Understanding resilience, self-reliance and increasing country voice: a clash of ideologies in global health

Abstract

Background‘Resilience’, ‘self-reliance’ and ‘increasing country voice’ are widely used terms in global health. However, the terms are understood in diverse ways by various global health actors. We analyse how these terms are understood and why differences in understanding exist.MethodsDrawing on scholarship concerning ideology, framing and power, we employ a case study of a USAID-sponsored suite of awards called MOMENTUM. Applying a meta-ethnographic approach, we triangulate data from peer-reviewed and grey literature, as well as 27 key informant interviews with actors at the forefront of shaping these discourses and those associated with MOMENTUM, working in development agencies, implementing organisations, low-income and middle-income country governments, and academia.ResultsThe lack of common understanding of these three terms is in part a result of differences in two perspectives in global health—reformist and transformational—which are animated by fundamentally different ideologies. Reformists, reflecting neoliberal and liberal democratic ideologies, largely take a technocratic approach to understanding health problems and advance incremental solutions, working within existing global and local health systems to effect change. Transformationalists, reflecting threads of neo-Marxist ideology, see the problems as inherently political and seek to overhaul national and global systems and power relations. These ideologies shape differences in how actors define the problem, its solutions and attribute responsibility, resulting in nuanced differences among global health actors in their understanding of resilience, self-reliance and increasing country voice.ConclusionsDifferences in how these terms are employed and framed are not just linguistic; the language that is used is reflective of underlying ideological differences among global health actors, with implications for the way programmes are designed and implemented, the knowledge that is produced and engagement with stakeholders. Laying these distinct ideologies bare may be crucial for managing actor differences and advancing more productive discussions and actions towards achieving global health equity.

Global health and the elite capture of decolonization: On reformism and the possibilities of alternate paths

“…Second, as seen in the latter half, there are conceptualizations of decolonization that look beyond the internal relations of the field and instead towards altering the epistemological and material structuring of the field. A similar distinction has been made by Shawar et al in studying the other common Global Health discourses 'resilience,' 'self-reliance,' and 'increasing country voice' [82]. In their review, they find that two contesting ideologies-"reformism" operating from "neoliberal and liberal democratic ideologies" and "transformationalism" following "threads of neo-Marxist ideology"-underpin definitions and understandings of these words [82].…”

“…In their review, they find that two contesting ideologies—“reformism” operating from “neoliberal and liberal democratic ideologies” and “transformationalism” following “threads of neo-Marxist ideology”—underpin definitions and understandings of these words [ 82 ]. As they state, “these ideologies shape differences in how actors define the problem, its solutions and attribute responsibility, resulting in nuanced differences among global health actors in their understanding of resilience, self-reliance and increasing country voice” [ 82 ].…”