Without health, SDG s cannot be achieved, and all the SDG s must be achieved in order to improve living conditions and, ultimately, human health and well-being.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2017a, 3)
∵
1 Introduction
This chapter corresponds with the monograph’s research field in that it analyzes a given area of GPG s: global health. This chapter aims to show the role of international institutions in the process of providing health-related global public goods (GPG s) that meet the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (SDG s).
Why are global public goods so important in ensuring global health? Less than one-third of the world’s population lives in relative prosperity, while more than two-thirds cannot satisfy their basic needs, including health needs. Thus, ensuring global health has become a significant challenge. The problem only seems to have been aggravating recently due to the most serious health crisis in more than a hundred years due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The consequences of the crisis do not only affect health, but also the economy as a whole, which may translate into difficulties with financing GPG s. The war in Ukraine is yet another threat to global health, as it may result in food supply shortages affecting poor countries, implying a serious toll on the health of the regions’ inhabitants. Ukraine produces and exports wheat, corn, and sunflower oil, all of which are imported by low-income countries in Africa and the Middle East. The following countries are fully dependent on wheat imports from Ukraine and Russia: Somalia, Benin, Laos, Egypt, Sudan, DR Congo, Senegal, and Tanzania. This means a catastrophic risk of famine,
The chapter contributes to the understanding of the challenges of providing global health GPG s in the context of the new sustainable development paradigm, health crises, and famine caused by armed conflicts.
The content of the chapter is structured into six sections. The first section deals with the concept of global public goods related to global health, referring the various definition in the literature. The second section outlines the issues of governing global health. The third section provides a synthetic analysis of the direct and indirect presence of the global health concept in the Sustainable Development Goals 2030. The fourth section presents selected international institutions which, directly or indirectly, pursue the goal of global health. It also includes the activity of grassroots social initiatives aimed at improving the level of health from a global perspective. The fifth section focuses on the activities of institutions and EU-related initiatives concerning the provision of global health goods. The final section analyzes the anticipated and observed difficulties in meeting SDG s for global health. The chapter ends with the presentation of some conclusions.
2 Global Health and Related Global Public Goods
When discussing global health, we first think of it from the humanitarian perspective, that is equal access to medical care and knowledge. Being a growth driver, it is also of importance in the context of economic growth. In recent decades public health has also risen in significance in terms of safety. This has been due to: (1) the spread of communicable diseases, with poor countries being given the most prominence due to ailing or non-existent health-care systems, (2) biological weapons and bio-terrorism threats, and (3) political strategies used in conflicts and influence gaining.
The term “global health” is not unambiguously represented in the literature. Missoni et al. (2019, based on a literature review largely researched by Bozorgmeher) identify four meanings of global health. The first is “all around the world” or “everywhere.” The second one relates to health problems that are not limited by state boundaries (e.g., pandemics and the spread of communicable diseases). In line with the third approach, the term “global health” is interpreted as a multidisciplinary concept. It implies that, the study of global health is the study of social, political, economic, biological, and technological relationships that affect health in various ways. The fourth approach applies a term introduced by Scholte: “supra-territoriality,” that is, social links which transcend administrative territorial geography (Missoni et al., 2019). Frenk et al.
The term “global public goods” (GPG s) is defined as goods that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous in consumption and their provision of benefits to every country (Barrett, 2007). But this is the definition of pure public goods. In addition to pure public goods, impure public goods and club goods are more common in the real world. The concept of global public goods is comprehensively presented in Chapter 1 In this chapter, the focus is on all types of global public goods related to global health. From the point of view of the considerations of this module, it is irrelevant to which category of global public goods the discussed examples belong. However, let us be aware that, like all global public goods, global health-related goods are characterized by differing intensities of consumption characteristics (non-excludable and non-rivalrous).
The literature provides varying definitions of global public goods for global health. They may be broadly interpreted as cross-border functions or interventions that contribute to a higher level of health and which are not produced by market forces (UN, 2020).
It is clear that global health as a concept cannot be just simply physically delivered. However, the provision of global public goods can contribute to global health by serving selected population needs.
In the context of a healthy society, examples of needs provided for by the supply of global public goods are: peace and security, fundamental rules of behavior, and regulations to protect health or knowledge of how to prevent and treat diseases (Moon et al., 2017). Health-related global public goods should, therefore, target these areas. Moon et al. (2017) divided GPG s into three categories: research/assessment, normative functions, and managing externalities.
In the first category, research/assessment, the following were classified as key for health: health technology R&D, marketing approval (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], the European Medicines Agency [EMA]), health technology assessment (e.g., UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence [NICE]), product quality assessment (e.g., World Health Organization [WHO]), pre-qualification, good manufacturing practices (GMP s) certification, guidelines/forms (e.g., treatment guidelines, reimbursement decisions), delivery/health systems research/implementation research.
For the second category, normative functions, they named standard setting (e.g., International Classification of Diseases [ICD], Codex Alimentarius [GMP]), regulation (e.g., Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [FCTC], WHO pre-qualification), and policies to preserve the efficacy of antimicrobials.
Barrett (2007) divided GPG s with respect to who provides and finances the GPG. He distinguished the following categories: single best efforts (only a single successful intervention would be required, all the other countries are beneficiaries), weakest links (can only be provided with the active participation of every country, requires universal cooperation), aggregate efforts (depends on the total efforts of all countries). All these GPG categories need financing. However, Barrett points out two other categories of GPG s which do not need financing: mutual restraint and coordination.
