rachel, i agree on your general point - we've got to get aid to be more effective, absolutely. we've just got to be careful about the 'frames' we use to discuss the problems we've got to address, because they can do more harm than good, as i believe this frame of quiet corruption does. indeed, i have traveled to many places, and i've seen some schools and health centers run tremendously, while others struggle to provide services. i think the solution that your post highlights are some good starting points. but at the end of the day, i just don't see the point of calling all this corruption, however.
andrew, you raise many important concerns that the lancet article should prompt us to reflect on. however, i have two questions: (1) given that many of these countries have MANY priorities (water, sanitation, roads, electricity, etc) that often do not receive donor aid like health programs, how should a country pick where their domestic revenue goes? it seems like it's a bit more challenging than we'd like to think and a much broader question about budgeting, beyond the domain of traditional health spending. (2) you also mention that what's important is "picking the most effective programs and instituting rigid monitoring" - but WHO should pick these programs? WHO should be monitoring? donor govenrments? international agencies? hmm. seems like the donors not only then exercise priority over external funding, but then move into the position of also telling countries how to spend their own tax revenues. seems deeply problematic. perhaps one strategy in these situations is to really enable Ministries of Health to better articulate and "sell" the need for larger health budgets to the Finance ministers (who typically have much more power in a government). from my time in London on Friday, it seemed pretty clear that Ministers of Health often do not have the power or economic skill-set to make the argument, but this is some thing that perhaps can be emphasized more. still the ultimate process of internal domestic budget-setting should rest with the developing country governments, not some external financier (though the IMF definitely breaks this rule all the time, unfortunately).
hannah,
great to hear from you! definitely agree with you. the idea of paying community health workers (rather than treating them as volunteers) is clearly articulated in this bill, as an idea to incorporate to obama's larger global health initiative, but the bill also backs this up by allowing, as you say, funds to go directly to salaries. i think we need to reconceive of how donors view "sustainability" to adequately address this issue. health programs, when done well, by nature have a 'sustainable' impact, and these programs require people to run them, who also require a living wage. often, however, 'sustainabilty' of programs is thought of only in short-term financial ways (training, buildings, vaccines), ultimately preventing investments in the long-term salaries of health workers.
|
6 Recruits
|