COVAX and the rise of the 'super public private partnership' for global health.

COVAX, the vaccines pillar of the Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), has been promoted as 'the only global solution' to vaccine equity and ending the Covid-19 pandemic. ACT-A and COVAX build on the public-private partnership (PPP) model that dominates global health governance, but take it to a new level, constituting an experimental form that we call the 'super-PPP'. Based on an analysis of COVAX's governance structure and its difficulties in achieving its aims, we identify several features of the super-PPP model. First, it aims to coordinate the fragmented global health field by bringing together existing PPPs in an extraordinarily complex Russian Matryoshka doll-like structure. Second, it attempts to scale up a governance model designed for donor-dependent countries to tackle a health crisis affecting the entire world, pitting it against the self-interest of its wealthiest government partners. Third, the super-PPP's structural complexity obscures the vast differences between constituent partners, giving pharmaceutical corporations substantial power and making public representation, transparency, and accountability elusive. As a super-PPP, COVAX reproduces and amplifies challenges associated with the established PPPs it incorporates. COVAX's limited success has sparked a crisis of legitimacy for the voluntary, charity-based partnership model in global health, raising questions about its future.

Editorial: Whither globalization and health in an era of geopolitical uncertainty?

Globalization has been declared dead or dying for many years, although recently, the number of voices declaring it 'over' has swelled [1]. As editors of a journal interrogating how globalization affects health, we confront the question: Have the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia's war against Ukraine, a breakdown in multilateralism, and the risk of a return to the stagflation of the 1970s finally sounded a death knell for the research and scholarship we have been publishing in the journal's 20-year history? We think not and argue below why, in our post-pandemic fractured and fractious era, it is vitally important to retain a focus on this messy construct short-handed as 'globalization.'

COVAX, vaccine donations and the politics of global vaccine inequity.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, donor countries, the pharmaceutical industry, and the COVAX initiative promoted vaccine donation or "dose-sharing" as a main solution to the inequitable global distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. COVAX positioned itself as a global vaccine-sharing hub that promised to share doses "equitably, effectively and transparently," according to rational criteria overseen by independent scientists. This article provides a critical analysis of the principles and practice of "dose-sharing," showing how it reveals the politics at play within COVAX. RESULTS: Donated doses were an important source of COVAX's vaccine supply in 2021, accounting for 60% of the doses the initiative delivered (543 million out of 910 million). However, donations could not compensate fully for COVAX's persistent procurement struggles: it delivered less than half of the two billion doses it originally projected for 2021, a fraction of the 9.25 billion doses that were administered globally in 2021. Donor countries and vaccine manufacturers systematically broke COVAX's principles for maximizing the impact of dose-sharing, delivering doses late, in smaller quantities than promised, and in ad hoc ways that made roll-out in recipient countries difficult. Some donors even earmarked doses for specific recipients, complicating and potentially undermining COVAX's equitable allocation mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: COVAX's pivot from global vaccine procurement mechanism to dose-sharing hub can be seen as a "win-win-win" solution for COVAX itself (who could claim success by having access to more doses), for donor countries (who could rebrand themselves as charitable donors rather than "vaccine hoarders"), and for the pharmaceutical industry (maintaining the status quo on intellectual property rights and protecting their commercial interests). Although dose-sharing helped COVAX's vaccine delivery, its impact was undermined by donors' and industry's pursuit of national security, diplomatic and commercial interests, which COVAX largely accommodated. The lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms within COVAX's overly complex governance structure as a global public-private partnership enabled these practices.

Interrogating the World Bank's role in global health knowledge production, governance, and finance.

BACKGROUND: In the nearly half century since it began lending for population projects, the World Bank has become one of the largest financiers of global health projects and programs, a powerful voice in shaping health agendas in global governance spaces, and a mass producer of evidentiary knowledge for its preferred global health interventions. How can social scientists interrogate the role of the World Bank in shaping 'global health' in the current era? MAIN BODY: As a group of historians, social scientists, and public health officials with experience studying the effects of the institution's investment in health, we identify three challenges to this research. First, a future research agenda requires recognizing that the Bank is not a monolith, but rather has distinct inter-organizational groups that have shaped investment and discourse in complicated, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Second, we must consider how its influence on health policy and investment has changed significantly over time. Third, we must analyze its modes of engagement with other institutions within the global health landscape, and with the private sector. The unique relationships between Bank entities and countries that shape health policy, and the Bank's position as a center of research, permit it to have a formative influence on health economics as applied to international development. Addressing these challenges, we propose a future research agenda for the Bank's influence on global health through three overlapping objects of and domains for study: knowledge-based (shaping health policy knowledge), governance-based (shaping health governance), and finance-based (shaping health financing). We provide a review of case studies in each of these categories to inform this research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, and as state and non-state actors work to build more inclusive and robust health systems around the world, it is more important than ever to consider how to best document and analyze the impacts of Bank's financial and technical investments in the Global South.