For the analysis in this chapter, it seems reasonable to address why it is worth delivering certain public goods in the health domain globally. Isn’t the care of national systems sufficient? There are a number of arguments for the delivery of GPG s:
- –They offer potential benefits to all countries, even if single countries bear the costs.
- –Local measures may not ensure that the goal is met, even if huge outlays are made (preventing climate changes, containing the virus from spreading).
- –Certain public goods, for instance, the weakest links category, would not be effectively delivered if not for international cooperation.
- –International cooperation consists of information exchange and may prevent global health emergencies.
- –Acting globally, it is possible to partly attend to health prevention and promotion, which largely determine healthy life expectancy.
As pointed out by Barrett (2007), global public goods must be supplied voluntarily. International cooperation could be a kind of organized volunteerism. Therefore, the chapter argues that international cooperation is possible thanks to the major role of international organizations.
3 Global Health Governance
Improving the health of the world’s human population is among the main challenges of the 21st century. The various aspects of ensuring healthy societies require the interaction of countries within a region and even between continents. Hence the importance of global health governance (GHG). GHG may be understood as “formal and informal institutions, rules and processes by states, intergovernmental organizations, and non-state actors to deal with health challenges that require cross-border collective action to be addressed effectively” (Fidler, 2010, p. 3).
- –Subjects: As in the general case of global governance, differentiated governance systems have emerged in GHG, depending on the fields of action. Interventions stem from differentiated measures to raise the level of global health. For example, prevention against communicable diseases (vaccination), health promotion for non-communicable diseases, clean air, access to nutritious food, systems for monitoring the spread of diseases, or building effective and efficient health systems. Over time, the thematic scope of the system has expanded considerably. Moreover, some IO s have increased their area of interest. The best example is the World Bank (WB), which has entered the remit of the WHO and, up to a certain point, competed with it.
- –Actors: As Moon writes, “GHG can best be characterized as a network, in which independent purposive actors negotiate the rules that will regulate their relations, rather than a hierarchy or market” (Moon, 2021, p. 235).
- –Legal forms and competences: Hundreds of actors have engaged in GHG influencing agendas, rulemaking, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement (Moon, 2021). These actors work in different forms of formal and informal governance arrangements. Some institutions are large, international treaty-based organizations with strong bureaucratic and financial support (WHO, WB). Others consist of transnational private (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [BMGF]) or hybrid arrangements (Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance). In addition to structures with a strong formal basis, the occurrence of civil society organizations (CSO s) is also observed.
- –Principles: In the case of GHG s, the adoption of common principles seems unproblematic. However, the history of the WHO shows that adopted priorities for international action can be influenced by international politics (Moon, 2021).
- –Instruments: In the case of GHG, soft instruments such as monitoring, persuasion, dissemination of standards, information exchange, etc. predominate among the instruments used.
In the case of the evolution of GHG s, an additional feature should be mentioned: the sources of funding and the associated pressure on expenditure allocation. Funds raised in the form of statutory contributions from countries affiliated to an international institution appear to be less subject to pressure from donor countries. In the case of funds from donors not bound by co-financing treaties, there is a risk of dedicating the donation to a specific purpose that the donor has, not necessarily the international organization.
The first one stems from underperformance in managing a network of fragmented actors. This is due to uncoordinated initiatives, often competing for funding. Such undertakings are typically focused on certain diseases, types of intervention, and population groups. Globally, it is the lack of a coordinating body and even of any adjustment mechanism that is to blame. This leads to an inefficient allocation of resources, carried out on the basis of ad hoc criteria decided by the attractiveness of aspects such as donor indications, public opinion assessment, foreign, economic or security policy priorities, etc., rather than the rationale of global health needs (Lee & Brumme, 2012).
The second risk stems from irrational priorities in the global community. It is worth noting the proportions in health spending by key institutions, such as the WHO, versus the incomes of top managers or the world’s military spending. The Health Assembly – approved program budget for 2018–2019 totaled US$4.4 billion (WHO, 2020). During the 2008 financial crisis, when the world economy was deep in recession, the Wall Street bankers paid themselves bonuses amounting to US$18.4 billion (Węcławski, 2015), while in 2019 alone military spending was estimated at US$1.922 trillion (Glapiak, 2020).
According to Frenk (Frenk, 2010, p. 1): “Health has been increasingly recognized as a key element of sustainable economic development, global security, effective governance and human rights promotion.” Hence, it seems obvious to link global health to the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda 2030.
4 Global Health in Sustainable Development Goals 2030
The health-related targets are not limited to only SDG 3; many of the SDG s also have targets directly and/or indirectly related to health, reflecting the complex pattern of health determinants.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2017A, 3)
Ever since the 1990s, the assessment of countries’ economic development has come to include broadly understood human health. Amartya Sen, the Nobel prize winner, pioneered this approach. His theory inspired the Human Development Report 1990: Concept and Measurement of Human Development (UNDP, 1990). In later years there were numerous international discussions, which had laid the foundations for what gave rise to the Millennium Declaration of 2000. Another major step involve human beings in the assessment model of
The determinants of global health are multifaceted and encompass a range of factors, beyond those exclusively associated with the development and accessibility of health technologies. They include such areas as the development of communication technologies, consequences of climate changes, energy prices, environmental pollution, food quality and accessibility, the level of social inequality, and consequences of economic crises:
- –Communication technology has massively affected the transmission and storage of information on hazards, e.g., epidemiological hazards.
