This paper describes research strategies to address the relation between globalisation and social determinants of health through an equity lens, and invites dialogue and debate about preliminary findings. The first part of the paper identifies and defends a definition of globalisation and describes key strategic and methodological issues. The second part describes a number of key ‘clusters’ of pathways leading from globalisation to equity-relevant changes in SDH. The third part provides a generic inventory of potential interventions, based in part on an ongoing program of research on how policies pursued by the G7/G8 countries affect population health outside their borders.
Health equity in economic and trade policies
Globalisation and social determinants of health: A diagnostic overview and agenda for innovation
Schrecker T, Labonte R: World Institute for Development Research (WIDER), 2006
Oxfam warns proposed new EU trade policy is 'development blind'
Oxfam International, 4 October 2006
The European Union's new external trade plans presented by Peter Mandelson in Brussels will pose a serious threat to poor countries' development if implemented, said international agency Oxfam. The EU is pushing an aggressive liberalisation agenda in developing countries and trying to impose rules on competition, investment and government procurement that won't help development.Demands for stronger intellectual property rules and enforcement, which threaten to limit access to vital medicines for people in developing countries as well as depriving farmers of the right to ownership of seeds.
Oxfam Welcomes German G8 agenda on Africa
Oxfam International, 18 October 2006
Oxfam welcomes the German cabinet’s announcement that it will use its G8 presidency in 2007 to continue the fight against poverty in Africa. Under Chancellor Angela Merkel’s leadership, the cabinet released an ambitious agenda to focus the world’s wealthiest nations on delivering plans that work for the world’s poor. 'Within a generation, for the first time in history, every child in the world could be in school, every woman could give birth with proper health care, everyone could drink clean, safe water, and millions of new health workers and teachers could be saving lives and shaping minds. We should accept nothing less from the G8 leaders than concrete plans towards these goals,' said Kalinski.
Unequal partners: How EU–ACP Economic Partnership Agreements could harm the world’s poorest countries
Oxfam International: Oxfam Briefing note, 27 September 2006
The Doha ‘Development’ Round of trade talks has stalled, but the world’s poorest countries remain under pressure to open up their markets with potentially disastrous consequences. The EU wants to forge new free trade agreements with 74 of its former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP). These imbalanced negotiations of ‘Economic Partnership Agreements’ (EPAs) between the two regions, pit some of the world’s most advanced industrial economies against some of the poorest nations on earth. The EU has an opportunity to develop fairer trading relations with ACP countries, but such extreme disparities in negotiating power could all too easily produce unfair results. The proposed EPAs are a serious threat to the future development prospects of ACP countries, and the forthcoming review of the EPA negotiations must be used to force a radical rethink.
US free trade agreements block access to medicines
Oxfam International: 16 August 2006
At the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, US efforts to introduce stronger intellectual property rules in bilateral trade agreements were noted to undermine the fight against AIDS by limiting ability of developing countries to access affordable medicines. 'Under the name of free trade, the US is pushing for monopoly on new medicines, thus driving up the cost for some of the world’s poorest people,' said Rohit Malpani, policy advisor for Oxfam International. 'Neither patients nor governments will be able to afford the new antiretroviral medicines essential to address the pandemic.'
Asian Peoples’ Tribunal on Poverty and Debt
International People\'s Forum versus the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF)
This petition was prepared in time for the annual meeting of the IMF-World Bank, 19-20 September in Singapore. The Tribunal received a petition from peoples’ organisations, citizens groups, social movements and NGOs from various countries in Asia seeking justice for the impact of debt on the lives, livelihood and well-being, human rights of the peoples of Asia, on the environment, ecological systems, economies and political affairs of many countries in the region. The same petition charges the IMF, World Bank (WB) and ADB of responsibility for the intensification of poverty and deprivation, violation of basic human rights, in addtion to other faults. By so doing, signataries hope that they will be compelled to review their actions and calculate and quantify the damages wrought by their policies or people.
Drug purchase facility as shining example of innovative funding
United Nations Secretary-General SG/SM/10645 (AIDS/128), 19 September 2006
This excerpt contains the text of United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s remarks at the official launch of UNITAID, the International Drug Purchase Facility, in New York today, 19 September. The Secretary General began by acknowledging this international facility for the purchase of drugs as a shining example of an innovative source of funding that can help us reach the Millennium Development Goals. The full speech can be found at the weblink above.
Press statement by the organisers of the International Peoples Forum versus IMF-WB
The International People\'s Forum (IPF), 18 September 2006
International People's Forum organizers issued this press startement to celebrate a successful forum and share plans for ways forward. On 18 September the IPF concluded the International Peoples Forum vs. the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (IPF), which was convened in Batam from September 15th to17th. Over 500 Indonesians participated in the Forum as did around 200 individuals from 25 countries representing at least 100 organisations. Amongst several other urgent requests made was that for stopping the imposition of policy conditions that undermine economic sovereignty and exacerbate crises in health and education. The statement ends with a call on the governments that are members of the World Bank and IMF Boards of Directors to keep these institutions fully accountable for their impacts on human rights, equity, and the sustainability of development.
SADC and HIV/AIDS: Countries should utilise TRIPS flexibilities
Mabika AH: Southern and Eastern African Trade, Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI) Bulletin 9 (4), 28 August 2006
The TRIPS plus provisions called for by the United States are worrisome in as far as access to HIV/AIDS life saving drugs, and SADC leaders should be ary of these provisions. SADC member countries should amend their current legislation to take advantage of the regulatory flexibility permitted by TRIPS before making any Intellectual Property-related commitments. SADC should reject any TRIPS-plus proposals and ensure that the standards of Intellectual Property protection in TRIPS remain the minimum standards.
The GATS and South Africa’s National Health Act: A cautionary tale
Sinclair S: Municipal Services Project, Occasional Papers 11, June 2006
This research shows not only how GATS conflicts with the National Health Act, but also how General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) threatens national sovereignty and impedes the achievement of our constitution’s socio-economic rights. South African trade officials have repeatedly denied that GATS covers South African health services, but this study reveals that it covers almost all health services delivered outside of hospitals. South Africa’s dilemma should serve as a warning that health policy-makers, governments and citizens need to be more attentive to GATS negotiations currently underway in Geneva. Instead of the current negotiations to broaden and deepen GATS coverage, there needs to be an assessment of the treaty’s defects and joint international action to create more democratic international governance frameworks.