An organizational analysis of the World Health Organization: Narrowing the gap between promise and performance

Proposing a sequential comparative analysis for assessing multilateral health agency transformation and sustainable capacity: exploring the advantages of institutional theory

“…That is, health agencies are not selected and guided by institutional theory; instead, they are selected in order to provide insights into the empirical organizational, financial, human resource, and policy problems hampering health agency performance. For example, the works of Peabody [17], Glassman and Savedoff [18], and Chorev [16] address these challenges within the WHO and Global Fund and how they have constrained the governing board’s ability to pursue reforms. Alternatively, case studies are selected in order to explain an agency’s success in overcoming these empirical challenges [19].…”

“…Finally, studies seem to analyze multilateral health agencies within a restricted period of time (Peabody [17-20]). Scant attention is paid to analyzing reform processes over a long period of time; nevertheless, as Pierson [21] maintains, this approach is needed in order to more accurately describe and explain institutional change processes and policy outcomes.…”

“…Indeed, Peabody [17] has argued that the WHO’s preexisting organizational culture of responding to diseases has continued to shape the WHO’s epidemiological surveillance strategies, leading WHO officials to avoid the pursuit of more effective surveillance measures. Nevertheless, the challenge with a cultural institutional approach is that it fails to provide clear causal mechanisms into precisely how , as well as which types of cultural beliefs (religious or non-religious, e.g., organizational) shape policy-makers’ perceptions, interests, and reform strategies.…”

“…Peabody [17] states that the WHO governing board and staff initially adopted the YAWS a approach to epidemiological evaluation, technical assistance, and organizational management as the most effective response to disease outbreaks. During the 1970s, all WHO staff were trained in this approach.…”

“…During the 1970s, all WHO staff were trained in this approach. In line with increasing returns theory, a high level of financial and technical investment went into YAWS (Peabody, [17]). These initial investments underscored the high level of confidence and belief in YAWS.…”

Proposing a sequential comparative analysis for assessing multilateral health agency transformation and sustainable capacity: exploring the advantages of institutional theory

“…That is, health agencies are not selected and guided by institutional theory; instead, they are selected in order to provide insights into the empirical organizational, financial, human resource, and policy problems hampering health agency performance. For example, the works of Peabody [17], Glassman and Savedoff [18], and Chorev [16] address these challenges within the WHO and Global Fund and how they have constrained the governing board’s ability to pursue reforms. Alternatively, case studies are selected in order to explain an agency’s success in overcoming these empirical challenges [19].…”

“…Finally, studies seem to analyze multilateral health agencies within a restricted period of time (Peabody [17-20]). Scant attention is paid to analyzing reform processes over a long period of time; nevertheless, as Pierson [21] maintains, this approach is needed in order to more accurately describe and explain institutional change processes and policy outcomes.…”

“…Indeed, Peabody [17] has argued that the WHO’s preexisting organizational culture of responding to diseases has continued to shape the WHO’s epidemiological surveillance strategies, leading WHO officials to avoid the pursuit of more effective surveillance measures. Nevertheless, the challenge with a cultural institutional approach is that it fails to provide clear causal mechanisms into precisely how , as well as which types of cultural beliefs (religious or non-religious, e.g., organizational) shape policy-makers’ perceptions, interests, and reform strategies.…”

“…Peabody [17] states that the WHO governing board and staff initially adopted the YAWS a approach to epidemiological evaluation, technical assistance, and organizational management as the most effective response to disease outbreaks. During the 1970s, all WHO staff were trained in this approach.…”

“…During the 1970s, all WHO staff were trained in this approach. In line with increasing returns theory, a high level of financial and technical investment went into YAWS (Peabody, [17]). These initial investments underscored the high level of confidence and belief in YAWS.…”

Proposing a sequential comparative analysis for assessing multilateral health agency transformation and sustainable capacity: exploring the advantages of institutional theory

“…That is, health agencies are not selected and guided by institutional theory; instead, they are selected in order to provide insights into the empirical organizational, financial, human resource, and policy problems hampering health agency performance. For example, the works of Peabody [17], Glassman and Savedoff [18], and Chorev [16] address these challenges within the WHO and Global Fund and how they have constrained the governing board’s ability to pursue reforms. Alternatively, case studies are selected in order to explain an agency’s success in overcoming these empirical challenges [19].…”

“…Finally, studies seem to analyze multilateral health agencies within a restricted period of time (Peabody [17-20]). Scant attention is paid to analyzing reform processes over a long period of time; nevertheless, as Pierson [21] maintains, this approach is needed in order to more accurately describe and explain institutional change processes and policy outcomes.…”

“…Indeed, Peabody [17] has argued that the WHO’s preexisting organizational culture of responding to diseases has continued to shape the WHO’s epidemiological surveillance strategies, leading WHO officials to avoid the pursuit of more effective surveillance measures. Nevertheless, the challenge with a cultural institutional approach is that it fails to provide clear causal mechanisms into precisely how , as well as which types of cultural beliefs (religious or non-religious, e.g., organizational) shape policy-makers’ perceptions, interests, and reform strategies.…”

“…Peabody [17] states that the WHO governing board and staff initially adopted the YAWS a approach to epidemiological evaluation, technical assistance, and organizational management as the most effective response to disease outbreaks. During the 1970s, all WHO staff were trained in this approach.…”

“…During the 1970s, all WHO staff were trained in this approach. In line with increasing returns theory, a high level of financial and technical investment went into YAWS (Peabody, [17]). These initial investments underscored the high level of confidence and belief in YAWS.…”

Proposing a sequential comparative analysis for assessing multilateral health agency transformation and sustainable capacity: exploring the advantages of institutional theory

“…That is, health agencies are not selected and guided by institutional theory; instead, they are selected in order to provide insights into the empirical organizational, financial, human resource, and policy problems hampering health agency performance. For example, the works of Peabody [17], Glassman and Savedoff [18], and Chorev [16] address these challenges within the WHO and Global Fund and how they have constrained the governing board’s ability to pursue reforms. Alternatively, case studies are selected in order to explain an agency’s success in overcoming these empirical challenges [19].…”

“…Finally, studies seem to analyze multilateral health agencies within a restricted period of time (Peabody [17-20]). Scant attention is paid to analyzing reform processes over a long period of time; nevertheless, as Pierson [21] maintains, this approach is needed in order to more accurately describe and explain institutional change processes and policy outcomes.…”

“…Indeed, Peabody [17] has argued that the WHO’s preexisting organizational culture of responding to diseases has continued to shape the WHO’s epidemiological surveillance strategies, leading WHO officials to avoid the pursuit of more effective surveillance measures. Nevertheless, the challenge with a cultural institutional approach is that it fails to provide clear causal mechanisms into precisely how , as well as which types of cultural beliefs (religious or non-religious, e.g., organizational) shape policy-makers’ perceptions, interests, and reform strategies.…”

“…Peabody [17] states that the WHO governing board and staff initially adopted the YAWS a approach to epidemiological evaluation, technical assistance, and organizational management as the most effective response to disease outbreaks. During the 1970s, all WHO staff were trained in this approach.…”

“…During the 1970s, all WHO staff were trained in this approach. In line with increasing returns theory, a high level of financial and technical investment went into YAWS (Peabody, [17]). These initial investments underscored the high level of confidence and belief in YAWS.…”