- –Climate changes have their adverse effect on food supply and water access, and in extreme cases some areas are exposed to the risk of flooding, which forces their inhabitants to migrate.
- –Energy prices affect the prices of food and medicine transportation, as well as the accessibility of travel to medical facilities, which is of particular importance in poorer regions of the world. Energy prices will also affect living conditions in low temperatures, which may, in turn, influence the level of health.
- –Environmental pollution impacts human health through the respiratory system (air pollution), as well as through contaminated food and water (e.g., microplastics).
- –Shortage of nutritious and diversified food directly affects the health of the population.
- –Social inequality leads to economic crises affecting real disposable income, which inhibits access to medical benefits and supplies.
- –Economic crises national health systems to reduce health-care financing and so do international organizations, which find it increasingly difficult to raise funds.
With such a broad array of global health determinants, it is clear that pursuing the third SDG (Goal 3: To ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for everyone at all ages) is partly realized through other SDG s. It includes, in particular, the following goals: Goal 1 (End poverty in all its forms everywhere), Goal 2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture), Goal 4 (Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for everyone), Goal 5 (Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls), Goal 6 (Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all), Goal 7 (Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all), Goal 10 (Reduce inequalities within and among countries), Goal 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts), Goal 14 (Conserve
In addition to the actions of “ordinary citizens,” governments, and national NGO s, international organizations play a leading role in achieving the goals of Agenda 2030. International organizations serve as pivotal actors in this regard, gathering a diverse array of states and private entities. The following section provides a succinct overview of selected institutions and concise depictions of their respective missions.
5 Governing Global Health by International Organizations and its Impact on Sustainable Development
As mentioned earlier, GHG forms a complex system that can be characterized as multi-sectoral, multi-actor, multi-institutional, multi-principle, and multi-instrumental system. The institutions that manage, finance, and deliver global public goods related to global health form a network rather than a hierarchy. These institutions come in diverse legal forms and operate in different geographical areas and sectors related to global health. For the purposes of this subsection, we propose to present them in three subgroups: classical international institutions, civil society organizations, and initiatives based on information and monitoring systems.
5.1 Classical International Organizations
According to Moon et al. (2017), the global health system must perform four main functions: managing cross-border externalities; mobilizing global solidarity for disadvantaged populations; stewardship of the overall functioning of the system; and ensuring the adequate provision of GPG s. There are numerous international organizations that aim to perform the aforesaid functions. Their origins date back to the 19th century, when international health management came to be consolidated under the International Sanitary Conference of 1851 held in Paris. The subsequent steps to establish international organizations managing global health included the formation of the International Sanitary Bureau in 1902, the Office International d’Hygiène Publique (OIHP) in 1907,
Performing the said functions via a broad array of institutions aiming to ensure better global health often coincides with the pursuance of Agenda 2030. Not only is it directly through following SDG 3, but also indirectly through other SDG s, as shown in the preceding paragraphs. Table 13.1 shows examples of international organizations and their programs pursuing the health goals of Agenda 2030.
International organizations and their health initiatives under agenda 2030
International organization | International organization/Policy framework/Program/Action | Short description |
---|---|---|
World Bank (WB) | International organization | “WB is like a cooperative, made up of 189 member countries. The World Bank Group is one of the world’s largest sources of funding and knowledge for developing countries. Its five institutions share a commitment to reducing poverty, increasing shared prosperity, and promoting sustainable development” (World Bank, n.d.). |
World Health Organization (WHO) | International organization | The WHO is an agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health
It strictly implements the goals of the 2030 Agenda. Even the structure of the organization is being adapted to the more effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda. |
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) | International organization | UNICEF is an agency of the United Nations. Main activities: providing immunizations and disease prevention, enhancing childhood and maternal nutrition, improving sanitation, promoting education, and providing emergency relief in response to disasters. |
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) | Foundation | “CEPI is an innovative global partnership between public, private, philanthropic, and civil society organizations. We’re working together to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks” (CEPI, n.d.). |
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance | Public – private partnership | Gavi helps vaccinate half the world’s children against some of the world’s deadliest diseases. It brings together developing country and donor governments, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, the vaccine industry, technical agencies, civil society, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other private sector partners (www.gavi.org). |
COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) | Worldwide initiative | COVAX is co-led by CEPI, Gavi, and WHO, alongside key delivery partner UNICEF. |
WHO Regional Office for Europe | Overall activity | WHO/Europe’s efforts to address the social
determinants of health can be grouped into the following six areas of work:
|
Health 2020: WHO Regional Office for Europe | Policy framework | Health 2020 is the health policy framework for the European region (53 countries) supporting action across government and society for health and well-being. “It focuses on improving health for all and reducing health inequalities, through improved leadership and governance for health” (WHO, 2013, p. ii). |
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) | Overall activity | “With our 192 member National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies worldwide, we are in virtually every community reaching 160.7 million people annually through long-term services and development programmes, as well as 110 million people through disaster response and early recovery programmes” (IFRC, 2021). |
Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAPH) | GAHP is a collaborative body of more than 60 members and dozens of observers that advocate for resources and solutions to pollution problems | “GAHP is a network of international and national level agencies committed to a collaborative, multi-sectoral approach to address the global pollution crisis and the resulting health and economic impacts” (GAHP, n.d.). |
