Bringing the state back in: understanding and validating measures of governments' political commitment to HIV.

Analysis of the politics of HIV programme scale-up requires critical attention to the role of the state, since the state formulates HIV policies, provides resources for the HIV response and negotiates donor involvement in HIV programmes. However, conceptual and methodological approaches to analysing states' responses to HIV remain underdeveloped. Research suggests that differences in states' successes in HIV programme scale-up reflect their levels of 'political commitment' to responding to HIV. Few empirical measures of political commitment exist, and those that do, notably the AIDS Program Effort Index (API), employ ad hoc scoring approaches to combine information from different variables into an index of commitment. The indices are thus difficult to interpret and may not have empirically useful meaning. In this paper, we apply exploratory factor analysis to examine whether, and how, selected variables that comprise the API score reflect previously theorised dimensions of political commitment. We investigate how variables associated with each of the factors identified in the analyses correspond to these theorised dimensions as well as to API categories. Finally, we discuss potential uses--such as political benchmarking and accountability--and challenges of factor analysis as a means to identify and measure states' political commitment to respond to HIV.

Indicators of political commitment to respond to HIV.

OBJECTIVES: National political commitment is likely to become particularly crucial to sustaining antiretroviral treatment programmes in the coming decade, as donor contributions to HIV funding decreases. The objective of this study is to synthesise information on existing indicators of political commitment to respond to national HIV epidemics. METHODS: The authors describe and critically evaluate the existing indicators and propose studies to validate them. RESULTS: Several indicators have been developed to measure governments' political commitment to respond to national HIV epidemics--the AIDS Program Effort Index, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS Declaration of Commitment Indicators and the AIDS Policy Aggressiveness Indicators--but the validity of these measures has not been systematically assessed. The indicators differ in their intended use, collection methods, content categories, data coverage, and strengths and limitations. Several types of studies could be used to test indicator validity (based on indicator content, comparisons of the same indicator using different elicitation methods, relationship patterns between indicators, relations between indicators and other variables and the consequences of using the indicators). CONCLUSIONS: The existing indicators of political commitment to respond to national HIV epidemics are useful for many purposes, including research, policymaking and advocacy. A range of studies could improve the understanding of indicator validity. New data collection and measurement approaches offer opportunities to improve how actors in the HIV community capture the complicated, multidimensional concept of political commitment.

Conceptual and methodological challenges to measuring political commitment to respond to HIV.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have long recognized the importance of a central government's political "commitment" in order to mount an effective response to HIV. The concept of political commitment remains ill-defined, however, and little guidance has been given on how to measure this construct and its relationship with HIV-related outcomes. Several countries have experienced declines in HIV infection rates, but conceptual difficulties arise in linking these declines to political commitment as opposed to underlying social and behavioural factors. METHODS: This paper first presents a critical review of the literature on existing efforts to conceptualize and measure political commitment to respond to HIV and the linkages between political commitment and HIV-related outcomes. Based on the elements identified in this review, the paper then develops and presents a framework to assist researchers in making choices about how to assess a government's level of political commitment to respond to HIV and how to link political commitment to HIV-related outcomes. RESULTS: The review of existing studies identifies three components of commitment (expressed, institutional and budgetary commitment) as different dimensions along which commitment can be measured. The review also identifies normative and ideological aspects of commitment and a set of variables that mediate and moderate political commitment that need to be accounted for in order to draw valid inferences about the relationship between political commitment and HIV-related outcomes. The framework summarizes a set of steps that researchers can follow in order to assess a government's level of commitment to respond to HIV and suggests ways to apply the framework to country cases. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas existing studies have adopted a limited and often ambiguous conception of political commitment, we argue that conceiving of political commitment along a greater number of dimensions will allow researchers to draw a more complete picture of political commitment to respond to HIV that avoids making invalid inferences about the relationship between political commitment and HIV outcomes.