Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
economic capacity of the G8 makes it the most appropriate leader for the development
of a badly needed 'global disease containment regime'.
A fifth school sees the G8 as the potential governor of globalisation in health as
a whole (Savona and oldani 2003). It argues that the G8 has already forged the new
path for global health governance for an era where globalised markets threaten to
overwhelm states. Paolo Savona and chiara oldani (2003, 100) claim that the G8
began by providing leadership as a consultative forum in the oil crises of the 1970s
and has since become a global decision centre. the G8 is suited for global health
governance because it adheres to the proper role of international institutions: 'not
to plunder nations' residual sovereignty but to recover some shares of it from the
market on behalf of national authorities'.
a sixth school views the G8 as the emerging centre of 21st-century global health
governance, due to the inclusive, multi-stakeholder model on which it is now based
(bayne 2000, 2001; aginam 2004, 2005). nicholas bayne (2001, 34) attributes the
G8's success in dealing with health to its mobilisation of 'intellectual, human, and
financial resources from all available quarters—government, business, and nGos
[nongovernmental organisations] active in the field'. According to Bayne, the 'most
promising advance' of the okinawa Summit in 2000 came in health, with a call
for a partnership to reduce the prevalence of aIDS, tuberculosis (tb), and malaria.
this call was answered the following year at Genoa with the establishment of the
Global Fund to Fight aIDS, tuberculosis, and Malaria—a landmark initiative in
its integration of governmental and nongovernmental actors. Its task-oriented
collaboration between the private and public sectors represents the model for the
future of global health governance (orbinski 2002).
these six schools largely share an assessment that the old international
organisations for health have failed. they have not inspired their members to provide
the necessary funding, coped with the HIv/aIDS pandemic and other emerging global
health needs, pursued the proper principles, maintained a strong wHo, contained
the role of the market in an age of globalisation, and brought all stakeholders and
their resources in. Yet they differ on what the G8 should do in response, as they
divide into three broad views about the proper relationship between the G8 and the
international organisations of old. The first two schools identified above point to
the need for G8 governance through the international organisations, with the G8
providing the money but not the neo-liberal ideology of the G8. the second two
schools point to G8 governance without the international organisations, with the G8
serving as a supplement, gap filler, and insurance policy for an inadequate WHO,
over a broad array of functions and approaches. And the final two schools suggest
G8 governance against the international organisations, as only the G8 is designed, in
anti-westphalian fashion, to cope with globalisation and bring in all the necessary,
different kinds of stakeholders.
to advance this debate, this chapter provides a disciplined, detailed, evidence-
based analysis of what G8 leaders can do to improve compliance with the health
commitments they make at their annual summit and how their own G8 institutions,
and those of the older 1940s Un galaxy can harm or help. It builds on an initial
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search