From Threat to Risk? Exceptionalism and Logics of Health Security

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-276
Author(s):  
Jessica Kirk

Abstract The logic of “risk” is increasingly important in the study of global health politics. One recent contribution has even argued that risk is beginning to replace security as the defining logic of health governance and policy. Others dispute this on the basis that risk and security have always operated together in the “securitization” of disease. This article constitutes a theoretical intervention into this burgeoning debate. Does a stronger appreciation of risk warrant the diminishment of security? Are we looking at the “riskification” of health rather than “securitization”? Or would this miss the way these two logics might be complimentary or intertwined in ways that we are yet to theorize? I argue that the global health and securitization literatures are better served by an explicit consideration of risk and security logics in interplay, or never entirely encompassed by the other, nor in complete alignment, yet never truly separate. To do this, I propose a reconceptualization of the central problem—exceptionalism—that allows for risk to be understood as a form of exceptionalist politics. I demonstrate the validity of this approach through an otherwise “easy case” of securitization: the US response to the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Author(s):  
Matthew Sparke

This chapter examines how the politics of global health have been shaped by globalisation. This means evaluating its effects on both the material level of political-economic integration and on the ideational level of political-cultural discourse. The former is conventionally tied through a focus on trade and travel to global public health security, and the latter is often associated with global humanitarian care. Going beyond this dualistic divide, however, this chapter argues that globalisation has spun a connective thread running through both regimes. This connective thread is the pro-market neo-liberal governance that sutures globalisation’s integrative and ideational dynamics with powerful binding implications for health. Due to these ties that bind, processes of neo-liberalisation deeply influence global health, creating global health vulnerabilities and problems through structural violence while also shaping and steering the delivery of global health responses. Global health governance remains influenced by other international and postcolonial health regimes that continue to inspire alternatives to the global expansion of neo-liberal norms. However, the same market forces that have made globalisation a synonym for processes of neo-liberalisation have also now become the dominant transnational influence shaping the ‘global’ in global health politics.


Author(s):  
Daojiong Zha

AbstractChina is a key player, not just an actor, in the global search for health security. Reiteration of this point is useful for International Relations studies, which often portray China as a factor to contend with, especially given the background of the country as the first to report the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper adopts an analytical framework developed through a summary of routines in Chinese engagement in global health from a practitioner’s perspective: aid, interdependence, governance and knowledge. These are the core elements in a country’s pursuit of engagement with the rest of the world. After the introduction, the second section of the paper reviews contributions from China in the history of global plague control over the past century. The third section discusses structural issues affecting access to vaccines, which are essential for bringing COVID-19 under effective control. The fourth section identifies a number of challenges China is facing in global health governance. The final section offers a few concluding thoughts, reiterating the nature of interdependence in the global search for enhancement of health security.


2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Harman ◽  
Sara E. Davies

AbstractThe United States presidential election of Donald Trump in 2016 was observed by global health commentators as posing dire consequences for the progress made in global health outcomes, governance, and financing. This article shares these concerns, however, we present a more nuanced picture of the global health governance progress narrative pre-Trump. We argue that Trump’s presidency is a displacement activity to which global health’s pre-existing inequalities and problems of global health security, financing, and reproductive health can be attributed. Unfettered access to sexual and reproductive rights, sustained financing of health system strengthening initiatives, affordable medicines and vaccines, and a human security-centred definition of global health security were already problematic shortfalls for global health governance. Trump no doubt exacerbates these concerns, however, to blame his presidency for failings in these areas ignores the issues that have been endemic to global health governance prior to his presidency. Instead of using Trump as a displacement activity, his presidency could be an opportunity to confront dependency on US financing model, the lack of a human-security centred definition of global health security, and the norm of restricting reproductive health. It is such engagement and confrontation with these issues that could see Trump’s presidency as being a catalyst for change rather than displacement as a means of preserving the uncomfortable status quo in global health. We make this argument by focusing on three specific areas of US-led global health governance: reproductive health and the ‘global gag rule’, health financing and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and pandemic preparedness and global health security.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazih A. Bizri ◽  
Walid Alam ◽  
Tala Mobayed ◽  
Hani Tamim ◽  
Maha Makki ◽  
...  