The Smartphone Pandemic: How Big Tech and public health authorities partner in the digital response to Covid-19.

Digital technologies harnessed through smartphones have been deployed widely to support the response to Covid-19 internationally, often through partnerships between 'Big tech' and telecoms corporations and public health authorities. This paper provides an overview and critical analysis of the rapid rise of such new forms of public-private cooperation, focusing on their manifestation in the European region in the first phase of the pandemic. Drawing on a review of international media and documents, we discuss three main domains of public health action in which private technology companies and public health authorities have converged: contact-tracing, epidemic modelling and public health communication to manage the 'infodemic' of misinformation about the new coronavirus. Critics have raised concerns about how the digital response to Covid-19 may threaten privacy and enable greater state surveillance and control, and the possibility that semi-automated decision-making may exacerbate existing discrimination and inequalities. Our analysis extends such critiques by considering what the digital response to Covid-19 reveals about tech corporations' growing power to influence public health agendas. We discuss how they promote technical solutions to public health challenges that are politically seductive, but that have uncertain effectiveness and societal implications that warrant critical scrutiny.

Behind the scenes: International NGOs' influence on reproductive health policy in Malawi and South Sudan.

Global health donors increasingly embrace international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) as partners, often relying on them to conduct political advocacy in recipient countries, especially in controversial policy domains like reproductive health. Although INGOs are the primary recipients of donor funding, they are expected to work through national affiliates or counterparts to enable 'locally-led' change. Using prospective policy analysis and ethnographic evidence, this paper examines how donor-funded INGOs have influenced the restrictive policy environments for safe abortion and family planning in South Sudan and Malawi. While external actors themselves emphasise the technical nature of their involvement, the paper analyses them as instrumental political actors who strategically broker alliances and resources to shape policy, often working 'behind the scenes' to manage the challenging circumstances they operate under. Consequently, their agency and power are hidden through various practices of effacement or concealment. These practices may be necessary to rationalise the tensions inherent in delivering a global programme with the goal of inducing locally-led change in a highly controversial policy domain, but they also risk inciting suspicion and foreign-national tensions.

Policy, paperwork and 'postographs': Global indicators and maternity care documentation in rural Burkina Faso.

Targets and indicators set at the global level are powerful tools that govern health systems in low-income countries. Skilled birth attendance at a health facility is an important indicator for monitoring maternal mortality reduction worldwide. This paper examines how health workers negotiate policy implementation through the translation of clinical care into registries and reports. It does so by analysing the links between the global policy of institutional births and the role of documentation in the provision of birth care in primary health centres in Burkina Faso. Observations of health workers' practices in four primary maternity units (one urban, one semi-urban and two rural) conducted over a 12-week period in 2011-2012 are analysed alongside 14 in-depth interviews with midwives and other health workers. The findings uncover the magnitude of reporting demands that health workers experience and the pressure placed on them to provide the 'right' results, in line with global policy objectives. The paper describes the way in which they document inaccurate accounts, for example by completing the labour surveillance tool partograph after birth, thus transforming it into a 'postograph', to adhere to the expectations of health district officers. We argue that the drive for the 'right' numbers might encourage inaccurate reporting practices and it can feed into policies that are incapable of addressing the realities experienced by frontline health workers and patients. The focus on producing indicators of good care can divert attention from actual care, with profound implications for accountability at the health centre level.

Civil society participation in global public private partnerships for health.

