Maternal health development programs: comparing priorities of bilateral and private donors

BMC International Health and Human Rights

Achim Lang²  Cécile Deleye¹ 

[1] SEEK Development, Greifswalder Str. 33A, Berlin, 10405, Germany;Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, 78457, Germany

关键词: Foundations;    Corporations;    Development projects;    Donors;    Maternal health;   

Others  :  1103249
DOI  :  10.1186/s12914-014-0031-x

 received in 2014-05-26, accepted in 2014-10-23,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The face of international aid for health and development is changing. Private donors such as foundations and corporations are playing an increasingly important role, working in international development as direct operators or in partnerships with governments. This study compares maternal health programs of new development actors to traditional governmental donors. It aims to investigate what maternal health programs large governmental donors, foundations and corporate donors are conducting, and how and why they differ.

Methods

A total of 263 projects were identified and analyzed. We focus on nine categories of maternal health programs: family planning services, focus on specific diseases, focus on capacity building, use of information and communication technology (ICT), support of research initiatives, cooperation with local non-state or state partners and cooperation with non-local non-state or state partners. Data analysis was carried out using Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models (GLMER).

Results

Maternal health policies of public and private donors differ with regard to strategic approaches, as can be seen in their diverging positions regarding disease focus, family planning services, capacity building, and partner choice. Bilateral donors can be characterized as focusing on family planning services, specific diseases and capacity-building while disregarding research and ICT. Bilateral donors cooperate with local public authorities and with governments and NGOs from other developed countries. In contrast, corporations focus their donor activities on specific diseases, capacity-building and ICT while disregarding family planning services and research. Corporations cooperate with local and in particular with non-local non-state actors. Foundations can be characterized as focusing on family planning services and research, while disregarding specific diseases, capacity-building and ICT. Foundations cooperate less than other donors; but when they do, they cooperate in particular with non-state actors, local as well as non-local.

