世界银行应对传染病爆发的演变:从被动应对到主动应对

Geyndt Willy De
{"title":"世界银行应对传染病爆发的演变:从被动应对到主动应对","authors":"Geyndt Willy De","doi":"10.23937/2469-5793/1510077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Six major infectious disease outbreaks have occurred in rapid succession in the twenty first century causing an estimated $80 billion in economic losses and many lives lost. The World Bank Group (WBG) was not prepared to respond quickly and effectively to contain the spread of these outbreaks. It reacted too late to the earlier outbreaks but slowly improved its response time and its coordination with major stakeholders. The response time of its financing contribution decreased across the six infectious disease outbreaks ranging from two years (Avian Influenza) to two months (Zika). The organizational structure of the WBG partly accounts for slow decision making with functions of the Board of Directors intertwining managerial decisions with its governance role in contrast with more agile decision making by management in comparable large private companies. The delays in part caused by the WBG sui generis organizational structure have been corrected with the Board’s pre-approval of pandemic emergency funds especially following the lessons learned from the still late response to the Ebola crisis. The strategic shift from a reactive to a proactive strategy to finance a potential outbreak has now put in place tools and resources prior to the occurrence of an outbreak applying the triple goals of preventing, detecting and responding. A key proactive decision has been the creation of the US$375 Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) approved by the Board in May 2016 to enable management to respond quickly in the event of an infectious disease outbreak before it becomes a regional epidemic or a worldwide pandemic. Additional proactive measures initiated, under execution or already concluded include a Crisis Response Window as part of the International Development Association 2018 (IDA 18) agreements that could allocate US$3 billion for natural disasters, economic crises, and health emergencies; IDA 18 financial support to at least 25 countries in developing pandemic multi-sector preparedness plans; simulation exercises; simulation exercises; a regional network of public health laboratories in East Africa; the West Africa Regional Disease Surveillance Systems Enhancement Program; financial and technical support to the Africa Center for Disease Control (CDC), and an operational framework for investing in One Health.","PeriodicalId":91906,"journal":{"name":"Journal of family medicine and disease prevention","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evolution of the World Bank Response to Infectious Disease Outbreaks:From a Reactive to a Proactive Approach\",\"authors\":\"Geyndt Willy De\",\"doi\":\"10.23937/2469-5793/1510077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Six major infectious disease outbreaks have occurred in rapid succession in the twenty first century causing an estimated $80 billion in economic losses and many lives lost. The World Bank Group (WBG) was not prepared to respond quickly and effectively to contain the spread of these outbreaks. It reacted too late to the earlier outbreaks but slowly improved its response time and its coordination with major stakeholders. The response time of its financing contribution decreased across the six infectious disease outbreaks ranging from two years (Avian Influenza) to two months (Zika). The organizational structure of the WBG partly accounts for slow decision making with functions of the Board of Directors intertwining managerial decisions with its governance role in contrast with more agile decision making by management in comparable large private companies. The delays in part caused by the WBG sui generis organizational structure have been corrected with the Board’s pre-approval of pandemic emergency funds especially following the lessons learned from the still late response to the Ebola crisis. The strategic shift from a reactive to a proactive strategy to finance a potential outbreak has now put in place tools and resources prior to the occurrence of an outbreak applying the triple goals of preventing, detecting and responding. A key proactive decision has been the creation of the US$375 Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) approved by the Board in May 2016 to enable management to respond quickly in the event of an infectious disease outbreak before it becomes a regional epidemic or a worldwide pandemic. Additional proactive measures initiated, under execution or already concluded include a Crisis Response Window as part of the International Development Association 2018 (IDA 18) agreements that could allocate US$3 billion for natural disasters, economic crises, and health emergencies; IDA 18 financial support to at least 25 countries in developing pandemic multi-sector preparedness plans; simulation exercises; simulation exercises; a regional network of public health laboratories in East Africa; the West Africa Regional Disease Surveillance Systems Enhancement Program; financial and technical support to the Africa Center for Disease Control (CDC), and an operational framework for investing in One Health.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91906,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of family medicine and disease prevention\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of family medicine and disease prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5793/1510077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of family medicine and disease prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5793/1510077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evolution of the World Bank Response to Infectious Disease Outbreaks:From a Reactive to a Proactive Approach
Six major infectious disease outbreaks have occurred in rapid succession in the twenty first century causing an estimated $80 billion in economic losses and many lives lost. The World Bank Group (WBG) was not prepared to respond quickly and effectively to contain the spread of these outbreaks. It reacted too late to the earlier outbreaks but slowly improved its response time and its coordination with major stakeholders. The response time of its financing contribution decreased across the six infectious disease outbreaks ranging from two years (Avian Influenza) to two months (Zika). The organizational structure of the WBG partly accounts for slow decision making with functions of the Board of Directors intertwining managerial decisions with its governance role in contrast with more agile decision making by management in comparable large private companies. The delays in part caused by the WBG sui generis organizational structure have been corrected with the Board’s pre-approval of pandemic emergency funds especially following the lessons learned from the still late response to the Ebola crisis. The strategic shift from a reactive to a proactive strategy to finance a potential outbreak has now put in place tools and resources prior to the occurrence of an outbreak applying the triple goals of preventing, detecting and responding. A key proactive decision has been the creation of the US$375 Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) approved by the Board in May 2016 to enable management to respond quickly in the event of an infectious disease outbreak before it becomes a regional epidemic or a worldwide pandemic. Additional proactive measures initiated, under execution or already concluded include a Crisis Response Window as part of the International Development Association 2018 (IDA 18) agreements that could allocate US$3 billion for natural disasters, economic crises, and health emergencies; IDA 18 financial support to at least 25 countries in developing pandemic multi-sector preparedness plans; simulation exercises; simulation exercises; a regional network of public health laboratories in East Africa; the West Africa Regional Disease Surveillance Systems Enhancement Program; financial and technical support to the Africa Center for Disease Control (CDC), and an operational framework for investing in One Health.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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