The political origins of health inequity: Prospects for change

Ole Petter Ottersen, Jashodhara Dasgupta, Chantal Blouin, Paulo Buss, Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong, Julio Frenk, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Bience P. Gawanas, Rita Giacaman, John Gyapong, Jennifer Leaning, Michael Marmot, Desmond McNeill, Gertrude I. Mongella, Nkosana Moyo, Sigrun Møgedal, Ayanda Ntsaluba, Gorik Ooms, Espen Bjertness, Ann Louise LieSuerie Moon, Sidsel Roalkvam, Kristin I. Sandberg, Inger B. Scheel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

239 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite large gains in health over the past few decades, the distribution of health risks worldwide remains extremely and unacceptably uneven. Although the health sector has a crucial role in addressing health inequalities, its efforts often come into conflict with powerful global actors in pursuit of other interests such as protection of national security, safeguarding of sovereignty, or economic goals. This is the starting point of The Lancet-University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health. With globalisation, health inequity increasingly results from transnational activities that involve actors with different interests and degrees of power: states, transnational corporations, civil society, and others. The decisions, policies, and actions of such actors are, in turn, founded on global social norms. Their actions are not designed to harm health, but can have negative side-effects that create health inequities. The norms, policies, and practices that arise from global political interaction across all sectors that affect health are what we call global political determinants of health. The Commission argues that global political determinants that unfavourably affect the health of some groups of people relative to others are unfair, and that at least some harms could be avoided by improving how global governance works. There is an urgent need to understand how public health can be better protected and promoted in the realm of global governance, but this issue is a complex and politically sensitive one. Global governance processes involve the distribution of economic, intellectual, normative, and political resources, and to assess their effect on health requires an analysis of power. This report examines power disparities and dynamics across a range of policy areas that aff ect health and that require improved global governance: economic crises and austerity measures, knowledge and intellectual property, foreign investment treaties, food security, transnational corporate activity, irregular migration, and violent conflict. The case analyses show that in the contemporary global governance landscape, power asymmetries between actors with conflicting interests shape political determinants of health. We identified five dysfunctions of the global governance system that allow adverse eff ects of global political determinants of health to persist. First, participation and representation of some actors, such as civil society, health experts, and marginalised groups, are insufficient in decision-making processes (democratic deficit). Second, inadequate means to constrain power and poor transparency make it difficult to hold actors to account for their actions (weak accountability mechanisms). Third, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures are often impervious to changing needs and can sustain entrenched power disparities, with adverse eff ects on the distribution of health (institutional stickiness). Fourth, inadequate means exist at both national and global levels to protect health in global policy-making arenas outside of the health sector, such that health can be subordinated under other objectives (inadequate policy space for health). Lastly, in a range of policy-making areas, there is a total or near absence of international institutions (eg, treaties, funds, courts, and softer forms of regulation such as norms and guidelines) to protect and promote health (missing or nascent institutions). Recognising that major drivers of ill health lie beyond the control of national governments and, in many instances, also outside of the health sector, we assert that some of the root causes of health inequity must be addressed within global governance processes. For the continued success of the global health system, its initiatives must not be thwarted by political decisions in other arenas. Rather, global governance processes outside the health arena must be made to work better for health. The Commission calls for stronger cross-sectoral global action for health. We propose for consideration a Multistakeholder Platform on Governance for Health, which would serve as a policy forum to provide space for diverse stakeholders to frame issues, set agendas, examine and debate policies in the making that would have an eff ect on health and health equity, and identify barriers and propose solutions for concrete policy processes. Additionally, we call for the independent monitoring of how global governance processes aff ect health equity to be institutionalised through an Independent Scientific Monitoring Panel and mandated health equity impact assessments within international organisations. The Commission also calls for measures to better harness the global political determinants of health. We call for strengthened use of human rights instruments for health, such as the Special Rapporteurs, and stronger sanctions against a broader range of violations by nonstate actors through the international judicial system. We recognise that global governance for health must be rooted in commitments to global solidarity and shared responsibility through rights-based approaches and new frameworks for international financing that go beyond traditional development assistance, such as for research and social protection. We want to send a strong message to the international community and to all actors that exert influence in processes of global governance: we must no longer regard health only as a technical biomedical issue, but acknowledge the need for global cross-sectoral action and justice in our eff orts to address health inequity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)630-667
Number of pages38
JournalThe Lancet
Volume383
Issue number9917
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health
Policy Making
International Cooperation
Economics
Decision Making
Health Impact Assessment
Security Measures
Intellectual Property
Federal Government
Internationality
Food Supply
Social Responsibility
Social Justice
Financial Management
Public Policy
Health Policy
Global Health
Power (Psychology)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Ottersen, O. P., Dasgupta, J., Blouin, C., Buss, P., Chongsuvivatwong, V., Frenk, J., ... Scheel, I. B. (2014). The political origins of health inequity: Prospects for change. The Lancet, 383(9917), 630-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62407-1

