The grand impact of the Gates Foundation

James A. Baker III Institute of Public Policy, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA.
EMBO Reports (Impact Factor: 9.06). 06/2008; 9(5):409-12. DOI: 10.1038/embor.2008.52
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Vivian Ho, Jan 23, 2014
  • Source
    • "Finally, the foundation could hope to mobilize external resources, too: for example, grant seekers' investments in the application process, cofunding , or continuation of the project in the post-funding phase. With a view to the broader consequences of the foundation's financial engagement (i.e. of its positive sanctions), studies on the general spending pattern of the Gates Foundation in the field of health suggest inter alia that the foundation has been able to set its own priorities and to create leverage in the sense that it was able to make public funding follow in the wake of its own 'investments' (Matthews and Ho, 2008; see also McCoy et al., 2009). Adding to the insights of these studies, an analysis of a concrete 'decisionmaking' process that allowed the foundation to shape global malaria policy in a pathbreaking manner highlights that the foundation's power was not only based on positive sanctions (coercion). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article investigates the rationale that informs the global engagement of private foundations and addresses the question of to what extent and in what way they have the power to (autonomously) shape global social and health policy in line with their convictions even when others disagree or could be expected to disagree. Following a conceptual discussion of power and taking malaria policy as the basis of a historical comparison between the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gates Foundation, the article shows that private foundations are impressively successful in promoting their vision of social and health problems while downplaying potential conflicts and passing over alternatives to their policy prescriptions. Moreover, the foundations can draw on their status as private actors in order to assert autonomy for their own actions even though their ultimate goal is to affect the policies of others – those of the public sector in particular. While the foundations’ power is originally based on their monetary resources that often serve as leverage for the mobilization of external resources, their funding of research and interventions helps them in the long run to even develop authority in their field of engagement. With a view to malaria policy it is noteworthy that both foundations analysed were successful in shaping policy in line with their convictions but limited their take on the malaria problem to ‘safe issues’ and marginalized other perspectives. In particular, they promoted a biomedical rather than a social understanding of health problems, they preferred time-limited investments over sustained spending, and they favoured solutions that promised readily recognizable results. Both foundations brought this biomedical-managerial frame to its logical end when they developed a preoccupation with malaria eradication and shaped global policies accordingly while others pointed at the less obvious dangers and problems of this seemingly persuasive approach.
    Global Social Policy 04/2014; 14(1):91-116. DOI:10.1177/1468018113515978
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Debates about justice in international clinical research problematically conflate two quite different forms of obligation. International research ethics guidelines were intended to describe how to conduct biomedical research in a just manner at the micro or clinical level (within the researcher-participant interaction) but have come to include requirements that are clearly intended to promote justice at the global level. Ethicists have also made a variety of claims regarding what international research should contribute to global justice. This paper argues that the conflation of debates about justice at the micro and macro-levels has not only resulted in the placement of obligations upon the wrong actors but has also served to exclude relevant actors from the ethical picture. Suggestions for who should properly bear macro-level obligations of justice in international clinical research are offered. The paper further contends that, unlike researchers who violate informed consent requirements, no similar type of accountability exists for obligations of global justice, even for those obligation-bearers (incorrectly) identified by current ethics guidelines.
    Developing World Bioethics 11/2010; 11(2):75-81. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2010.00296.x · 2.05 Impact Factor