Financialization Won’t Improve Global Health |
NAIROBI – For the past half-century, the economics of global health were straightforward. Rich countries gave grants to poor countries, which used the funds to meet their populations’ health needs. Success was measured in services provided or lives saved, rather than balance sheets balanced. While this model was far from perfect, the approach that is now replacing it – focused on using tools like guarantees and blended finance to crowd in private capital – threatens to produce even worse outcomes.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty ImagesLonger Reads 0
Trump’s Waterloo?
Harold Hongju Koh thinks the US president’s imperial ambitions and performative militarism could prove to be his undoing.
Richard Baker/In Pictures via Getty ImagesPolitics 1
Trump Has Killed American Deterrence
Stephen Holmes warns that a US president with commitment issues is not merely ineffective, but a threat to world peace.
Sathiri Kelpa/Anadolu via Getty ImagesPolitics 0
What Would a Bardella Presidency Mean For France?
Brigitte Granville considers the implications of the country’s upcoming presidential election for the future of the EU project.
There are legitimate criticisms of the grant-based approach. Grants are finite, draw on limited public budgets, and are subject to donor-country politics. Official development assistance (ODA) for health has stagnated, in real terms, since the late 2010s, even though need has grown. Moreover, the grant-based system makes much use of vertical health programs, which advance specific, measurable, narrow, and often short-term objectives. Since these programs have their own procurement systems, reporting requirements, and priorities that run parallel to overarching national objectives, they tend to lead to more fragmented health systems, not stronger ones.
More fundamentally,........