The growth of global public-private partnerships for health has opened up new spaces for civil society participation in global health governance. Such participation is often justified by the claim that civil society organizations, because of their independence and links to communities, can help address democratic deficits in global-level decision-making processes. This article examines the notion of 'civil society engagement' within major public-private partnerships for health, where civil society is often said to play a particularly important role in mediating between public and private spheres. How do major global health partnerships actually define 'civil society', who represents civil society within their global-level decision-making bodies, and what formal power do civil society representatives hold relative to other public and private-sector partners? Based on a structured analysis of publicly available documents of 18 of the largest global public-private partnerships for health, we show that many of them make laudatory claims about the value of their 'civil society engagement'. Most use the term 'civil society' to refer to non-governmental organizations and communities affected by particular health issues, and state that they expect these actors to represent the needs and interests of specific populations in global-level decisions about strategies, funding models and policies. Yet, such civil society actors have a relatively low level of representation within the partnerships' boards and steering committees, especially compared with private-sector actors (10.3 vs 23.7%). Moreover, there is little evidence of civil society representatives' direct and substantial influence within the partnerships' global-level governing bodies, where many decisions affecting country-level programmes are made. Rather, their main role within these partnerships seems to be to implement projects and advocate and raise funds, despite common discourses that emphasise civil society's watchdog function and transformative power. The findings suggest the need for in-depth research into the formal and informal power of civil society within global health governance processes.

Political Priority for Abortion Law Reform in Malawi: Transnational and National Influences.

In July 2015, Malawi's Special Law Commission on the Review of the Law on Abortion released a draft Termination of Pregnancy bill. If approved by Parliament, it will liberalize Malawi's strict abortion law, expanding the grounds for safe abortion and representing an important step toward safer abortion in Malawi. Drawing on prospective policy analysis (2013-2017), we identify factors that helped generate political will to address unsafe abortion. Notably, we show that transnational influences and domestic advocacy converged to make unsafe abortion a political issue in Malawi and to make abortion law reform a possibility. Since the 1980s, international actors have promoted global norms and provided financial and technical resources to advance ideas about women's reproductive health and rights and to support research on unsafe abortion. Meanwhile, domestic coalitions of actors and policy champions have mobilized new national evidence on the magnitude, costs, and public health impacts of unsafe abortion, framing action on unsafe abortion as part of a broader imperative to address Malawi's high level of maternal mortality. Although these efforts have generated substantial support for abortion law reform, an ongoing backlash from the international anti-choice movement has gained momentum by appealing to religious and nationalist values. Passage of the bill also antagonizes the United States' development work in Malawi due to US policies prohibiting the funding of safe abortion. This threatens existing political will and renders the outcome of the legal review uncertain.

Setting the research agenda for induced abortion in Africa and Asia.

Provision of safe abortion is widely recognized as vital to addressing the health and wellbeing of populations. Research on abortion is essential to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Researchers in population health from university, policy, and practitioner contexts working on two multidisciplinary projects on family planning and safe abortion in Africa and Asia were brought together for a workshop to discuss the future research agenda on induced abortion. Research on care-seeking behavior, supply of abortion care services, and the global and national policy context will help improve access to and experiences of safe abortion services. A number of areas have potential in designing intervention strategies, including clinical innovations, quality improvement mechanisms, community involvement, and task sharing. Research on specific groups, including adolescents and young people, men, populations affected by conflict, marginalized groups, and providers could increase understanding of provision, access to and experiences of induced abortion. Methodological and conceptual advances, for example in the measurement of induced abortion incidence, complications, and client satisfaction, conceptualizations of induced abortion access and care, and methods for follow-up of patients who have induced abortions, will improve the accuracy of measurements of induced abortion, and add to understanding of women's experiences of induced abortions and abortion care.

"Guilty until proven innocent": the contested use of maternal mortality indicators in global health.

The MMR - maternal mortality ratio - has risen from obscurity to become a major global health indicator, even appearing as an indicator of progress towards the global Sustainable Development Goals. This has happened despite intractable challenges relating to the measurement of maternal mortality. Even after three decades of measurement innovation, maternal mortality data are widely presumed to be of poor quality, or, as one leading measurement expert has put it, 'guilty until proven innocent'. This paper explores how and why leading epidemiologists, demographers and statisticians have devoted the better part of the last three decades to producing ever more sophisticated and expensive surveys and mathematical models of globally comparable MMR estimates. The development of better metrics is publicly justified by the need to know which interventions save lives and at what cost. We show, however, that measurement experts' work has also been driven by the need to secure political priority for safe motherhood and by donors' need to justify and monitor the results of investment flows. We explore the many effects and consequences of this measurement work, including the eclipsing of attention to strengthening much-needed national health information systems. We analyse this measurement work in relation to broader political and economic changes affecting the global health field, not least the incursion of neoliberal, business-oriented donors such as the World Bank and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation whose institutional structures have introduced new forms of administrative oversight and accountability that depend on indicators.