The political origins of health inequity : Prospects for change. / Ottersen, Ole Petter; Dasgupta, Jashodhara; Blouin, Chantal; Buss, Paulo; Chongsuvivatwong, Virasakdi; Frenk, Julio; Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko; Gawanas, Bience P.; Giacaman, Rita; Gyapong, John; Leaning, Jennifer; Marmot, Michael; McNeill, Desmond; Mongella, Gertrude I.; Moyo, Nkosana; Møgedal, Sigrun; Ntsaluba, Ayanda; Ooms, Gorik; Bjertness, Espen; Lie, Ann Louise; Moon, Suerie; Roalkvam, Sidsel; Sandberg, Kristin I.; Scheel, Inger B.

In: The Lancet, Vol. 383, No. 9917, 2014, p. 630-667.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ottersen, OP, Dasgupta, J, Blouin, C, Buss, P, Chongsuvivatwong, V, Frenk, J, Fukuda-Parr, S, Gawanas, BP, Giacaman, R, Gyapong, J, Leaning, J, Marmot, M, McNeill, D, Mongella, GI, Moyo, N, Møgedal, S, Ntsaluba, A, Ooms, G, Bjertness, E, Lie, AL, Moon, S, Roalkvam, S, Sandberg, KI & Scheel, IB 2014, 'The political origins of health inequity: Prospects for change', The Lancet, vol. 383, no. 9917, pp. 630-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62407-1
Ottersen OP, Dasgupta J, Blouin C, Buss P, Chongsuvivatwong V, Frenk J et al. The political origins of health inequity: Prospects for change. The Lancet. 2014;383(9917):630-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62407-1
Ottersen, Ole Petter ; Dasgupta, Jashodhara ; Blouin, Chantal ; Buss, Paulo ; Chongsuvivatwong, Virasakdi ; Frenk, Julio ; Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko ; Gawanas, Bience P. ; Giacaman, Rita ; Gyapong, John ; Leaning, Jennifer ; Marmot, Michael ; McNeill, Desmond ; Mongella, Gertrude I. ; Moyo, Nkosana ; Møgedal, Sigrun ; Ntsaluba, Ayanda ; Ooms, Gorik ; Bjertness, Espen ; Lie, Ann Louise ; Moon, Suerie ; Roalkvam, Sidsel ; Sandberg, Kristin I. ; Scheel, Inger B. / The political origins of health inequity : Prospects for change. In: The Lancet. 2014 ; Vol. 383, No. 9917. pp. 630-667.
@article{e35f66c7d45d405d9619a6052027dff2,
title = "The political origins of health inequity: Prospects for change",
abstract = "Despite large gains in health over the past few decades, the distribution of health risks worldwide remains extremely and unacceptably uneven. Although the health sector has a crucial role in addressing health inequalities, its efforts often come into conflict with powerful global actors in pursuit of other interests such as protection of national security, safeguarding of sovereignty, or economic goals. This is the starting point of The Lancet-University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health. With globalisation, health inequity increasingly results from transnational activities that involve actors with different interests and degrees of power: states, transnational corporations, civil society, and others. The decisions, policies, and actions of such actors are, in turn, founded on global social norms. Their actions are not designed to harm health, but can have negative side-effects that create health inequities. The norms, policies, and practices that arise from global political interaction across all sectors that affect health are what we call global political determinants of health. The Commission argues that global political determinants that unfavourably affect the health of some groups of people relative to others are unfair, and that at least some harms could be avoided by improving how global governance works. There is an urgent need to understand how public health can be better protected and promoted in the realm of global governance, but this issue is a complex and politically sensitive one. Global governance processes involve the distribution of economic, intellectual, normative, and political resources, and to assess their effect on health requires an analysis of power. This report examines power disparities and dynamics across a range of policy areas that aff ect health and that require improved global governance: economic crises and austerity measures, knowledge and intellectual property, foreign investment treaties, food security, transnational corporate activity, irregular migration, and violent conflict. The case analyses show that in the contemporary global governance landscape, power asymmetries between actors with conflicting interests shape political determinants of health. We identified five dysfunctions of the global governance system that allow adverse eff