More than a hundred mayors from leading cities and towns from around the world at the 9th Global Conference on Health Promotion | Shanghai Consensus on Healthy Cities 2016; policy framework | Participants of the conference “reaffirmed the vision of Healthy Cities and the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion and committed politically to growing the global Healthy Cities movement” (WHO, 2017b). |
Over 1,100 organizations and more than 58,000 networks involved in the preparations of the New Urban Agenda | New Urban Agenda; policy framework | “By readdressing the way cities and human settlements are planned, designed, financed, developed, governed and managed, the New Urban Agenda will help to […] improve human health and wellbeing” (New Urban Agenda, 2016). |
European Health Information Initiative (EHII) | WHO network | Stakeholders include member states, WHO collaborating centers, health information networks and associations such as the European Association of Public Health (EUPHA), and charitable foundations such as the Wellcome Trust. The European Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are also active participants. |
WHO, European Health Information Initiative, Central Asian Republics Information Network (CARINFONET) | Network | “CARINFONET is a collaborative network of five countries and a platform for improving health information systems. It promotes collaboration within and between countries in the region of central Asia to produce relevant, objective and accurate statistics” (WHO, n.d.). |
Pure Earth | International non-profit organization | Pure Earth is dedicated to solving toxic pollution problems (lead and mercury) in low- and middle-income countries, where human health is at risk (Pure Earth, n.d.). |
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) | Research organization | “IHME works with collaborators around the world to develop timely, relevant, and scientifically valid evidence that illuminates the state of health everywhere” (IHME, 2014). |
UNHCR, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees | International organization | “UNHCR works with governments and partners to provide emergency health services, improve local health services and include refugees in national health systems and plans” (UNHCR, n.d.). |
EU + United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey | EU Civil Protection Mechanism | “The EU Civil Protection Mechanism is a system established in 2001 for coordinating rescue and humanitarian assistance in the event of natural and man-made disasters whose scale or nature exceeds the response capabilities of the affected country (legal basis – Decision 1313/13/EU)” (Government of Poland, n.d.). |
Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) | Integrated operational center | “ERCC is the heart of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. It coordinates the delivery of assistance to disaster-stricken countries, such as relief items, expertise, civil protection teams and pecialized equipment” (European Commission, n.d.-a). |
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) | International/European organization | “ECDC is an EU agency aimed at strengthening Europe’s defenses against infectious diseases. The core functions cover a wide spectrum of activities: surveillance, epidemic intelligence, response, scientific advice, microbiology, preparedness, public health training, international relations, health communication” (ECDC, n.d.). |
European Medicines Agency (EMA) | International/European organization | “The mission of the EMA is to foster scientific excellence in the evaluation and supervision of medicines, for the benefit of public and animal health in the EU” (EMA, 2018). |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) | National organization in USA | “CDC is the nation’s leading science-based, data-driven, service organization that protects the public’s health” (CDC, 2022). |
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) | National organizations in USA | “The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation” (FDA, 2021). |
SOURCE: OWN ELABORATION
Examples of institutions managing cross-border externalities include the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
Functions mobilizing global solidarity for disadvantaged populations are demonstrated in the activities of most of the organizations in Table 13.1,
5.2 Civil Society Organizations
In tandem with the international organizations established by governments, it is also imperative to recognize the significance of informal international organizations, originating from the bottom up, and fostered by the passion and dedication of volunteers. They do not use public funds or public infrastructure, but they provide the international community with public goods. An example is Global Citizen (https://www.globalcitizen.org), which was set up in 2008 as a Global Poverty Project in Melbourne, Australia. Its founder, Hugh Evans, defined the overall goal of Global Citizen as the ending of extreme poverty by 2030. This precisely corresponds with the goals of Agenda 2030. Through mass volunteer activities, Global Citizen seeks to influence politicians deciding on issues such as health, security, and climate, and to raise funds for particular causes from individuals, companies, or governments. In the area of health they launched campaigns such as COVID-19 vaccinations, polio eradication, “Help Raise Awareness about the World’s Most Neglected Diseases.” “Stand up for Ukraine” (Global Citizen, 2022a) is an example of a recent fundraising campaign, in which US$10.1 billion was pledged in new grants and loans to support those who have had to flee their homes in Ukraine (Global Citizen, 2022b). It very well illustrates the strength when people come together to realize a common good across borders.
5.3 Initiatives Based on Information and Monitoring Systems
In the case of the current coronavirus pandemic, a quick response and identification of potential virus outbreaks are key to the global health concept. To achieve these, activities aimed at an early diagnosis and immediate response
Many organizations worldwide, international, and national, seek to gather information on epidemic hazards. Next to traditional data collection, internet-based disease surveillance programs have been developing in recent years. They base on information from various sources, including social media. Among the first of such systems was ProMED-mail, which started in the US in 1994. Its task was to detect emerging communicable diseases and toxins dangerous to humans, animals, and crops, as well as the risks associated with their potential use for bioterrorism (Madoff & Woodall, 2005). At the outset, ProMED-mail included 40 scientists from seven countries. Its first report provide information from an American laboratory on infections with the Sabia virus, which caused Brazilian hemorrhagic fever. Information on identified disease emergencies was disseminated via electronic mail. The network of scientists, medical and veterinary doctors, and institutions affiliated with ProMED-mail grew very quickly, which proved the velocity whereby information circulated in the world. In 2020 the system had over 80,000 subscribers representing almost every country in the world (Bonilla-Aldana et al., 2020). In numerous cases, it was from ProMED-mail members that the WHO learned about epidemic hazards. SARS became first known to the Western world thanks to a report generated by the network on February 10, 2003 (Madoff & Woodall, 2005). Systems such as ProMED warn international communities of disease cases in the world, and they support communities in identifying new epidemic outbreaks. However, they require further formalization. Indeed, as suggested by the authors of “Coronavirus Infections Reported by ProMED,” reports sent to the system should be standardized for better quality (Bonilla-Aldana et al., 2020).
