Global health governance responds to COVID-19 : Does the security/access divide persist?
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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Global public health - 18(2023), 1 vom: 19. Jan., Seite 2200296 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Kennedy, Denis [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
COVID-19 |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 21.04.2023 Date Revised 25.04.2023 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1080/17441692.2023.2200296 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM355809419 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM355809419 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226065127.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1080/17441692.2023.2200296 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1185.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM355809419 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37077128 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kennedy, Denis |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Global health governance responds to COVID-19 |b Does the security/access divide persist? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 21.04.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 25.04.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a World Health Organization | |
| 650 | 4 | |a global governance | |
| 650 | 4 | |a global health security | |
| 650 | 4 | |a humanitarianism | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Global public health |d 2006 |g 18(2023), 1 vom: 19. Jan., Seite 2200296 |w (DE-627)NLM185840353 |x 1744-1706 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g day:19 |g month:01 |g pages:2200296 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2023.2200296 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2023 |e 1 |b 19 |c 01 |h 2200296 | ||