ects of global political determinants of health to persist. First, participation and representation of some actors, such as civil society, health experts, and marginalised groups, are insufficient in decision-making processes (democratic deficit). Second, inadequate means to constrain power and poor transparency make it difficult to hold actors to account for their actions (weak accountability mechanisms). Third, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures are often impervious to changing needs and can sustain entrenched power disparities, with adverse eff ects on the distribution of health (institutional stickiness). Fourth, inadequate means exist at both national and global levels to protect health in global policy-making arenas outside of the health sector, such that health can be subordinated under other objectives (inadequate policy space for health). Lastly, in a range of policy-making areas, there is a total or near absence of international institutions (eg, treaties, funds, courts, and softer forms of regulation such as norms and guidelines) to protect and promote health (missing or nascent institutions). Recognising that major drivers of ill health lie beyond the control of national governments and, in many instances, also outside of the health sector, we assert that some of the root causes of health inequity must be addressed within global governance processes. For the continued success of the global health system, its initiatives must not be thwarted by political decisions in other arenas. Rather, global governance processes outside the health arena must be made to work better for health. The Commission calls for stronger cross-sectoral global action for health. We propose for consideration a Multistakeholder Platform on Governance for Health, which would serve as a policy forum to provide space for diverse stakeholders to frame issues, set agendas, examine and debate policies in the making that would have an eff ect on health and health equity, and identify barriers and propose solutions for concrete policy processes. Additionally, we call for the independent monitoring of how global governance processes aff ect health equity to be institutionalised through an Independent Scientific Monitoring Panel and mandated health equity impact assessments within international organisations. The Commission also calls for measures to better harness the global political determinants of health. We call for strengthened use of human rights instruments for health, such as the Special Rapporteurs, and stronger sanctions against a broader range of violations by nonstate actors through the international judicial system. We recognise that global governance for health must be rooted in commitments to global solidarity and shared responsibility through rights-based approaches and new frameworks for international financing that go beyond traditional development assistance, such as for research and social protection. We want to send a strong message to the international community and to all actors that exert influence in processes of global governance: we must no longer regard health only as a technical biomedical issue, but acknowledge the need for global cross-sectoral action and justice in our eff orts to address health inequity.",
author = "Ottersen, {Ole Petter} and Jashodhara Dasgupta and Chantal Blouin and Paulo Buss and Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong and Julio Frenk and Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Gawanas, {Bience P.} and Rita Giacaman and John Gyapong and Jennifer Leaning and Michael Marmot and Desmond McNeill and Mongella, {Gertrude I.} and Nkosana Moyo and Sigrun M{\o}gedal and Ayanda Ntsaluba and Gorik Ooms and Espen Bjertness and Lie, {Ann Louise} and Suerie Moon and Sidsel Roalkvam and Sandberg, {Kristin I.} and Scheel, {Inger B.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62407-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "383",
pages = "630--667",
journal = "The Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "9917",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The political origins of health inequity

T2 - Prospects for change

AU - Ottersen, Ole Petter

AU - Dasgupta, Jashodhara

AU - Blouin, Chantal

AU - Buss, Paulo

AU - Chongsuvivatwong, Virasakdi

AU - Frenk, Julio

AU - Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko

AU - Gawanas, Bience P.

