Suchergebnisse

Trade has long been an axiomatic characteristic of globalization, although international rules governing trade are of more recent vintage. Notably in the post-World War II period, an ever increasing number of countries began negotiating treaties to reduce, first, tariff barriers and, later, non-tariff barriers (government measures of any sort) that could impede the cross-border flow of goods. The rationale, in part, was that countries that became more entwined economically would be less likely to go to war with each other. It wouldn't be in their own economic interests to do so, or at least that of the firms based within their borders but engaged in transnational trade and dependent upon global supply chains. At first primarily an undertaking of developed (high-income) countries, developing (low and middle-income countries) slowly enjoined in what, in 1995, became the World Trade Organization. The WTO locked in scheduled declines in tariffs (border taxes), albeit with lesser obligations on developing country members (a problematic nomenclature given the vast geographic, economic, and development differences between such countries, but which nonetheless persists within the WTO). Importantly, a slew of new agreements that coincided with the establishment of the WTO also sought to liberalize trade in services (not just goods) (The General Agreement on Trade in Services), create new rules for agricultural trade (Agreement on Agriculture), expand intellectual property rights protections (The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), limit trade-distorting government subsidies (Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures), and ensure that government food, health, or environmental regulations would not pose an unnecessary barrier to trade (the Technical Barriers to Trade and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreements). Outside of the WTO system, bilateral or regional investment treaties granting special rights to foreign investors to sue governments for actions perceived to affect the value of their investment (such as direct expropriation or passage of new laws and regulations considered 'tantamount to expropriation') similarly exploded in number, dispute frequency, and the size of monetary claims. The breadth and depth of these post-1995 Agreements meant that few areas of general public health concern are potentially untouched.

Globalization is a fairly recent addition to the panoply of concepts describing the internationalization of health concerns. What distinguishes it from 'international health' or its newer morphing into 'global health' is a specific analytical concern with how globalization processes, past or present, but particularly since the start of our neoliberal era post-1980, is affecting health outcomes. Globalization processes influence health through multiple social pathways: from health systems and financing reforms to migration flows and internal displacement; via trade and investment treaties, labour market 'flexibilization', and the spread of unhealthy commodities; or through deploying human rights and environment protection treaties, and strengthening health diplomacy efforts, to create more equitable and sustainable global health outcomes. Globalization and Health was a pioneer in its focus on these critical facets of our health, well-being, and, indeed, planetary survival. In this editorial, the journal announces a re-focusing on this primary aim, announcing a number of new topic Sections and an expanded editorial capacity to ensure that submissions are 'on target' and processed rapidly, and that the journal continues to be on the leading edge of some of the most contentious and difficult health challenges confronting us.

It is widely acknowledged that austerity measures in the wake of the global financial crisis are starting to undermine population health results. Yet, few research studies have focused on the ways in which the financial crisis and the ensuing 'Great Recession' have affected health equity, especially through their impact on social determinants of health; neither has much attention been given to the health consequences of the fiscal austerity regime that quickly followed a brief period of counter-cyclical government spending for bank bailouts and economic stimulus. Canada has not remained insulated from these developments, despite its relative success in maneuvering the global financial crisis. The study draws on three sources of evidence: A series of semi-structured interviews in Ottawa and Toronto, with key informants selected on the basis of their expertise (n = 12); an analysis of recent (2012) Canadian and Ontario budgetary impacts on social determinants of health; and documentation of trend data on key social health determinants pre- and post the financial crisis. The findings suggest that health equity is primarily impacted through two main pathways related to the global financial crisis: austerity budgets and associated program cutbacks in areas crucial to addressing the inequitable distribution of social determinants of health, including social assistance, housing, and education; and the qualitative transformation of labor markets, with precarious forms of employment expanding rapidly in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Preliminary evidence suggests that these tendencies will lead to a further deepening of existing health inequities, unless counter-acted through a change in policy direction. This article documents some of the effects of financial crisis and severe economic decline on health equity in Canada. However, more research is necessary to study policy choices that could mitigate this effect. Since the policy response to a similar set of economic shocks has globally varied and led to differential health and health equity outcomes, comparative studies are now possible to assess the successes and failures of specific policy responses. This raises the question of what types of public policy can mitigate against the negative health equity effects of severe economic recessions.

