Global health governance responds to Covid-19
Does the security/access divide persist
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 15540747 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Denis Kennedy (0000-0002-3500-4293, College of the Holy Cross, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2023 |
| Volumen | 18 |
| Número | 1 |
| Páginas | 2200296-2200296 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2023-01-02 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Global Public Health (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 1744-1692 • E-ISSN: 1744-1706 |
| Editorial | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/17441692.2023.2200296 |
| PMID | 37077128 |
| OpenAlex | W4366492669 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 1 |
| Referencias citadas | 24 |
This paper evaluates global health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic through the 'two regimes of global health' framework. This framework juxtaposes global health security, which contains the threat of emerging diseases to wealthy states, with humanitarian biomedicine, which emphasises neglected diseases and equitable access to treatments. To what extent did the security/access divide characterise the response to COVID-19? Did global health frames evolve during the pandemic?Analysis focused on public statements from the World Health Organization (WHO), the humanitarian nonprofit Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Following a content analysis of 486 documents released in the first two years of the pandemic, the research yielded three findings. First, the CDC and MSF affirmed the framework; they exemplified the security/access divide, with the CDC containing threats to Americans and MSF addressing the plight of vulnerable populations. Second, surprisingly, despite its reputation as a central actor in global health security, the WHO articulated both regime priorities and, third, after the initial outbreak, it began to favour humanitarianism. For the WHO, security remained, but was reconfigured: instead of traditional security, global human health security was emphasised - collective wellbeing was rooted in access and equity
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 · Disease · Economic growth · Economics · Equity (law · Global governance · Global health · Health care · Health equity · Infectious disease (medical specialty · Pandemic · Political science · Politics · Public health · Global Security and Public Health · Health and Conflict Studies · Law · Medicine · Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Epidemics and Society
Unprepared
Life in Crisis
Content Analysis
Two Regimes of Global Health
Managing Global Health Security
Governing Ebola
Covid-19
Global Health Governance in International Society
Pandemic Response as Border Politics
Global Health Security
Mediating Risk through the International Health Regulations and Bio-Political Surveillance
Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research
From Threat to Risk? Exceptionalism and Logics of Health Security
Ordinary Patterns in an Extraordinary Crisis
Securitizing infectious disease
Pragmatism, Structural Reform and the Politics of Inequality in Global Public Health
Global health partnerships, governance, and sovereign responsibility in western Kenya
| Obras citantes distintas | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,5 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2024 - 2024 (1) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 1 |