scholarly journals Neoliberal disease: COVID-19, co-pathogenesis and global health insecurities

2021 ◽  
pp. 0308518X2110489
Author(s):  
Matthew Sparke ◽  
Owain David Williams
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Body Politic ◽  
World Order ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Economic Transformation ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Neoliberal Globalization ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Political Economic

The COVID-19 pandemic has at once exposed, exploited and exacerbated the health-damaging transformations in world order tied to neoliberal globalization. Our central argument is that the same neoliberal plans, policies and practices advanced globally in the name of promoting wealth have proved disastrous in terms of protecting health in the context of the pandemic. To explain why, we point to a combinatory cascade of socio-viral co-pathogenesis that we call neoliberal disease. From the vectors of vulnerability created by unequal and unstable market societies, to the reduced response capacities of market states and health systems, to the constrained ability of official global health security agencies and regulations to offer effective global health governance, we show how the virus has found weaknesses in a market-transformed global body politic that it has used to viral advantage. By thereby turning the inequalities and inadequacies of neoliberal societies and states into global health insecurities the pandemic also raises questions about whether we now face an inflection point when political dis-ease with neoliberal norms will lead to new kinds of post-neoliberal policy-making. We conclude, nevertheless, that the prospects for such political-economic transformation on a global scale remain quite limited despite all the extraordinary damage of neoliberal disease described in the article.

Globalisation and the Politics of Global Health

2018 ◽  
pp. 36-58
Author(s):  
Matthew Sparke
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Structural Violence ◽  
Market Forces ◽  
Global Health Governance ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Health Politics ◽  
Political Economic

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.

scholarly journals Rethinking the Infodemic: Global Health Security and Information Disorder

2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 77-90
Author(s):  
Dagmar Rychnovská
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Information Management ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Public Health Information

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.

scholarly journals China and the global search for health security: history, vaccines, and governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daojiong Zha
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Global Search ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
History Of

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.

scholarly journals President Donald Trump as global health’s displacement activity

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Harman ◽  
Sara E. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Health ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Human Security ◽  
Global Health Governance ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Displacement Activity ◽  
Definition Of

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.

Taiwan’s Participation in the World Organisation for Animal Health (oie): Modalities, Utility, and Challenges

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Vincent Rollet
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Management ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Health Security ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Related ◽  
World Organisation

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.

From Threat to Risk? Exceptionalism and Logics of Health Security

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-276
Author(s):  
Jessica Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
West Africa ◽  
The Other ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Recent Contribution ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Health Politics ◽  
The Us ◽  
Complete Alignment ◽  
Explicit Consideration

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.

scholarly journals The value proposition of the Global Health Security Index

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. e003648
Author(s):  
Sanjana J Ravi ◽  
Kelsey Lane Warmbrod ◽  
Lucia Mullen ◽  
Diane Meyer ◽  
Elizabeth Cameron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Global Health Security ◽  
Health Security ◽  
Infectious Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Health Goals ◽  
Security Research ◽  
Security Index ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Ranking Countries

Infectious disease outbreaks pose major threats to human health and security. Countries with robust capacities for preventing, detecting and responding to outbreaks can avert many of the social, political, economic and health system costs of such crises. The Global Health Security Index (GHS Index)—the first comprehensive assessment and benchmarking of health security and related capabilities across 195 countries—recently found that no country is sufficiently prepared for epidemics or pandemics. The GHS Index can help health security stakeholders identify areas of weakness, as well as opportunities to collaborate across sectors, collectively strengthen health systems and achieve shared public health goals. Some scholars have recently offered constructive critiques of the GHS Index’s approach to scoring and ranking countries; its weighting of select indicators; its emphasis on transparency; its focus on biosecurity and biosafety capacities; and divergence between select country scores and corresponding COVID-19-associated caseloads, morbidity, and mortality. Here, we (1) describe the practical value of the GHS Index; (2) present potential use cases to help policymakers and practitioners maximise the utility of the tool; (3) discuss the importance of scoring and ranking; (4) describe the robust methodology underpinning country scores and ranks; (5) highlight the GHS Index’s emphasis on transparency and (6) articulate caveats for users wishing to use GHS Index data in health security research, policymaking and practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document