The political economy of priority-setting for health in South Sudan: a case study of the Health Pooled Fund

Abstract

Background In fragile and conflict affected settings (FCAS) such as South Sudan, where health needs are immense, resources are scarce, health infrastructure is rudimentary or damaged, and government stewardship is weak, adequate health intervention priority-setting is especially important. There is a scarcity of research examining priority-setting in FCAS and the related political economy. Yet, capturing these dynamics is important to develop context-specific guidance for priority-setting. The objective of this study is to analyze the priority-setting practices in the Health Pooled Fund (HPF), a multi-donor fund that supports service delivery in South Sudan, using a political economy perspective. Methods A multi-method study was conducted combining document review, 30 stakeholder interviews, and an examination of service delivery. An adapted version of the Walt and Gilson policy analysis triangle guided the study’s design and analysis. Results Priority-setting in HPF occurs in a context of immense fragility where health needs are vast, service delivery remains weak, and external funding is essential. HPF's service package gives priority to the health of mothers and children, gender-sensitive programming, immunization services, and a community health initiative. HPF is structured by a web of actors at national and local levels with pronounced power asymmetries and differing vested interests and ideas about HPF’s role. Priority-setting takes place throughout program design, implementing partner (IP) contract negotiation, and implementation of the service package. In practice the BPHNS does not provide adequate guidance for priority-setting because it is too expansive and unrealistic given financial and health system constraints. At the local level, IPs must manage the competing interests of the HPF program and local health authorities as well as challenging contextual factors, including conflict and shortages of qualified health workers, which affect service provision. The resulting priority-setting process remains implicit, scarcely documented, and primarily driven by donors’ interests. Conclusion This study highlights power asymmetries between donors and national health authorities within a FCAS context, which drive a priority-setting process that is dominated by donor agendas and leave little room for government ownership. These findings emphasize the importance of paying attention to the influence of stakeholders and their interests on the priority-setting process in FCAS.

Primary healthcare system and provider responses to the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan

“…First, contracting out can be an effective service delivery model to continue health services during a government shock in such settings. Contracting out is already common in many low-income and conflict-affected countries, although an important critique is that the quality and consistency of care provided by different service providers can vary,28 as can the accountability and sustainability of health services when external support wanes and the government is unable to sustain operations through the national budget 29 30. Additional concerns include that these approaches hinder efficiency,31 government capacity building32 and even the quality of care 33.…”

Investing in human development and building state resilience in fragile contexts: A case study of early nutrition investments in Burkina Faso

“…In such cases, donors sometimes bypass the state entirely and fund NGOs directly [ 48 ]. When intervention efforts bypass the state, even if due to state disfunction, opportunities are missed to improve state resilience by strengthen the ability of the state to deliver services and ensuring ownership of the priority setting process which helps to legitimise the state [ 44 , 49 ]. This challenge has long been recognised and the need for a balanced response by donors highlighted.…”

Beyond political will: unpacking the drivers of (non) health reforms in sub-Saharan Africa

“…In Zimbabwe, the World Bank wielded financial and ideational power to steer Results Based Financing (RBF) post the socioeconomic crisis of the late 2000s 55 as the case of the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) in South Sudan. 56 In addition, crises enhance the attention of global actors towards previously marginalised issues, particularly if such a crisis…”