Global health financing has increased dramatically in recent years, indicative of a rise in health as a foreign policy issue. Several governments have issued specific foreign policy statements on global health and a new term, global health diplomacy, has been coined to describe the processes by which state and non-state actors engage to position health issues more prominently in foreign policy decision-making. Their ability to do so is important to advancing international cooperation in health. In this paper we review the arguments for health in foreign policy that inform global health diplomacy. These are organized into six policy frames: security, development, global public goods, trade, human rights and ethical/moral reasoning. Each of these frames has implications for how global health as a foreign policy issue is conceptualized. Differing arguments within and between these policy frames, while overlapping, can also be contradictory. This raises an important question about which arguments prevail in actual state decision-making. This question is addressed through an analysis of policy or policy-related documents and academic literature pertinent to each policy framing with some assessment of policy practice. The reference point for this analysis is the explicit goal of improving global health equity. This goal has increasing national traction within national public health discourse and decision-making and, through the Millennium Development Goals and other multilateral reports and declarations, is entering global health policy discussion. Initial findings support conventional international relations theory that most states, even when committed to health as a foreign policy goal, still make decisions primarily on the basis of the 'high politics' of national security and economic material interests. Development, human rights and ethical/moral arguments for global health assistance, the traditional 'low politics' of foreign policy, are present in discourse but do not appear to dominate practice. While political momentum for health as a foreign policy goal persists, the framing of this goal remains a contested issue. The analysis offered in this article may prove helpful to those engaged in global health diplomacy or in efforts to have global governance across a range of sectoral interests pay more attention to health equity impacts.

There remains considerable discontent between globalization scholars about how to conceptualize its meaning and in regards to epistemological and methodological questions concerning how we can come to understand how these processes ultimately operate, intersect and transform our lives. This article argues that to better understand what globalization is and how it affects issues such as global health, we must take a differentiating approach, which focuses on how the multiple processes of globalization are encountered and informed by different social groups and with how these encounters are experienced within particular contexts. The article examines the heuristic properties of qualitative field research as a means to help better understand how the intersections of globalization are manifested within particular locations. To do so, the article focuses on three recent case studies conducted on globalization and HIV/AIDS and explores how these cases can help us to understand the contextual permutations involved within the processes of globalization.

Despite the mythology that the global economy with its trade rules creates a 'level playing field,' international trade has never involved 'level players.' The inequalities in outcomes generated by the more powerful winning more frequently has led to innovative ideas for ex post redistribution to make the matches between the players both fairer, and in the analogy to basketball used by the authors, more interesting and even more competitive. The proposal for a Global Social Protection Fund, financed by a small tax on the winners to enhance social protection spending for the losers, presumably increasing the latter's capabilities to compete more effectively in the global market game, is one such idea. It has much to commend it. Several problems, however, stand in its way, apart from those inherent within nations themselves and to which the authors give some attention. First, much global trade is now intra-firm rather than international, making calculations of which nations win or lose exceedingly difficult. Second, tax havens persist without the transparency and global regulatory oversights that would allow a better rendering of where winnings are stashed. Third, pre-distribution inequalities (those arising from market activities before government tax and transfer measures apply) are still increasing as labour's power to wrestle global capital into some ameliorative social contract diminishes. Fourth, there are finite limits to a planet on the cusp of multiple environmental crises. These problems do not diminish the necessity of alternative policy playbooks such as the proposed Fund, but point to the need to embrace the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a single set, such that economic growth for the bottom half of humanity includes deep structural reforms to both pre-distribution and redistribution, if the targets for environmental survival are to be met.

This article addresses several issues pertinent to health systems governance for health equity. It argues the importance of health systems using measures of positive health (well-being), discriminating in favour of historically less advantaged groups and weighing the costs of health care against investments in the social determinants of health. It cautions that the concept of governance could weaken the role of government, with disequalizing effects, while emphasizing the importance of two elements of good governance (transparency and participation) in health systems decision-making. It distinguishes between participation as volunteer labour and participation as exercising political rights, and questions the assumption that decentralization in health systems is necessarily empowering. It then identifies five health system roles to address issues of equity (educator/watchdog, resource broker, community developer, partnership developer and advocate/catalyst) and the implications of these roles for practice. Drawing on preliminary findings of a global research project on comprehensive primary health care, it discusses political aspects of progressive health system reform and the implications of equity-focused health system governance on health workers' roles, noting the importance of health workers claiming their identity as citizens. The article concludes with a commentary on the inherently political nature of health reforms based on equity; the necessary confrontation with power relations politics involves; and the health systems governance challenge of managing competing health discourses of efficiency and results-based financing, on the one hand, and equity and citizen empowerment, on the other. ; This article addresses several issues pertinent to health systems governance for health equity. It argues the importance of health systems using measures of positive health (well-being), discriminating in favour of historically less advantaged groups and weighing the costs of health care against investments in the social determinants of health. It cautions that the concept of governance could weaken the role of government, with disequalizing effects, while emphasizing the importance of two elements of good governance (transparency and participation) in health systems decision-making. It distinguishes between participation as volunteer labour and participation as exercising political rights, and questions the assumption that decentralization in health systems is necessarily empowering. It then identifies five health system roles to address issues of equity (educator/watchdog, resource broker, community developer, partnership developer and advocate/catalyst) and the implications of these roles for practice. Drawing on preliminary findings of a global research project on comprehensive primary health care, it discusses political aspects of progressive health system reform and the implications of equity-focused health system governance on health workers' roles, noting the importance of health workers claiming their identity as citizens. The article concludes with a commentary on the inherently political nature of health reforms based on equity; the necessary confrontation with power relations politics involves; and the health systems governance challenge of managing competing health discourses of efficiency and results-based financing, on the one hand, and equity and citizen empowerment, on the other.

