Global Health Networks

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.

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.

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.

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.