Abstract
Introduction Since 2000, the number and role of global health initiatives has been growing, with these platforms playing an increasingly important role in pooling and disbursing funds dedicated to specific global health priorities. While recognising their important contribution, there has also been a growth in concerns about distortions and inefficiencies linked to the GHIs and attempts to improve their alignment with country health systems. There is a growing momentum to adjust GHIs to the current broader range of global health threats, such as non-communicable diseases, humanitarian crises and climate change. However, these reform attempts hit up against political economy realities of the current structures.
Methods In this article, we draw on research conducted as part of the Future of Global Health Initiatives process. The study adopted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods approach, drawing from a range of data sources and data collection methods, including a global and regional level analysis as well as three embedded country case studies in Pakistan, South Africa and Senegal. All data was collected from February to July 2023. 271 documents were analysed in the course of the study, along with data from 335 key informants and meeting participants in 66 countries and across a range of constituencies. For this paper, data were analysed using a political economy framework which focused on actors, context (especially governance and financing) and framing.
Findings In relation to actors, the GHIs themselves have become increasingly complex (internally and in their interrelations with other global health actors and one another). They have a large range of clients (including at national level and amongst multilateral agencies) which function as collaborators as well as competitors. Historically there have been few incentives within any of the actors to maximise collaboration given the competitive funding landscape. Power to exert pressure for reforms sits ultimately with bilateral and private funders, though single-issue northern NGOs are also cited as important influencers. Funders have not collaborated to enable reforms, despite concerns amongst a number of them, because of the helpful functional role of GHIs, which serves funder interests. Some key global boards are reported to be engineered for stasis, and there are widespread concerns about lack of transparency and over-claiming (by some GHIs) of their results. Narratives about achievements and challenges are important to enable or block reforms and are vigorously contested, with stakeholders often selecting different outcomes to emphasise in justifying positions.
Conclusion GHIs have played an important role in the global health ecosystem but despite formal accountability structures to include recipient governments, substantive accountability has been focused upwards to funders, with risk management strategies which prioritise tracking resources more than improved national health system performance. Achieving consensus on reforms will be challenging but funding pressures and new threats are creating a sense of urgency, which may shift positions. Political economy analysis can model and influence these debates.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, supported by the Government of Norway. However, all opinions expressed in this article are the responsibility of the authors alone
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the ethics review boards of University of Geneva, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Stellenbosch University, and Aga Khan University, Pakistan.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data is contained in the article and supporting references and sites