AU - Giacaman, Rita

AU - Gyapong, John

AU - Leaning, Jennifer

AU - Marmot, Michael

AU - McNeill, Desmond

AU - Mongella, Gertrude I.

AU - Moyo, Nkosana

AU - Møgedal, Sigrun

AU - Ntsaluba, Ayanda

AU - Ooms, Gorik

AU - Bjertness, Espen

AU - Lie, Ann Louise

AU - Moon, Suerie

AU - Roalkvam, Sidsel

AU - Sandberg, Kristin I.

AU - Scheel, Inger B.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Despite large gains in health over the past few decades, the distribution of health risks worldwide remains extremely and unacceptably uneven. Although the health sector has a crucial role in addressing health inequalities, its efforts often come into conflict with powerful global actors in pursuit of other interests such as protection of national security, safeguarding of sovereignty, or economic goals. This is the starting point of The Lancet-University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health. With globalisation, health inequity increasingly results from transnational activities that involve actors with different interests and degrees of power: states, transnational corporations, civil society, and others. The decisions, policies, and actions of such actors are, in turn, founded on global social norms. Their actions are not designed to harm health, but can have negative side-effects that create health inequities. The norms, policies, and practices that arise from global political interaction across all sectors that affect health are what we call global political determinants of health. The Commission argues that global political determinants that unfavourably affect the health of some groups of people relative to others are unfair, and that at least some harms could be avoided by improving how global governance works. There is an urgent need to understand how public health can be better protected and promoted in the realm of global governance, but this issue is a complex and politically sensitive one. Global governance processes involve the distribution of economic, intellectual, normative, and political resources, and to assess their effect on health requires an analysis of power. This report examines power disparities and dynamics across a range of policy areas that aff ect health and that require improved global governance: economic crises and austerity measures, knowledge and intellectual property, foreign investment treaties, food security, transnational corporate activity, irregular migration, and violent conflict. The case analyses show that in the contemporary global governance landscape, power asymmetries between actors with conflicting interests shape political determinants of health. We identified five dysfunctions of the global governance system that allow adverse eff ects of global political determinants of health to persist. First, participation and representation of some actors, such as civil society, health experts, and marginalised groups, are insufficient in decision-making processes (democratic deficit). Second, inadequate means to constrain power and poor transparency make it difficult to hold actors to account for their actions (weak accountability mechanisms). Third, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures are often impervious to changing needs and can sustain entrenched power disparities, with adverse eff ects on the distribution of health (institutional stickiness). Fourth, inadequate means exist at both national and global levels to protect health in global policy-making arenas outside of the health sector, such that health can be subordinated under other objectives (inadequate policy space for health). Lastly, in a range of policy-making areas, there is a total or near absence of international institutions (eg, treaties, funds, courts, and softer forms of regulation such as norms and guidelines) to protect and promote health (missing or nascent institutions). Recognising that major drivers of ill health lie beyond the control of national governments and, in many instances, also outside of the health sector, we assert that some of the root causes of health inequity must be addressed within global governance processes. For the continued success of the global health system, its initiatives must not be thwarted by political decisions in other arenas. Rather, global governance processes outside the health arena must be made to work better for health. The Commission calls for stronger cross-sectoral global action for health. We propose for consideration a Multistakeholder Platform on Governance for Health, which would serve as a policy forum to provide space for diverse stakeholders to frame issues, set agendas, examine and debate policies in the making that would have an eff ect on health and health equity, and identify barriers and propose solutions for concrete policy processes. Additionally, we call for the independent monitoring of how global governance processes aff ect health equity to be institutionalised through an Independent Scientific Monitoring Panel and mandated health equity impact assessments within international organisations. The Commission also calls for measures to better harness the global political determinants of health. We call for strengthened use of human rights instruments for health, such as the Special Rapporteurs, and stronger sanctions against a broader range of violations by nonstate actors through the international judicial system. We recognise that global governance for health must be rooted in commitments to global solidarity and shared responsibility through rights-based approaches and new frameworks for international financing that go beyond traditional development assistance, such as for research and social protection. We want to send a strong message to the international community and to all actors that exert influence in processes of global governance: we must no longer regard health only as a technical biomedical issue, but acknowledge the need for global cross-sectoral action and justice in our eff orts to address health inequity.