Monitoring systems are not institutions, but a priceless tool in the hands of international and national institutions, enabling globalization of health management. They can even be treated as a public good. Next to ProMED-mail, other systems for collection and immediate dissemination of health hazard data also deserve attention. They include the Canadian GPHIN, GOARN (run by the WHO and the UN), the American EpiSimS, Health Map, EpiSPIDER and Google Flu Trends, the Japanese BioCaster, Swedish GET WELL, as well as the European MedISys and Influenzanet (Choi et al., 2016; Lombardo et al., 2003, Velasco et al., 2014).
6 Regional Public Goods in Health Care: the European Union Experience
In the European Union, health policy is the responsibility of member states, especially in terms of financing and managing health systems. However, it does not mean that the EU alone is totally passive in the area of health.
Analysis of Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) shows that a substantial part of areas where EU institutions should be involved concerns ensuring health across borders, i.e., combating, warning against, and examining the causes of epidemics. Article 168 is about measures in the area of both veterinary and phytosanitary studies to directly protect public health. In other words, it concerns problems on which a part of the objectives of Agenda 2030 is focused.
In its activity so far, the European Union has demonstrated health efforts from two perspectives: long-term efforts aiming to provide good health to the community’s inhabitants and crisis management in health emergencies.
6.1 Long-Term Health Efforts
In the first case, the European Union particularly emphasizes preventing non-communicable diseases by promoting health. Coupled with prophylactics, promotion is of vital importance today because, as shown by the outcome of research by McKeown (1973) and McKinlay and McKinlay (1977), medical progress affects the average life expectancy to a lesser degree than environmental factors, also including those that can be labeled lifestyle components (Ostrowska, 1999). Whether and how the aspects are attended to determines the spending on curative medicine. Depending on the research, the degree to which certain habits making up human behavior will affect health is between 30% and 50% (Espey et al., 2014; McGinnis et al., 2002). Meanwhile, in line with literature’s estimates, the influence of medical care in this case is between 10% and 20% (McGovern, 2014), and according to McGinnis, Williams-Russo, and Knickman, the spending of medical service accounts for around 95% of total health-care spending (McGinnis et al., 2002).
Efforts in the area of promotion and prophylactics focus on the introduction of regulations (such as Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014, on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the member states on the manufacture, presentation, and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC) and the launch of programs to finance the efforts of individual member states. They concern education and promotion of healthy lifestyles, building infrastructure to foster healthy lifestyles, taking care of the
Other long-term health efforts at the EU level include the establishment of institutions at the community level: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC),1 the European Medicines Agency (EMA). These institutions, often jointly, pursue health efforts. An example is A European “One Health” Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistanc. Statistical data shows how important these initiatives are. In the case of antimicrobial resistance alone, 25,000 deaths yearly are recorded in EU countries and the related costs are estimated at €1.5 billion (The EU Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance2).
6.2 Crisis Management in Health Emergencies
With regard to analysis of EU activities from the perspective of crisis management in health emergencies it is worth mentioning Strategic Plan 2016–2020 – Health & Food Safety, which allows for such objectives as “better preparedness, prevention and response to human, animal and plant health threats” (European Commission, 2016).
The said decision is not the first step to coordinate health hazards in the EU. Almost a decade earlier, the Parliament and the Council issued a Regulation (EC) no. 851/2004 of 21 April 2004 establishing the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The ECDC has competencies in surveillance and risk assessment of human health threats from communicable diseases and diseases of unknown origin. It is also responsible for the Early Warning and Response System (EWRS), which is an internet-based platform providing a link between the European Commission, ECDC and public health authorities in member states.
The coronavirus pandemic accelerated the formation of regional health management structures, and it strengthened the to-date institutions. During the pandemic, institutions such as ECDC and EMA had their scopes of competencies broadened. The first one expanded its powers and tasks to include: a network of reference laboratories, modern epidemiological surveillance, issuing recommendations on activities to control epidemic outbreaks, and specific response recommendations. In addition, the EWRS was enhanced. The EMA was conferred additional powers to monitor and minimize the effects of
The initiatives and institutions mentioned earlier on in this section bear more on regional management of the health of the European Union’s population, with possible benefits for neighboring regions, such as, for instance, the European Green Deal. However, both the authorities and the member states of the European Union are aware that health management should be perceived more broadly and multidimensionally, hence the EU global health policy was defined in 2010. It announced working in partnership with all other relevant organizations and interest groups for global health, in the areas of trade, financing, development aid, migration, security, climate change and environment action, and research and innovation.
A breakthrough moment for global health came on May 19, 2022, at a G7 Development and Health Ministerial meeting, whereby work started on a new EU Global Health Strategy. Experts point to a number of reasons why it is necessary to introduce an EU Global Health Strategy:
- –The primary reason is the need for an agreed set of principles and priorities to guide the European Union’s activities and investments in global health.
