Global Health in the Anthropocene: Moving Beyond Resilience and Capitalism Comment on “Health Promotion in an Age of Normative Equity and Rampant Inequality”

There has been much reflection on the need for a new understanding of global health and the urgency of a paradigm shift to address global health issues. A crucial question is whether this is still possible in current modes of global governance based on capitalist values. Four reflections are provided. (1) Ecological –centered values must become central in any future global health framework. (2) The objectives of ‘sustainability’ and ‘economic growth’ present a profound contradiction. (3) The resilience discourse maintains a gridlock in the functioning of the global health system. (4) The legitimacy of multi-stakeholder governance arrangements in global health requires urgent attention. A dual track approach is suggested. It must be aimed to transform capitalism into something better for global health while in parallel there is an urgent need to imagine a future and pathways to a different world order rooted in the principles of social justice, protecting the commons and a central role for the preservation of ecology

The global health policies of the EU and its member states : a common vision?

Background: This article assesses the global health policies of the European Union (EU) and those of its individual member states. So far EU and public health scholars have paid little heed to this, despite the large budgets involved in this area. While the European Commission has attempted to define the 'EU role in Global Health' in 2010, member states are active in the domain of global health as well. Therefore, this article raises the question to what extent a common 'EU' vision on global health exists. Methods: This is examined through a comparative framing analysis of the global health policy documents of the European Commission and five EU member states (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Denmark). The analysis is informed by a two-layered typology, distinguishing global health from international health and four 'global health frames,' namely social justice, security, investment and charity. Results: The findings show that the concept of 'global health' has not gained ground the same way within European policy documents. Consequently, there are also differences in how health is being framed. While the European Commission, Belgium, and Denmark clearly support a social justice frame, the global health strategies of the United Kingdom, Germany, and France put an additional focus on the security and investment frames. Conclusion: There are different understandings of global/international health as well as different framings within relevant documents of the EU and its member states. Therefore, the existence of an 'EU' vision on global health is questionable. Further research is needed on how this impacts on policy implementation

Thinking Out of the Box: A Green and Social Climate Fund Comment on "Politics, Power, Poverty and Global Health: Systems and Frames".

Solomon Benatar's paper "Politics, Power, Poverty and Global Health: Systems and Frames" examines the inequitable state of global health challenging readers to extend the discourse on global health beyond conventional boundaries by addressing the interconnectedness of planetary life. Our response explores existing models of international cooperation, assessing how modifying them may achieve the twin goals of ensuring healthy people and planet. First, we address why the inequality reducing post World War II European welfare model, if implemented state-by-state, is unfit for reducing global inequality and respecting environmental boundaries. Second, we argue that to advance beyond the 'Westphalian,' human centric thinking integral to global inequality and climate change requires challenging the logic of global economic integration and exploring the politically infeasible. In conclusion, we propose social policy focused changes to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and a Green and Social Climate Fund, financed by new global greenhouse gas charges, both of which could advance human and planetary health. Recent global political developments may offer a small window of opportunity for out of the box proposals that could be advanced by concerted and united advocacy by global health activists, environmental activists, human rights activists, and trade unions

Upholding the World Health Organization: Next steps for the EU

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Union (EU) was neither a strong pro­moter of global health nor a strong supporter of the World Health Organization (WHO). The Global Health Council Conclusions from 2010 were never comprehensively implemented and quickly forgotten. With the pandemic greatly affecting EU member states, the EU is increasingly interested in upholding multilateral cooperation in the global health field. Therefore, the EU should aim for an upgrading of the EU’s status in WHO, the establishment of a global health unit in the European External Action Service (EEAS), and an overhaul of the formal relationship between the European Com­mission and WHO. (Autorenreferat

Framing the Health Workforce Agenda Beyond Economic Growth

The fourth Global Forum on Human Resources (HRH) for Health was held in Ireland November 2017. Its Dublin declaration mentions that strategic investments in the health workforce could contribute to sustainable and inclusive growth and are an imperative to shared prosperity. What is remarkable about the investment frame for health workforce development is that there is little debate about the type of economic development to be pursued. This article provides three cautionary considerations and argues that, in the longer term, a perspective beyond the dominant economic frame is required to further equitable development of the global health workforce. The first argument includes the notion that the growth that is triggered may not be as inclusive as proponents say it is. Secondly, there are considerable questions on the possibility of expanding fiscal space in low-income countries for public goods such as health services and the sustainability of the resulting economic growth. Thirdly, there is a growing consideration that economic growth solely expressed as increasing gross domestic product (GDP) might have intrinsic problems in advancing sustainable development outcomes. Economic development goals are a useful approach to guiding health workforce policies and health employment but this depends very much on the context. Alternative development models and policy options, such as a Job Guarantee scheme, need to be assessed, deliberated and tested. This would meet considerable political challenges but a narrow single story and frame of economic development is to be rejected

Unterstützung für die Weltgesundheitsorganisation: welche Schritte die EU als Nächstes einleiten sollte

Vor der Covid‑19-Pandemie galt die Europäische Union (EU) weder als Motor für globale Gesundheit noch als bedeutende Unterstützerin der Weltgesundheits­organisation (WHO). 2010 verabschiedete der Rat der EU Schlussfolgerungen zur Rolle der Union im Bereich globaler Gesundheit; sie gerieten in Vergessenheit und wurden nie umfassend umgesetzt. Da einige EU-Mitglied­staaten zu den besonders von der Pandemie betroffenen Ländern gehören, ist die EU verstärkt an multilateraler Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der globalen Gesundheit interessiert. Drei Dinge könnten dafür hilfreich sein: eine Auf­wertung ihres Status in der WHO, die Einrichtung eines Referats für globale Gesundheit im Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst (EAD) sowie eine Überarbeitung der formellen Beziehungen zwischen EU und WHO. (Autorenreferat