Book review: Sensible Politics: visualizing international relations by William A. Callahan

In Sensible Politics: Visualizing International Relations, William A. Callahan focuses on the role of visuality in world politics, pushing ideas on what the visual can do through a broad investigation into all things visible and everyday, ranging from film and borders to beauty pageants and maps. Offering a multisensory reading experience in its own interplay of image and text, Sensible Politics is a key marker to where thinking on theories of world order goes next, writes Sophie Harman

Bottlenecks and benevolence: how the World Bank is helping communities to ‘cope’ with HIV/AIDS

© 2015, SAGE

The Dual Feminisation of HIV/AIDS

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Globalizations on 2011, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/14747731.2010.49302

Fighting HIV/AIDS: Reconfiguring the State?

The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers of the article and the ESRC for funding part of this research

Global vaccine equity demands reparative justice-not charity

By late April, more than 80% of the world’s COVID-19 vaccines had gone to people in wealthy countries, with just 0.3% to people in low-income countries.1 This reprehensible imbalance is no accident. High-income countries have used neocolonial negotiating power, global policy leverage and capital to procure enough doses to cover 245% of their citizens while leaving few doses for poorer countries.2 As a result, lower-income countries may not be able to vaccinate their populations until 2023.3 Such inequity is yet another example of how the interests of racial capitalism run roughshod over the golden rule of global solidarity—attend to the highest risk first.4 Currently, older and medically vulnerable individuals are dying from COVID-19 disproportionately in poor countries, while young, healthy individuals are getting vaccinated in wealthy ones.5 Vaccine apartheid is a not novel phenomenon. The notion that only certain corners of the world get to benefit from life-saving treatments is an everyday reality of a global health system driven by a capitalist, philanthropic model.6 7 But in times of crises—and as new variants threaten the vaccination plans of wealthy countries—these inequities and their solutions come to the forefront of global debate.8 Policy-makers in rich nations are aware of these issues. But the solutions they have proposed so far do nothing to address the underlying structural problems. They offer charitable donations and partial, temporary fixes that are designed to deflect the substantive demands for reform that global South countries are fighting for, including challenges to unethical intellectual property (IP) regimes.9 This approach will not work, because it is not designed to ‘work.’ If we want to end vaccine apartheid, we need to target the root causes of global health inequities. We need reparative justice. There are currently three approaches to reduce inequity in

15 years of 'War on AIDS': what impact has the global HIV/AIDS response had on the political economy of Africa?

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Review of African Political Economy on 21st August 2015, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/03056244.2015.1064370

African participation and partnership in performance-based financing : a case study in global health policy

This report forms part of a research programme led by the Regional Network for Equity in Health in East and Southern Africa (EQUINET). The case study focuses on the participation of African actors in global health governance in terms of performance-based funding (PBF). It investigates how global health actors in South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia participate in decision-making processes related to the PBF mechanisms associated with the Global Fund and World Bank. African agency lies in the strength of a country’s health system, which determines the ability to say no to external funders and to set their own policy preferences

Reconceptualizing successful pandemic preparedness and response: a feminist perspective

Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 response indicators focus on public health outcomes (such as infections, case fatalities, and vaccination rates), health system capacity, and/or the effects of the pandemic on the economy, yet this avoids more political questions regarding how responses were mobilized. Pandemic preparedness country rankings have been called into question due to their inability to predict COVID-19 response and outcomes, and COVID-19 response indicators have ignored one of the most well documented secondary effects of the pandemic – its disproportionate effects on women. This paper analyzes pandemic preparedness and response indicators from a feminist perspective to understand how indicators might consider the secondary effects of the pandemic on women and other equity deserving groups. Following a discussion of the tensions that exist between feminist methodologies and the reliance on indicators by policymakers in preparing and responding to health emergencies, we assess the strengths and weakness of current pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 response indicators. The risk with existing pandemic preparedness and response indicators is that they give only limited attention to secondary effects of pandemics and inequities in terms of who is disproportionately affected. There is an urgent need to reconceptualize what ‘successful’ pandemic preparedness and response entails, moving beyond epidemiological and economic measurements. We suggest how efforts to design COVID response indicators on gender inclusion could inform pandemic preparedness and associated indicators

Understanding global health and development partnerships: Perspectives from African and global health system professionals

Partnership is a key idea in current debates about global health and development assistance, yet little is known about what partnership means to those who are responsible for operationalising it or how it is experienced in practice. This is particularly the case in the context of African health systems. This paper explores how health professionals working in global health hubs and the health systems of South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia understand and experience partnership. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 101 professionals based in each country, Washington DC and Geneva between October 2012 and June 2013, the paper makes four key arguments. First, partnership has a legitimating function in global health policy processes for international development institutions, government agencies and civil society organisations alike. Second, the practice of partnership generates idiosyncratic and complicated relationships that health professionals have to manage and navigate, often informally. Third, partnership is shaped by historical legacies, critical events, and independent consultants. Fourth, despite being an accepted part of global health policy, there is little shared understanding of what good partnership is meant to include or resemble in practice. Knowing more about the specific socio-cultural and political dynamics of partnership in different health system contexts is critical to equip health professionals with the skills to build the informal relations that are essential to effective partnership engagement