Economic events of the past year are beginning to create hardships for tens of thousands of Canadians. There are likely to be health effects as well, to the extent that unemployment and poverty rates rise. Conditions, however, will be much worse for those living in poorer countries. High-income countries are committing trillions of dollars in countercyclical spending and banking bail-outs. Poorer countries need to do the same, but lack the resources to do so. Yet foreign aid and fairer trade are widely expected to be among the first high-income country victims of the recession fallout as nations turn inwards and protectionist. This is neither good for global health nor necessary given the scale of untaxed (or unfairly taxed) wealth that could be harnessed for a truly global rescue package. Policy choices confront us. The Canadian public health community must hold our political leadership accountable for making those choices that will improve health globally and not further imperil the well-being of much of the world's population in efforts to secure our own future economic revival.

Canada has been regarded as a model global citizen with firm commitments to multilateralism. It has also played important roles in several international health treaties and conventions in recent years. There are now concerns that its interests in health as a foreign policy goal may be diminishing. This article reports on a thematic analysis of key Canadian foreign policy statements issued over the past decade, and interviews with key informants knowledgeable of, or experienced in the interstices of Canadian health and foreign policy. It finds that health is primarily and increasingly framed in relation to national security and economic interests. Little attention has been given to human rights obligations relevant to health as a foreign policy issue, and global health is not seen as a priority of the present government. Global health is nonetheless regarded as something with which Canadian foreign policy must engage, if only because of Canada's membership in many United Nations and other multilateral fora. Development of a single global health strategy or framework is seen as important to improve intersectoral cooperation on health issues, and foreign policy coherence. There remains a cautious optimism that health could become the base from which Canada reasserts its internationalist status.

Abstract The USMCA (NAFTA 2.0), although signed over a year ago, went through several months of renegotiation of certain of its new rules that the Democrat-controlled US Congress wanted altered or strengthened. In December a 'Protocol of Amendment' was agreed upon and signed by the three Parties (the USA, Mexico, and Canada). A number of tough, new measures governing pharmaceuticals were revised or deleted, making it potentially easier for generic competition and lower drug costs in all three countries. Rules on protection of labour rights were also strengthened, lowering the threshold at which a complaint of unfair labour practices could be initiated. Procedures for investigating such a complaint or resolving a formal dispute were also improved. Similar procedural improvements were made on measures affecting environmental protection. These Protocol agreements are more health-positive than health-negative, and in the case of pharmaceuticals are of significant impact. Overall, however, these amendments are simply a political fine-tuning of the agreement. Concerns raised in our earlier health impact assessment of the USMCA, notably how the agreement's regulatory reforms reduce public health policy flexibilities, remain. The agreement continues to subordinate known or potential health costs of many of its measures to dubious claims of aggregate economic gains. Moreover, these gains, if materialized, are likely to accrue to those atop the income/wealth hierarchies in all three nations.

Abstract 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.'

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors flagged an error concerning two missing article references, which were unfortunately not provided prior to publication of the article.

1. Introduction -- 2. Trade and Health: From Ancient Pandemics to the World Trade Organization and Beyond -- 3. Health Services and Access to Medicines and Other Health Technologies -- 4. Commodities Harmful to Health -- 5. Trade, Labour Markets, and the Environment -- 6. The Politics of Trade Policy and the Trade Negotiating Process -- 7. Methods and Approaches to Measuring the Impact of Trade Agreements on Public Health -- 8. Conclusion: Strengthening Trade and Health Policy Coherence.