Search

The Fourth Global Symposium on Health Systems Research was themed around 'Resilient and responsive health systems for a changing world.' This commentary is the outcome of a panel discussion at the symposium in which the resilience discourse and its use in health systems development was critically interrogated. The 2014-15 Ebola outbreak in West-Africa added momentum for the wider adoption of resilient health systems as a crucial element to prepare for and effectively respond to crisis. The growing salience of resilience in development and health systems debates can be attributed in part to development actors and philanthropies such as the Rockefeller Foundation. Three concerns regarding the application of resilience to health systems development are discussed: (1) the resilience narrative overrules certain democratic procedures and priority setting in public health agendas by 'claiming' an exceptional policy space; (2) resilience compels accepting and maintaining the status quo and excludes alternative imaginations of just and equitable health systems including the socio-political struggles required to attain those; and (3) an empirical case study from Gaza makes the case that resilience and vulnerability are symbiotic with each other rather than providing a solution for developing a strong health system. In conclusion, if the normative aim of health policies is to build sustainable, universally accessible, health systems then resilience is not the answer. The current threats that health systems face demand us to imagine beyond and explore possibilities for global solidarity and justice in health. [Abstract copyright: © The Author 2017; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.]

Global health initiatives (GHIs) have gained prominence as innovative and effective policy mechanisms to tackle global health priorities. More recent literature reveals governance-related challenges and their unintended health system effects. Much less attention is received by the relationship between these mechanisms, the ideas that underpin them and the country-level practices they generate. The Global Fund has leveraged significant funding and taken a lead in harmonizing disparate efforts to control HIV/AIDS. Its growing influence in recipient countries makes it a useful case to examine this relationship and evaluate the extent to which the dominant public discourse on Global Fund departs from the hidden resistances and conflicts in its operation. Drawing on insights from ethnographic fieldwork and 70 interviews with multiple stakeholders, this article aims to better understand and reveal the public and the hidden transcript of the Global Fund and its activities in India. We argue that while its public transcript abdicates its role in country-level operations, a critical ethnographic examination of the organization and governance of the Fund in India reveals a contrasting scenario. Its organizing principles prompt diverse actors with conflicting agendas to come together in response to the availability of funds. Multiple and discrete projects emerge, each leveraging control and resources and acting as conduits of power. We examine how management of HIV is punctuated with conflicts of power and interests in a competitive environment set off by the Fund protocol and discuss its system-wide effects. The findings also underscore the need for similar ethnographic research on the financing and policy-making architecture of GHIs.