Abstract Background COVID-19 has hit the world in an unprecedented way causing serious repercussions on several aspects of our life. Multiple determinants have affected various nations’ level of success in their responses towards the pandemic. The Arab Levant region in the Middle East, notoriously known for repeated wars and conflicts, has been affected, similarly to other regions, by this pandemic. The combination of war, conflict, and a pandemic brings too much of a burden for any nation to handle. Methods A descriptive analysis of data obtained from the health departments of various Arab Levant Countries (ALC) was performed. ALC include Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Palestine. The data collected involves incidence, recovery rate, case fatality rate and number of tests performed per million population, Global Health Security index, government stringency index, and political stability index. The information obtained was compared and analyzed among the ALC and compared to global figures. An extensive electronic literature search to review all relevant articles and reports published from the region was conducted. The 2019 Global Health Security (GHS) index was obtained from the “GHS index” website which was made by John Hopkins University’s center for health security, the Nuclear threat Initiative (NTI) and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Government stringency index and political stability index were obtained from the University of Oxford and the website of “The Global Economy”, respectively. Other world governance indicators such as government effectiveness were obtained from the World Bank website. Results In terms of incidence of COVID-19, Iraq has the highest with 9665 per one million population, Syria the lowest at 256 per million. Deaths per million population was highest in Iraq at 237, and the lowest in Syria at 12. As for number of tests per million population, Lebanon ranked first at 136,033 with Iraq fourth at 59,795. There is no data available for the tests administered in Syria and subsequently no value for tests per million population. In terms of recoveries from COVID-19 per million population, Iraq had the highest number at 7903 per million, and Syria the lowest at 68 per million. When compared as percent recovery per million, Palestine ranked first (84%) and Syria last (27%). The government response stringency index shows that Jordan had the highest index (100) early in the pandemic among the other countries. Palestine’s index remained stable between 80 and 96. The other countries’ indices ranged from 50 to 85, with Lebanon seeing a drop to 24 in mid-August. Even with improved stringency index, Iraq reported an increased number of deaths. Conclusion In countries devastated by war and conflict, a pandemic such as COVID-19 can easily spread. The Arab Levant countries represent a breeding ground for pandemics given their unstable political and economic climate that has undoubtedly affected their healthcare systems. In the era of COVID-19, looking at healthcare systems as well as political determinants is needed to assess a country’s readiness towards the pandemic. The unrest in Lebanon, the uprising in Iraq, the restrictions placed on Syria, and the economic difficulties in Palestine are all examples of determinants affecting pandemic management. Jordan, on the contrary, is a good example of a stable state, able to implement proper measures. Political stability index should be used as a predictor for pandemic management capacity, and individual measures should be tailored towards countries depending on their index.


Author(s):  
Vincent Rollet

Abstract This article explores the utility of membership in international organisations for states with specific status within the international community, focusing on Taiwan’s surprisingly neglected involvement in the World Organisation for Animal Health or oie (Office International des Épizooties). The paper shows that in addition to its contribution to the legitimisation of Taiwan’s identities, such participation has also enabled Taiwan to shape international norms in the field of animal health, increase international cooperation opportunities, strengthen domestic and global health security, and facilitate the trade of animal health-related products. Additionally, it has contributed to the domestic implementation of international animal health norms and helped increase the accountability of Taiwanese authorities in the domain of animal health management. Despite tremendous challenges, Taiwan still has plenty of opportunities to enhance its participation in global health governance through its membership in oie.


2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 563-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia H. Cassell ◽  
Zoe Bambery ◽  
Kakoli Roy ◽  
Martin I. Meltzer ◽  
Zara Ahmed ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 77-90
Author(s):  
Dagmar Rychnovská

The discourse on the infodemic constructs the combination of the pandemic and disinformation as a new source of insecurity on a global scale. How can we make sense – analytically and politically– of this newly politicized nexus of public health, information management, and global security? This article proposes approaching the phenomenon of the infodemic as an intersecting securitization of information disorder and health governance. Specifically, it argues that there are two distinct frames of security mobilized in the context of infodemic governance: information as a disease and information as a weapon. Drawing on literatures on global health and the emerging research on disinformation, the paper situates the two framings of the infodemic in broader discourses on the medicalization of security, and securitization of information disorder, respectively. The article critically reflects on each framing and offers some preliminary thoughts on how to approach the entanglements of health, security, and information disorder in contemporary global politics.


Author(s):  
Amy Patterson ◽  
Mary A. Clark

Political scientists bring important tools to the analysis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly a focus on the crucial role of power in global health politics. We delineate different kinds of power at play during the COVID-19 crisis, showing how a dearth of compulsory, institutional, and epistemic power undermined global cooperation and fueled the pandemic, with its significant loss to human life and huge economic toll. Through the pandemic response, productive and structural power became apparent, as issue frames stressing security and then preserving livelihoods overwhelmed public health and human rights considerations. Structural power rooted in economic inequalities between and within countries conditioned responses and shaped vulnerabilities, as the crisis threatened to deepen power imbalances along multiple lines. Calls for global health security will surely take on a new urgency in the aftermath of the pandemic and the forms of power delineated here will shape their outcome.


Author(s):  
David McCoy ◽  
Joseph Gafton

Civil society may be defined as both a space in society and a collection of certain types of actor. As a space, it exists alongside the state and markets; as a set of actors, it interacts with a range of governmental bodies and businesses. Over the past three or four decades, neoliberal globalisation has dramatically changed the distribution of power across society, while also institutionalising a set of policies that have diminished the role of the state, undermined democracy, and established the dominance of market logic. These developments have influenced both international health policy and the structures of global governance. Furthermore, they have also shaped the nature of civil society’s participation in global health policy and governance. Crucially, civil society does not merely intervene in global health politics from outside, but is itself sculpted by the ideologies and political conditions that surround it. This chapter explores the political nature of civil society and its relationship to global health politics, including the political nature of new non-state actors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the emergence of global health partnerships, which have ostensibly increased civil society involvement in global health governance. It argues that civil society participation in global health governance tends to represent powerful and hegemonic interests rather than those most in need. It also discusses how current political, economic and technological developments will influence civil society’s participation in global health politics, and shape the challenges faced by society more generally.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document