- –To create the conditions for the EU to be represented in external relations when deciding on global health.
- –To prepare the conditions for the European Health Union to function.
- –To enable a better understanding of the links between national, regional, and global health.
- –The strategy, when adopted, will allow the promotion of European values in the global arena, such as universal values of human rights, equity, solidarity, and cooperation.
- –It will help build partnerships in health with regions from other parts of the world.
- –Global health is a geopolitical issue.
As health is interlinked with numerous policies, such as, climate, trade, security, and social policies, the Global Health Strategy is vital with regards to pursuing the goals of Agenda 2030.
7 Causes of Hampering the Supply of Global Public Goods for Global Health
In spite of the efforts of existing international institutions (and any other more or less formalized organizations) to supply global public goods in health care, the results are not spectacular. A lot of work is still required, as well as extensive funding to global public goods, in order to meet the global health goals of Agenda 2030.
It was the coronavirus pandemic that painfully brought to light the limited effectiveness of activities for the health of the international community. From the very onset of the pandemic we have observed inequality in access to medical supplies and medications, from personal protective equipment to vaccines.
In particular, market failures and the institutional deficits are to blame for failed management and supply of global public goods:
- –Market failures appear when players’ optimization decisions do not reach the social optimum. In the case of health decisions, market failures are connected with externalities, public goods, and information asymmetry. They also entail consequences for the present and the future generations. When a person decides whether or not to be vaccinated, they focus on the benefits and costs while ignoring the positive externalities imposed on strangers.
- –Yet another market failure is related to insufficient efforts targeting epidemiological surveillance and intelligence.
- –The world’s wealthy countries are more willing to subsidize the fight against hazards they may be directly affected by themselves. Hence the worse results in providing GPG s with regards to measles, poliomyelitis, and dracunculiasis.
- –High income elasticity and low price responsiveness of certain medications and treatment regimens motivate pharmaceutical companies to concentrate on diseases that are more important for high income countries.
- –The activities of numerous international institutions (formal and informal) are not necessarily coordinated, which impedes their effectiveness and efficiency on a global scale.
- –The activities of public and private (as well as charity) organizations often produce impressive results. However, according to Peacock (2022), there are many potential conflicts of interests in the case of public and private partnerships that are neither democratically elected nor publicly accountable.
8 Conclusions
The SARS-Cov-2 pandemic highlighted the importance of global public goods in the area of health, which contributes to the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals 2030. The global public goods in health that were provided by international institutions during the pandemic included: monitoring of virus spread; quarantine requirement and enforcement; development of the vaccine and medications; knowledge of how to treat it, what the symptoms are, and therapeutic procedures; acquisition and dissemination of knowledge on how to protect oneself on a daily basis to avoid infection; acquisition and dissemination of knowledge of how to organize hospitals or the health-care system; vaccination programs for indigent regions; social campaigns convincing member of the public to get vaccinated; joint purchase of medications, medical supplies, personal protective equipment, etc.
Fruitless efforts of certain institutions were also very conspicuous. In the initial phase, ineffective action allowed the virus to spread around the world. When the pandemic became established, huge deficiencies were disclosed, in particular in personal protective and medical equipment (ventilators). As a consequence, disparate access to medical technologies, including but not limited to vaccinations and therapeutic interventions, has been observed. The period of the pandemic has served as a litmus test for the efficacy of global and regional institutions, which regrettably, have not all emerged unscathed. The roots of this failure, resulting in excess deaths and lasting complications, are to be traced back to institution underfinancing, lack of adequate coordination, lack of proper preparation for a fast production of, for instance, personal protective equipment or vaccines, and nationalism, which was particularly noticeable in vaccine redistribution. Sharing intellectual property rights also became a problem.
The year 2022 is a time when the prospect of maintaining global health and pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 seems extremely difficult. Events of the past 2 years will have serious consequences, which will require international organizations to intensify their efforts to accumulate financial sources and step up activities to provide global public goods.
The war in Ukraine entails a real risk of reduced food supply worldwide. This will particularly affect poor countries that need the most support in building better living conditions, including the aspect of health. Moreover, the war is accompanied by economic sanctions imposed on Russia and Belarus, which is globally driving energy prices. As already mentioned, it also has an adverse effect on global health. Economic sanctions hit both sides of the
Economic problems may be aggravated by subsequent COVID-19 lockdowns and the related disrupted supply chains (e.g., lockdown of Shanghai, a city of 24 million people in April 20224). Problems related to the economy and access to gas may affect the pace of realization of Goal 7 (Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all) and Goal 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts).
Each armed conflict causes forced migration, which normally entails a deterioration of the refugees’ living conditions, and thus their health. According to the UNHCR, the number of refugees has been steadily growing for 11 years due to persecution, armed conflicts or human rights violation. In mid-2022, the number of people fleeing reached 103 million people.5 Given the current elevated figures and the exponential surge in refugee populations, it will be challenging for international and national organizations to realize Target 10.7 (Facilitate orderly, safe, and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies).
