From Ebola to COVID-19: what explains institutionalized manias and the ultimate preference for non-optimal solutions in global health governance?

Frederick Ahen
{"title":"From Ebola to COVID-19: what explains institutionalized manias and the ultimate preference for non-optimal solutions in global health governance?","authors":"Frederick Ahen","doi":"10.1108/CPOIB-05-2020-0057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate how “manias” in global health governance lead to health inequalities even before, during and in the aftermath of acute health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic “Manias” as used here refer to obsessive ir/rational behaviors, misguided policy/strategic choices and the exercise of power that benefit the major global health actors at the expense of stakeholders Design/methodology/approach: From post-colonial and historical perspectives, this study delineates how the major global health actors influence outcomes in global health governance and international business when they interact at the national–global level using an illustration from an emerging economy Findings: Power asymmetry in global health governance is constructed around the centralization of economic influence, medico-techno-scientific innovation and the geopolitical hegemony of a conglomerate of super-rich/powerful actors They cluster these powers and resources in the core region (industrialized economies) and use them to influence the periphery (developing economies) through international NGOs, hybrid organizations, MNCs and multilateral/bilateral agreements The power of actors to maintain manias lies in not only how they influence the periphery but also the consequences of the periphery’s “passivity” and “voluntary” renunciation of sovereignty in medical innovations and global health policies/politics Social implications: As a quintessential feature of manias, power asymmetry makes it harder for weaker actors to actually change the institutional conditions that produce structural inequalities in global health Originality/value: This timely and multidisciplinary study calls for a novel architecture of global health governance Thus, democratizing global health governance with sufficiently foresighted investments that prioritize equitable access by and the inclusiveness of vulnerable stakeholders will help dismantle institutionalized manias while decreasing health inequalities © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited","PeriodicalId":46124,"journal":{"name":"Critical Perspectives on International Business","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Perspectives on International Business","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/CPOIB-05-2020-0057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate how “manias” in global health governance lead to health inequalities even before, during and in the aftermath of acute health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic “Manias” as used here refer to obsessive ir/rational behaviors, misguided policy/strategic choices and the exercise of power that benefit the major global health actors at the expense of stakeholders Design/methodology/approach: From post-colonial and historical perspectives, this study delineates how the major global health actors influence outcomes in global health governance and international business when they interact at the national–global level using an illustration from an emerging economy Findings: Power asymmetry in global health governance is constructed around the centralization of economic influence, medico-techno-scientific innovation and the geopolitical hegemony of a conglomerate of super-rich/powerful actors They cluster these powers and resources in the core region (industrialized economies) and use them to influence the periphery (developing economies) through international NGOs, hybrid organizations, MNCs and multilateral/bilateral agreements The power of actors to maintain manias lies in not only how they influence the periphery but also the consequences of the periphery’s “passivity” and “voluntary” renunciation of sovereignty in medical innovations and global health policies/politics Social implications: As a quintessential feature of manias, power asymmetry makes it harder for weaker actors to actually change the institutional conditions that produce structural inequalities in global health Originality/value: This timely and multidisciplinary study calls for a novel architecture of global health governance Thus, democratizing global health governance with sufficiently foresighted investments that prioritize equitable access by and the inclusiveness of vulnerable stakeholders will help dismantle institutionalized manias while decreasing health inequalities © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从埃博拉到新冠肺炎:是什么解释了制度化的狂热和全球卫生治理中对非最佳解决方案的最终偏好?
目的:本文的目的是调查全球卫生治理中的“狂热”如何在新冠肺炎大流行等急性卫生危机之前、期间和之后导致健康不平等,误导性的政策/战略选择和以牺牲利益相关者为代价使全球主要卫生行为者受益的权力行使设计/方法/方法:从后殖民主义和历史的角度来看,本研究以一个新兴经济体为例,描述了全球主要卫生行为者在国家-全球层面互动时如何影响全球卫生治理和国际商业的结果,医学技术科学创新和超级富豪/强大行为者集团的地缘政治霸权他们将这些权力和资源聚集在核心地区(工业化经济体),并利用它们通过国际非政府组织、混合组织、,跨国公司和多边/双边协议行动者维持躁狂的力量不仅在于他们如何影响外围国家,还在于外围国家在医疗创新和全球卫生政策/政治中“被动”和“自愿”放弃主权的后果社会影响:作为躁狂的一个典型特征,权力不对称使较弱的行为者更难真正改变导致全球卫生结构性不平等的制度条件。原创性/价值:这项及时的多学科研究呼吁建立一种新的全球卫生治理架构。因此,通过足够前瞻性的投资实现全球卫生治理的民主化,优先考虑弱势利益相关者的公平获取和包容性,将有助于消除制度化的狂热,同时减少健康不平等©2021,Emerald Publishing Limited
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
15.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: In recent years, the business practices and management philosophies of global enterprises have been subject to increasingly close scrutiny by commentators in the fields of journalism and academia. Such scrutiny has been motivated by a growing desire to examine the nature of globalisation, its impact on specific communities and its benefits for society as a whole. Coverage includes, but is not restricted to, issues of: ■Globalization ■Production and consumption ■Economic change ■Societal change ■Politics and power of organizations and governments ■Environmental impact
期刊最新文献
Understanding academic women’s silence in Poland: exploring with social cognitive theory Sustainability in business education: a systematic review and future research agenda Transcending the DEI contradictions: a Bourdieusian path to social justice in international business De-othering: indigenous perspectives on diversity, equity and inclusion Co-creating inclusion in research practices in the South Pacific: some highlights and challenges
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1