Linking local knowledge with global action: examining the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria through a knowledge system lens

New global public health institutions are increasingly emphasizing transparency in decision-making, developing-country ownership of projects and programmes, and merit- and performance-based funding. Such principles imply an institutional response to the challenge of bridging the "know-do gap", by basing decisions explicitly on results, evidence and best practice. Using a knowledge systems framework, we examine how the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has affected the ways in which knowledge is used in efforts to combat these diseases. We outline the formal knowledge system embedded in current rules and practices associated with the Global Fund's application process, and give three examples that illustrate the complexity of the knowledge system in action: human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) policy in China; successful applications from Haiti; and responses to changing research on malaria. These examples show that the Global Fund has created strong incentives for knowledge to flow to local implementers, but with little encouragement and few structures for the potentially valuable lessons from implementation to flow back to global best practice or research-based knowledge. The Global Fund could play an influential role in fostering much-needed learning from implementation. We suggest that three initial steps are required to start this process: acknowledging shared responsibility for learning across the knowledge system; analysing the Global Fund's existing data (and refining data collection over time); and supporting recipients and technical partners to invest resources in linking implementarion with best practice and research

The new age of global health governance holds promise.

The recognition that many diseases present worldwide challenges has spurred nations and institutions to participate in the development of what is known as 'global health governance'. But this new form of governance will only succeed with strengthened country commitment, collaborations across disparate sectors and improved accountability

The Global Health System: Institutions in a Time of Transition

The global health system is in a period of rapid transition, with an upsurge of funds and greater political recognition, a broader range of health challenges, many new actors, and the rules, norms and expectations that govern them in flux. The traditional actors on the global health stage—most notably national health ministries, the World Health Organization (WHO) and a relatively small group of national medical research agencies and foundations funding global health research—are now being joined (and sometimes challenged) by a variety of newer actors: civil society and nongovernmental organizations, private firms, and private philanthropists, and an ever-growing presence in the global health policy arena of low- and middle-income countries, such as Kenya, Mexico, Brazil, China, India, Thailand, and South Africa. We present here a series of four papers on one dimension of the global health transition: its changing institutional arrangements. We define institutional arrangements broadly to include both the actors (individuals and/or organizations) that exert influence in global health and the norms and expectations that govern the relationships among them. We focused on three central questions regarding the global health system: (1) What functions must an effective global health system accomplish? (2) What kind of institutional arrangements can better govern the growing and diverse set of actors in the system to ensure that those functions are performed? (3) What lessons can be extracted from analysis of historical experience with malaria to inform future efforts to address them and the coming wave of new health challenges