Global Health Networks

This commentary reflects on the contribution of this editorial and its "Three Challenges That Global Health Networks Face" to the totality of the framework developed over the past decade by Shiffman and his collaborators. It reviews the earlier works to demonstrate that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in providing a package of tools for analysis of network effectiveness.Additionally the assertion is made that the framework can be utilised in reverse to form a map for action planning for network activity around a potential health policy issue.

This article agrees with recent arguments suggesting that normative and epistemic power is rife within global health policy and provides further examples of such. However, in doing so, it is argued that it is equally important to recognize that global health is, and always will be, deeply political and that some form of power is not only necessary for the system to advance, but also to try and control the ways in which power within that system operates. In this regard, a better focus on health politics can both expose illegitimate sources of power, but also provide better recommendations to facilitate deliberations that can, although imperfectly, help legitimate sources of influence and power.

Global health networks—webs of individuals and organizations linked by a shared concern for a particular condition—have proliferated over the past quarter century. In a recent editorial in this journal, I presented evidence that their effectiveness in addressing four challenges—problem definition, positioning, coalition-building and governance—shapes their ability to influence policy. The editorial prompted five thoughtful commentaries that reflected on these and other challenges. In this follow-up editorial, I build on the commentaries to suggest ways of advancing research on global health networks. I argue that investigators would do well to consider three social theory-influenced global governance debates pertaining to agency—the capacity of individuals and organizations to act autonomously amidst structural constraints. The three debates concern the relationship between agency and structure, the power of ideas vis-à-vis interests and material capabilities, and the level of influence of non-state actors in a global governance system that most scholars identify as state-dominated. Drawing on these debates, I argue that rather than presume global health network influence, we need to find more robust ways to investigate their effects. I argue also that rather than juxtapose agency and structure, ideas and interests and non-state and state power, it would be more productive to consider the ways in which these elements are intertwined.

Commenting on a recent editorial in this journal which presented four challenges global health networks will have to tackle to be effective, this essay discusses why this type of analysis is important for global health scholars and practitioners, and why it is worth understanding and critically engaging with the complexities behind these challenges. Focusing on the topics of problem definition and positioning, I outline additional insights from social science theory to demonstrate how networks and network researchers can evaluate these processes, and how these processes contribute to better organizing, advocacy, and public health outcomes. This essay also raises multiple questions regarding these processes for future research.

Shiffman recently summarized lessons for network effectiveness from an impressive collection of case-studies. However, in common with most global health governance analysis in recent years, Shiffman underplays the important role of states in these global networks. As the body which decides and signs international agreements, often provides the resourcing, and is responsible for implementing initiatives all contributing to the prioritization of certain issues over others, state recognition and support is a prerequisite to enabling and determining global health networks' success. The role of states deserves greater attention, analysis and consideration. We reflect upon the underappreciated role of the state within the current discourse on global health. We present the tobacco case study to illustrate the decisive role of states in determining progress for global health networks, and highlight how states use a legitimacy loop to gain legitimacy from and provide legitimacy to global health networks. Moving forward in assessing global health networks' effectiveness, further investigating state support as a determinant of success will be critical. Understanding how global health networks and states interact and evolve to shape and support their respective interests should be a focus for future research.

This commentary reflects on the contribution of this editorial and its " Three Challenges That Global Health Networks Face " to the totality of the framework developed over the past decade by Shiffman and his collaborators. It reviews the earlier works to demonstrate that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in providing a package of tools for analysis of network effectiveness. Additionally the assertion is made that the framework can be utilised in reverse to form a map for action planning for network activity around a potential health policy issue.

Drawing on an in-depth analysis of eight global health networks, a recent essay in this journal argued that global health networks face four challenges to their effectiveness: problem definition, positioning, coalition-building, and governance. While sharing the argument of the essay concerned, in this commentary, we argue that these analytical concepts can be used to explicate a concept that has implicitly been used in global health governance scholarship for quite a few years. While already prominent in the discussion of climate change governance, for instance, global health governance scholarship could make progress by looking at global health governance as being polycentric. Concisely, polycentric forms of governance mix scales, mechanisms, and actors. Drawing on the essay, we propose a polycentric approach to the study of global health governance that incorporates coalition-building tactics, internal governance and global political priority as explanatory factors.

Global health networks, webs of individuals and organizations with a shared concern for a particular condition, have proliferated over the past quarter century. They differ in their effectiveness, a factor that may help explain why resource allocations vary across health conditions and do not correspond closely with disease burden. Drawing on findings from recently concluded studies of eight global health networks—addressing alcohol harm, early childhood development (ECD), maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, pneumonia, surgically-treatable conditions, tobacco use, and tuberculosis—I identify four challenges that networks face in generating attention and resources for the conditions that concern them. The first is problem definition: generating consensus on what the problem is and how it should be addressed. The second is positioning: portraying the issue in ways that inspire external audiences to act. The third is coalition-building: forging alliances with these external actors, particularly ones outside the health sector. The fourth is governance: establishing institutions to facilitate collective action. Research indicates that global health networks that effectively tackle these challenges are more likely to garner support to address the conditions that concern them. In addition to the effectiveness of networks, I also consider their legitimacy, identifying reasons both to affirm and to question their right to exert power.

This article contends that legitimacy in the exercise of power comes from the consent of those subject to it. In global health, this implies that the participation of poor country citizens is required for the legitimacy of major actors and institutions. But a review of institutions and processes suggests that this participation is limited or absent. Particularly because of the complex political economy of non-communicable diseases, this participation is essential to the future advancement of global health and the legitimacy of its institutions. More analysis of power and legitimacy provides one entry point for fostering progress.

Eggs, flour, sugar, butter, baking soda, milk, and vanilla extract—all ingredients necessary to make a delicious cake. Similarly, good health policy-making can only be successfully pursued and understood by accounting for all of its basic ingredients, including the role of politics and power. Otherwise, the result is simply not good.
In the second edition of Making Health Policy, respected health policy experts Buse, Mays, and Walt have crafted the ultimate health-policy-making “cookbook”—an essential read for any individual seeking to better understand how a health policy emerges and which factors contribute to its success or failure. However, rather than predominately focusing on examining the content of policy—an approach typical of other health policy books—the authors provide the analytical framework needed to consider and bring politics and power, two essential ingredients, to the forefront of any health policy examination.As illustrated by the authors, the role of politics is overwhelmingly pervasive in the emergence, design, execution, and evaluation of health policy. Their work thoroughly explores the role of politics and power in determining, among many other processes in health governance, which health issues receive attention on national agendas (p. 66), how networks of interest groups and government actors form around a health issue (p. 108), the manner in which front-line health workers perceive and chose to implement proposed policies (p. 133), and which health program evaluation findings are utilizedand translated to policy (p.176). In addition, each chapter, with its own collection of related theoretical constructs and examples, provides a critical foundation to begin answering important questions that have historically not received adequate attention by the public health community: Why do some health issues receive priority over others? How can we understand and study power in a health system? Which sorts of interest groups are most influential? Why is evidence-based policy-making so challenging?