It seems that in order to achieve the health-centered goals of Agenda 2030 it will be necessary to focus maximum efforts on coordinated international cooperation to boost effectiveness and efficiency of global public goods provision. The world cannot afford to waste any funds due to particular interests, fragmentation of efforts, lack of coordination, no success guaranteeing priorities in place, or failing to conscientiously pursuit them. The situation demands that the international community be open to global needs, dialogue, and acceptance of compromise, which is normally not satisfactory for all sides. The world is facing a difficult task indeed.
References
Barrett, S. (2007). Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. Oxford University Press.
Bonilla-Aldana, D. K., Holguin-Rivera, Y., Cortes-Bonilla, I., Cardona-Trujillo, M. C., García-Barco, A., Bedoya-Arias, H. A., Rabaan, A. A., Sah, R., & Rodriguez-Morales, A. J. (2020). Coronavirus infections reported by ProMED, February 2000–January 2020. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101575
Brown, T. M., Cueto, M., & Fee, E. (2006). The World Health Organization and the transition from “international” to “global” public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.050831
CDC. (2022, June 15). About CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/about/index.html
CEPI. (N.d.). A global coalition for a global problem. Retrieved April 10, 2022. https://cepi.net/about/whoweare/
Choi, J., Cho, Y., Shim, E., & Woo, H. (2016). Web-based infectious disease surveillance systems and public health perspectives: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3893-0
ECDC. (N.d.). About ECDC. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Retrieved July 18, 2022. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/about-ecdc
EMA. (2018, September 17). About us. European Medicines Agency. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/what-we-do
Espey, D. K., Jim, M. A., Cobb, N., Bartholomew, M., Becker, T., Haverkamp, D., & Plescia, M. (2014). Leading causes of death and all-cause mortality in American Indians and Alaska Natives. American Journal of Public Health, 104 Suppl 3(Suppl 3), S303–S311. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301798
European Commission. (2016, July 19). Strategic plan 2016–2020 – Health and Food Safety. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/strategic-plan-2016-2020-health-and-food-safety_en
European Commission. (N.d.-a). Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) factsheet. Retrieved April 10, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/emergency-response-coordination-centre-ercc_en
European Commission. (N.d.-b). A European Green Deal: Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
FDA. (2021, June 28). What we do. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do
Fidler, D. P. (2010, May). The challenges of global health governance. Working Paper. Council on Foreign Relations.
Frenk, J. (2010). The global health system: Strengthening national health systems as the next step for global progress. PLoS Medicine, 7(1), e1000089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000089
Frenk, J., Gómez-Dantés, O., & Moon, S. (2014). From sovereignty to solidarity: A renewed concept of global health for an era of complex interdependence. The Lancet, 383(9911), 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62561-1
GAHP. (N.d.). The Global Alliance on Health and Pollution. Retrieved April 10, 2022. https://gahp.net/
Glapiak, E. (2020, June 17). Świat się zbroi. Na cele militarne rocznie przeznacza blisko 2 biliony dolarów [The world will arm itself. It spends nearly $2 trillion annually on military purposes]. Business Insider. https://businessinsider.com.pl/finanse/w-ciagu-ostatnich-20-lat-na-swiecie-podwojono-wydatki-na-armie/spb2x6s
Global Citizen. (2022a). Tell us and the world why you’re standing up for Ukraine. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/action/take-the-pledge-stand-up-for-ukraine/
Global Citizen. (2022b, April 9). $10.1 billion (€9.1 billion) pledged in new grants and loans as part of the Stand up for Ukraine event to support those who have had to flee their homes in Ukraine. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/stand-up-for-ukraine-impact-report/
Government of Poland. (N.d.). Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Ministry of the Interior and Administration. Retrieved April 10, 2022. https://www.gov.pl/web/mswia-en/union-civil-protection-mechanism
Handley, L. (2017, October 16). Hugh Evans: Being a global citizen. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/10/global-citizen-founder-hugh-evans-on-how-to-end-extreme-poverty.html
IFRC. (2021). Strategy 2030. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. https://www.ifrc.org/document/strategy-2030
IHME. (2014, February 26). About IHME. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. https://www.healthdata.org/about
Lee, K., & Brumme, Z. L. (2012). Operationalizing the One Health approach: The global governance challenges. Health Policy and Planning, 28(7), 778–785. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czs127
Lombardo, J., Burkom, H., Elbert, E., Magruder, S., Lewis, S. H., Loschen, W., Sari, J., Sniegoski, C., Wojcik, R., & Pavlin, J. (2003). A systems overview of the Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-Based Epidemics (ESSENCEII). Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 80(Suppl 1), i32–i42. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022313
Madoff, L. C., & Woodall, J. P. (2005). The internet and the global monitoring of emerging diseases: Lessons from the first 10 years of ProMED-mail. Archives of Medical Research, 36(6), 724–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2005.06.005
McGinnis, J. M., Williams-Russo, P., & Knickman, J. R. (2002). The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Affairs, 21(2), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.78
McGovern, L. (2014). The relative contribution of multiple determinants to health. Health Affairs Health Policy Brief. https://doi.org/10.1377/hpb20140821.404487
McKeown, T. (1973). The role of medicine: Dream, mirage or nemesis. Basil Blackwell.