AB - Despite large gains in health over the past few decades, the distribution of health risks worldwide remains extremely and unacceptably uneven. Although the health sector has a crucial role in addressing health inequalities, its efforts often come into conflict with powerful global actors in pursuit of other interests such as protection of national security, safeguarding of sovereignty, or economic goals. This is the starting point of The Lancet-University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health. With globalisation, health inequity increasingly results from transnational activities that involve actors with different interests and degrees of power: states, transnational corporations, civil society, and others. The decisions, policies, and actions of such actors are, in turn, founded on global social norms. Their actions are not designed to harm health, but can have negative side-effects that create health inequities. The norms, policies, and practices that arise from global political interaction across all sectors that affect health are what we call global political determinants of health. The Commission argues that global political determinants that unfavourably affect the health of some groups of people relative to others are unfair, and that at least some harms could be avoided by improving how global governance works. There is an urgent need to understand how public health can be better protected and promoted in the realm of global governance, but this issue is a complex and politically sensitive one. Global governance processes involve the distribution of economic, intellectual, normative, and political resources, and to assess their effect on health requires an analysis of power. This report examines power disparities and dynamics across a range of policy areas that aff ect health and that require improved global governance: economic crises and austerity measures, knowledge and intellectual property, foreign investment treaties, food security, transnational corporate activity, irregular migration, and violent conflict. The case analyses show that in the contemporary global governance landscape, power asymmetries between actors with conflicting interests shape political determinants of health. We identified five dysfunctions of the global governance system that allow adverse eff ects of global political determinants of health to persist. First, participation and representation of some actors, such as civil society, health experts, and marginalised groups, are insufficient in decision-making processes (democratic deficit). Second, inadequate means to constrain power and poor transparency make it difficult to hold actors to account for their actions (weak accountability mechanisms). Third, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures are often impervious to changing needs and can sustain entrenched power disparities, with adverse eff ects on the distribution of health (institutional stickiness). Fourth, inadequate means exist at both national and global levels to protect health in global policy-making arenas outside of the health sector, such that health can be subordinated under other objectives (inadequate policy space for health). Lastly, in a range of policy-making areas, there is a total or near absence of international institutions (eg, treaties, funds, courts, and softer forms of regulation such as norms and guidelines) to protect and promote health (missing or nascent institutions). Recognising that major drivers of ill health lie beyond the control of national governments and, in many instances, also outside of the health sector, we assert that some of the root causes of health inequity must be addressed within global governance processes. For the continued success of the global health system, its initiatives must not be thwarted by political decisions in other arenas. Rather, global governance processes outside the health arena must be made to work better for health. The Commission calls for stronger cross-sectoral global action for health. We propose for consideration a Multistakeholder Platform on Governance for Health, which would serve as a policy forum to provide space for diverse stakeholders to frame issues, set agendas, examine and debate policies in the making that would have an eff ect on health and health equity, and identify barriers and propose solutions for concrete policy processes. Additionally, we call for the independent monitoring of how global governance processes aff ect health equity to be institutionalised through an Independent Scientific Monitoring Panel and mandated health equity impact assessments within international organisations. The Commission also calls for measures to better harness the global political determinants of health. We call for strengthened use of human rights instruments for health, such as the Special Rapporteurs, and stronger sanctions against a broader range of violations by nonstate actors through the international judicial system. We recognise that global governance for health must be rooted in commitments to global solidarity and shared responsibility through rights-based approaches and new frameworks for international financing that go beyond traditional development assistance, such as for research and social protection. We want to send a strong message to the international community and to all actors that exert influence in processes of global governance: we must no longer regard health only as a technical biomedical issue, but acknowledge the need for global cross-sectoral action and justice in our eff orts to address health inequity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893823818&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893823818&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62407-1

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62407-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 24524782

AN - SCOPUS:84893823818

VL - 383

SP - 630

EP - 667

JO - The Lancet

JF - The Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 9917

ER -