Authors
Desmond McNeill and Ole Petter Ottersen
Abstract
In this article, we address a central theme that was discussed at the Durham Health Summit: how can politics be brought back into global health governance and figure much more prominently in discussions around policy? We begin by briefly summarizing the report of the Lancet – University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health: ‘The Political Origins of Health Inequity’ Ottersen et al. In order to provide compelling evidence of the central argument, the Commission selected seven case studies relating to, inter alia, economic and fiscal policy, food security, and foreign trade and investment agreements. Based on an analysis of these studies, the report concludes that the problems identified are often due to political choices: an unwillingness to change the global system of governance. This raises the question: what is the most effective way that a report of this kind can be used to motivate policy-makers, and the public at large, to demand change? What kind of moral or rational argument is most likely to lead to action? In this paper we assess the merits of various alternative perspectives: health as an investment; health as a global public good; health and human security; health and human development; health as a human right; health and global justice. We conclude that what is required in order to motivate change is a more explicitly political and moral perspective – favouring the later rather than the earlier alternatives just listed.