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 di...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | Global Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2023.2200296 |
| _version_ | 1797678693042094080 |
|---|---|
| author | Denis Kennedy |
| author_facet | Denis Kennedy |
| author_sort | Denis Kennedy |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T23:03:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5e56f2109fe044688d811feb8aa2d0d1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1744-1692 1744-1706 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T23:03:35Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Global Public Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-5e56f2109fe044688d811feb8aa2d0d12023-09-21T13:56:58ZengTaylor & Francis GroupGlobal Public Health1744-16921744-17062023-01-0118110.1080/17441692.2023.22002962200296Global health governance responds to COVID-19: Does the security/access divide persist?Denis Kennedy0College of the Holy CrossThis 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2023.2200296covid-19global health securityhumanitarianismworld health organizationglobal governance |
| spellingShingle | Denis Kennedy Global health governance responds to COVID-19: Does the security/access divide persist? Global Public Health covid-19 global health security humanitarianism world health organization global governance |
| title | Global health governance responds to COVID-19: Does the security/access divide persist? |
| title_full | Global health governance responds to COVID-19: Does the security/access divide persist? |
| title_fullStr | Global health governance responds to COVID-19: Does the security/access divide persist? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Global health governance responds to COVID-19: Does the security/access divide persist? |
| title_short | Global health governance responds to COVID-19: Does the security/access divide persist? |
| title_sort | global health governance responds to covid 19 does the security access divide persist |
| topic | covid-19 global health security humanitarianism world health organization global governance |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2023.2200296 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT deniskennedy globalhealthgovernancerespondstocovid19doesthesecurityaccessdividepersist |