McKinlay, J. B., & McKinlay, S. M. (1977). The questionable contribution of medical measures to the decline of mortality in the United States in the twentieth century. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly: Health and Society, 55(3), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.2307/3349539
Missoni, E., Pacileo, G., & Tediosi, F. (2019). Global health governance and policy: An introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351188999
Moon, S. (2021). Global health: A centralized network searching (in vain) for hierarchy. In J. C. W. Pevehouse, K. Raustiala, & M. N. Barnett (Eds.), Global governance in a world of change (pp. 234–264). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108915199.009
Moon, S., Røttingen, J.-A., & Frenk, J. (2017). Global public goods for health: Weaknesses and opportunities in the global health system. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 12(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133116000451
New Urban Agenda. (2016). The New Urban Agenda. https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/
Ostrowska, A. (1999). Styl życia a zdrowie. Z zagadnień promocji zdrowia. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii PAN.
Peacock, S. J. (2022). Vaccine nationalism will persist: Global public goods need effective engagement of global citizens. Globalization and Health, 18(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-022-00802-y
Pure Earth. (N.d.). About Pure Earth. Retrieved July 18, 2022. https://www.pureearth.org/about-us/
UN. (2020, July 21). Recovering from COVID-19: The importance of investing in global public goods for health. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved March 25, 2022. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2020/07/recovering-from-covid19/
UNDP. (1990). Human development report 1990: Concept and measurement of human development. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). https://www.hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1990
UNHCR. (N.d.). Public health. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Retrieved July 18, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/public-health.html
UNHCR. (N.d.). 2023: A Moment of Truth for Global Displacement, 7 November 2022. Retrieved July 18, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/spotlight/2023/01/2023-a-moment-of-truth-for-global-displacement/
Velasco, E., Agheneza, T., Denecke, K., Kirchner, G., & Eckmanns, T. (2014). Social media and internet-based data in global systems for public health surveillance: A systematic review. Milbank Quarterly, 92(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12038
Węcławski, J. (2015). Wielkie banki i ich rola w kryzysie finansowym. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, sectio H – Oeconomia, 47(1), 219. https://doi.org/10.17951/h.2013.47.1.219
WHO. (2011). Promoting health and reducing health inequities by addressing the social determinants of health. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/349969
WHO. (2013). Health 2020: A European policy framework supporting action across government and society for health and well-being. World Health Organization. https://www.euro.who.int/en/about-us/regional-director/regional-directors-emeritus/dr-zsuzsanna-jakab,-2010-2019/health-2020-the-european-policy-for-health-and-well-being/publications/2013/health-2020-a-european-policy-framework-supporting-action-across-government-and-society-for-health-and-well-being
WHO. (2017a). Roadmap to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, building on Health 2020, the European policy for health and well-being (EUR/RC67/9). World Health Organization. https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-policy/sustainable-development-goals/publications/2017/eurrc679-roadmap-to-implement-the-2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development,-building-on-health-2020,-the-european-policy-for-health-and-well-being
WHO. (2017b). Shanghai consensus on healthy cities 2016. Health Promotion International, 32(4), 603–605. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax038
WHO (2020, May 18). WHO Results report 2018–2019 – Driving impact in every country. World Health Organization. Retrieved February 28, 2023. https://www.who.int/about/accountability/results/2018-2019
WHO. (N.d.). Central Asian Republics Information Network (CARINFONET). World Health Organization. Retrieved July 18, 2022. https://who-sandbox.squiz.cloud/en/data-and-evidence/european-health-information-initiative-ehii/central-asian-republics-information-network-carinfonet
World Bank. (N.d.). Who we are. Retrieved April 10, 2022. https://www.worldbank.org/en/who-we-are
The ECDC is the major monitoring institution for COVID-19. As part of its activities, it provides risk assessments to assist member states and the EC in their response to individual pandemic developments. See “ECDC Novel coronavirus” (2020), https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/novel-coronavirus-china (retrieved on May 16, 2020). The ECDC has drafted numerous documents, including technical reports, statements, risk assessments, and algorithms which relate to, among other things, diagnosing, managing, and preventing the spread of COVID-10. See, e.g., “ECDC statement following reported confirmed case of 2019-nCoV in Germany,” https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/ecdc-statement-following-reported-confirmed-case-2019-ncov-germany (retrieved on May 16, 2020); “ECDC algorithm for management of contacts of probable or confirmed 2019-nCoV cases,” https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/algorithm-management-contacts-probable-or-confirmed-2019-ncov-cases (retrieved on May 16, 2020); “ECDC Infection prevention and control for the care of patients with 2019-nCoV in health-care settings,” https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/infection-prevention-and-control-care-patients-2019-ncov-healthcare-settings (retrieved on June 25, 2020); “Public health management of persons having had contact with novel coronavirus cases in the European Union,” https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/public-health-management-persons-having-had-contact-novel-coronavirus-cases (retrieved on May 16, 2020); “ECDC Risk assessment: Outbreak of acute respiratory syndrome associated with a novel coronavirus. China: The first local transmission in the EU/EEA − third update,” https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/risk-assessment-outbreak-acute-respiratory-syndrome-associated-novel-1 (retrieved on May 16, 2020).
https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-139884?lg=PL (retrieved on May 26, 2020).
The HSC’s tasks are the following: (a) supporting the exchange of information between member states and the Commission on the experience acquired with regard to the implementation of this Decision; (b) coordination in liaison with the Commission of the preparedness and response planning of the member states in accordance with Article 4; (c) coordination in liaison with the Commission of the risk and crisis communication and responses of member states to serious cross-border threats to health, in accordance with Article 11 (quoted from Decision no. 1082).
The port of Shanghai is the world’s largest in terms of the size of container transshipment.