》管理的问责机制,自愿国家报告强调了各国的适应能力和短期学习能力,为确定有害目标的优先次序提供了宝贵的见解。由于《议程》主张根据具体情况调整可持续发展目标,各国在《自愿性国家报告》 中对指标的选择具有自由裁量权,而且对准则中关于审查所有可持续发展目标指标的要 求视而不见,这凸显了《自愿性国家报告》作为问责机制的一个重大缺陷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The paradox of growing technical capacities with low global governance: a review of Voluntary National Reviews' SDG health-related indicators.

Background: This study delves into the States' accountability for health-related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators from 2016 to 2020. An analysis of Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) is employed as an instrument to scrutinize the alignment of States' indicators with the global indicator framework, shedding light on global health governance within the context of the 2030 Agenda and States' strategic prioritization. A curation of 60 health-related indicators from 195 VNRs, produced during the aforementioned period, is organized into thematic groups.

Results: Our results highlight a concerning discrepancy in the reporting frequency of various health-related themes. The findings reveal a paradoxical coexistence characterized by the concurrent strengthening and diminution of the global health governance articulated in the Agenda's global health governance. This manifests in the increased utilization and consistency of health-related indicators over the study years, coupled with an emphasis on infectious diseases and child and maternal health indicators. Conversely, a discernible governance decline is evidenced by the inadequate representation of health-related indicators in VNRs, notably within the domains of universal health coverage and health system indicators. Furthermore, High-Income States exhibit diminished accountability.

Conclusions: The VNRs unveil a paradox wherein burgeoning technical capacity coexists with governance deficits, a phenomenon attributable to both statistical capabilities and political preferences. The prevalent use of proxy indicators in VNRs oversimplifies the presentation of official indicators, thereby compromising the aspirational goal of pioneering statistical innovations for measuring intricate issues in the SDGs. In light of our conceptualization of the 2030 Agenda's global health as a regime complex governance, we advocate for comprehensive investigations into each health regime cluster. This approach aims to unravel disputes, discern patterns, and elucidate States' preferences concerning specific thematic areas. Functioning as an accountability mechanism for the Agenda's governance, VNRs underscore States' adaptability and short-term learning capabilities, offering valuable insights for identifying harmful goal prioritization. The discretionary nature of indicator selection by States in the VNRs, enabled by the Agenda's proposition of a contextual adaptation of the SDGs and a blind eye to the guideline's request to review all SDG indicators, highlights a critical flaw in the VNR as an accountability mechanism.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Globalization and Health
Globalization and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
18.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: "Globalization and Health" is a pioneering transdisciplinary journal dedicated to situating public health and well-being within the dynamic forces of global development. The journal is committed to publishing high-quality, original research that explores the impact of globalization processes on global public health. This includes examining how globalization influences health systems and the social, economic, commercial, and political determinants of health. The journal welcomes contributions from various disciplines, including policy, health systems, political economy, international relations, and community perspectives. While single-country studies are accepted, they must emphasize global/globalization mechanisms and their relevance to global-level policy discourse and decision-making.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信