Gridlock, Innovation and Resilience in Global Health Governance

Abstract

Global health governance is in many ways proving more innovative and resilient than other sectors in global governance. In order to understand the mechanisms that have made these developments possible, this article draws on the concept of gridlock, as well as on the additional theoretical strands of metagovernance and adaptive governance, to conceptualize how global health governance has been able to adapt despite increasingly difficult conditions in the multilateral order. The remarkable degree of innovation that characterizes global health governance is the result of two interrelated conditions. First, developments that are normally associated with gridlock in multilateral cooperation, such as institutional fragmentation and growing multipolarity, have transformed, rather than gridlocked, global health governance. Second, global health actors have often been able to harness the opportunities offered by three important pathways of change, namely: (1) a significant degree of organizational learning and active feedback loops between epistemic and practice communities; (2) a highly polycentric system of governance; and (3) the increased role of political leadership as a catalyst for governance innovation. These trends are discussed in the context of three case studies of significant political, social and health relevance, namely HIV/AIDS, the 2014 Ebola outbreak and antimicrobial resistance.

Power asymmetries in global governance for health: a conceptual framework for analyzing the political-economic determinants of health inequities

“…In addition, the global health community has recognized that also actors without an explicit remit on health—ranging from major multinational companies to intergovernmental organizations structuring international economic relations—also directly impact global health. This expansion in the number of actors and issues has led to growing multipolarity and fragmentation in the field of global health [21].…”

Giving hope a sporting chance: COVID-19 as a beneficial epidemic?

“…We broadly agree with Davies and Wenham: International Relations scholars—and political scientists more broadly—are crucial for the global COVID-19 response 15 and to help us find ways ‘so as to allow governments and international organisations […] to overcome their dilemmas and effectively coordinate their actions’. However, while global health governance studies have focused, among others, on governance resilience and institutional innovation in the face of health security threats, 16 we argue that one of the major reasons for states having difficulty to promote and join international collective action is a deep core of neoliberal policy ideas and values that has functioned as the foundation of international cooperation for more than 30 years. 17 Another reason may be the shrinking of democratic space because of security interests and the power of transnational capital.…”

Rethinking the COVID-19 Pandemic: Back to Public Health

“…Raising the political profile of the challenges that pandemics bring will require a recognition of the political, security, poverty, gender, and developmental dimensions of public health emergencies. The inherent multidimensionality of the pandemic necessitates a coordinated multisectoral and multistakeholder response, including governments, UN agencies, and other non-state actors, such as civil society and the private sector, to link frontline infectious disease responders to a broader humanitarian and development community [21].…”