Controversies in globalization pdf file
In this article we address two questions: Rather, they provide useful heuristics for assessing some of what we (and others, see ) would contend have been the major arguments advanced for why health should be more prominent in governments' foreign policies. We make no claim that these frames are the only ones that exist or that they are theoretically or analytically distinct. The selection of these frames arose from the lead author's participation in international conferences and meetings on, and past research in, global health, and was refined and elaborated as part of an interdisciplinary research project on global health ethics. Our analysis was guided by a template of major global health policy frames based on an earlier study undertaken by the lead author: security, development, global public goods, trade, human rights and ethical/moral reasoning. Its intent is to strengthen the base for those who are attempting to argue for health in a variety of foreign policy settings. It seeks both to review arguments for GHD, assessing some of their strengths and weaknesses, as well as to suggest additional arguments. It does not explore GHD per se (the 'how' of foreign policy deliberations) but several of the rationales that have been, or could be, used to position global health better within foreign policy. This article examines some of the arguments for GHD.
This prominence has been accompanied by promotion of a new concept - global health diplomacy (GHD) - to describe the processes by which government, multilateral and civil society actors attempt to position health in foreign policy negotiations and to create new forms of global health governance. The declaration was not the start of recent interest in health and foreign policy, but reflects a decadal trend in which health has become more prominent in global policy agendas. In 2007, the foreign ministers of seven countries issued the Oslo Declaration identifying global health as 'a pressing foreign policy issue of our time'. The analysis offered in this article may prove helpful to those engaged in global health diplomacy or in efforts to have global governance across a range of sectoral interests pay more attention to health equity impacts. While political momentum for health as a foreign policy goal persists, the framing of this goal remains a contested issue. Development, human rights and ethical/moral arguments for global health assistance, the traditional 'low politics' of foreign policy, are present in discourse but do not appear to dominate practice. Initial findings support conventional international relations theory that most states, even when committed to health as a foreign policy goal, still make decisions primarily on the basis of the 'high politics' of national security and economic material interests. This goal has increasing national traction within national public health discourse and decision-making and, through the Millennium Development Goals and other multilateral reports and declarations, is entering global health policy discussion. The reference point for this analysis is the explicit goal of improving global health equity. This question is addressed through an analysis of policy or policy-related documents and academic literature pertinent to each policy framing with some assessment of policy practice. This raises an important question about which arguments prevail in actual state decision-making. Differing arguments within and between these policy frames, while overlapping, can also be contradictory. Each of these frames has implications for how global health as a foreign policy issue is conceptualized. These are organized into six policy frames: security, development, global public goods, trade, human rights and ethical/moral reasoning. In this paper we review the arguments for health in foreign policy that inform global health diplomacy. Their ability to do so is important to advancing international cooperation in health.
Several governments have issued specific foreign policy statements on global health and a new term, global health diplomacy, has been coined to describe the processes by which state and non-state actors engage to position health issues more prominently in foreign policy decision-making. Global health financing has increased dramatically in recent years, indicative of a rise in health as a foreign policy issue.