Conclusions

These findings should help developing coordination mechanisms that embrace the differences and similarities of the different types of donors. As donor groups specialize in different contexts, NGOs and governments working on development and health aid may target donors groups that have specialized in certain issues.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Deleye and Lang; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Anheier HK, Daly S: Philanthropic foundations: a new global force? In Global Civil Society 2004/5. Edited by Glasius M, Kaldor M, Anheier HK. SAGE Publications, London; 2004:158-176.
• [2]Sridhar D: Seven challenges in international development assistance for health and ways forward. J Law Med Ethics 2010, 38:459-469.
• [3]Sridhar D, Batniji R: Misfinancing global health: a case for transparency in disbursements and decision making. Lancet 2008, 372:1185-1191.
• [4]Glassman A, Chalkidou K: Priority-setting in Health: Building Institutions for Smarter Public Spending. Center for Global Development, Washington, DC; 2012.
• [5]McCoy D, Kinyua K: Allocating scarce resources strategically-an evaluation and discussion of the global fund's pattern of disbursements. PLoS One 2012, 7:e34749.
• [6]Marten R, Witte JM: Transforming Development?: The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in International Development Cooperation. Global public policy institute (GPPI), Berlin; 2008.
• [7]Cohen J: The new world of global health. Science 2006, 311:162-162.
• [8]Kharas H: The new reality of aid. In Global Development 20: Can Philanthropists, the Public, and the Poor Make Poverty History?. Edited by Brainard L, Chollet D. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC; 2007:53-73.
• [9][[http://www.who.int/topics/maternal_health/en/]] webcite World Health Organization (WHO): Maternal Health
• [10]Maternal Mortality. Fact sheet N°348. WHO, Geneva; 2012.
• [11]Shiffman J: Generating political priority for maternal mortality reduction in 5 developing countries. Am J Public Health 2007, 97:796-803.
• [12]Goodburn E, Campbell O: Reducing maternal mortality in the developing world: sector-wide approaches may be the key. Br Med J 2001, 322:917.
• [13]U.S. Maternal Health Donors: A Landscape Analysis. GHV, New York; 2011.
• [14]Dugay C: Assessing Private Sector Support of Global Health. Devex, New York; 2013.
• [15]PSI Impact – Report on Global Giving. PSI, Washington, DC; 2013.
• [16]PMNCH Member Database. WHO PMNCH, Geneva; 2013.
• [17]Dayaratna V, Winfrey W, McGreevey W, Hardee K, Smith J, Mumford E, Sine J, Berg R: Reproductive Health Interventions: Which Ones Work and What Do They Cost?. POLICY Project, Washington, DC; 2000.
• [18][[http://aiddata.org/]] webcite AidData: Data Search [Online]
• [19]Fleischman J, Moore A: International Family Planning: A Common-Ground Approach to an Expanded US Role. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC; 2009.
• [20]Nguyen PH, Budiharsana MP: Receiving voluntary family planning services has no relationship with the paradoxical situation of high use of contraceptives and abortion in Vietnam: a cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health 2012, 12:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Whyte A: Landscape Analysis of Donor Trends in International Development. The Rockefeller Foundation, New York; 2004.
• [22]De Watteville A, Gilbert L: Advanced Information and Communication Technology. Heinemann Educational, London; 2000.
• [23]Lang A, Mertes A: E-Health policy and deployment activities in Europe. Telemed J E Health 2011, 17:262-268.
• [24]Lang A: Government capacities and stakeholders: what facilitates ehealth legislation? Global Health 2014, 10:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Pinheiro J, Bates D: Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York; 2000.
• [26][[http://www.mchip.net/Maternal%20Health]] webcite USAID: Maternal Health
• [27]Foundation N: Annual report 2010: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development, Basel; 2010.
• [28]Hecht R, Shah R: Recent trends and innovations. In Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. Edited by Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M, Evans DB, Jha P, Mills A, Musgrove P. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank Group, Washington, DC; 2006:243-257.
• [29]Chervalier B, Zimet J: American Philanthropic Foundations: Emerging Actors of Globalization and Pillars of the Transatlantic Dialog. Agence Française de Développement, Paris; 2006.
• [30]Büthe T, Major S: The politics of private foreign aid: humanitarian principles, economic development objectives, and organizational interests in NGO private aid allocation. Int Organ 2012, 66:571-607.
• [31]Chansa C, Sundewall J, McIntyre D, Tomson G, Forsberg BC: Exploring SWAp's contribution to the efficient allocation and use of resources in the health sector in Zambia. Health Policy Plan 2008, 23:244-251.
• [32]Midhet F, Becker S: Impact of community-based interventions on maternal and neonatal health indicators: Results from a community randomized trial in rural Balochistan, Pakistan. Reprod Health 2010, 7:1-31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Van de Maele N, Evans DB, Tan-Torres T: Development assistance for health in Africa: are we telling the right story? Bull World Health Organ 2013, 91:483-490.
• [34]Shiffman J: Has donor prioritization of HIV/AIDS displaced aid for other health issues? Health Policy Plan 2008, 23:95-100.
• [35]Powell-Jackson T, Borghi J, Mueller DH, Patouillard E, Mills A: Countdown to 2015: tracking donor assistance to maternal, newborn, and child health. Lancet 2006, 368:1077-1087.
• [36]Levine R: USAIDs Track Record in Family Planning. Center for Global Development, Washington, DC; 2007.
• [37]Lapham N, Livermore R: Striking a balance: Ensuring conservation’s place on the international biodiversity assistance agenda. Conservation International Center for Applied Biodiversity Science & Center for Conservation and Government, Washington, DC; 2003.
• [38]Giffen J, Judge R: Civil Society Policy and Practice in Donor Agencies. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, Birmingham; 2010.
• [39]Lahiri A, Pal J: ICTD in corporate social responsibility: changing priorities in international development funding. Second Annual Annual Workshop of the AIS Special Interest Group for ICT in Global Development; Phoenix, USA 2009.
• [40]McCoy D, Chand S, Sridhar D: Global health funding: how much, where it comes from and where it goes. Health Policy Plan 2009, 24:407-417.
• [41]Pratt B, Hailey J, Gallo M, Shadwick R, Hayman R: Understanding Private Donors in International Development. International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), Oxford; 2012.