Volume 5 - Issue 5 by Lori Mcdougall
Background
Advocacy coalitions play an increasingly prominent role within the global health land... more Background
Advocacy coalitions play an increasingly prominent role within the global health landscape, linking actors and institutions to attract political attention and resources. This paper examines how coalitions negotiate among themselves and exercise hidden forms of power to produce policy on the basis of their beliefs and strategic interests.
Methods
This paper examines the beliefs and behaviours of health advocacy coalitions using Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as an informal theoretical lens. Coalitions are further explored in relation to the concept of transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink) and of productive power (Shiffman). The ACF focuses on explaining how policy change takes place when there is conflict concerning goals and technical approaches among different actors. This study uses participant observation methods, self-reported survey results and semistructured qualitative interviews to trace how a major policy project of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) era, the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, was constructed through negotiations among maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) advocacy coalitions.
Results
The Global Strategy represented a new opportunity for high-level political attention. Despite differing policy beliefs, MNCH and SRHR actors collaborated to produce this strategy because of anticipated gains in political attention. While core beliefs did not shift fundamentally and collaboration was primarily a short-term tactical response to a time-bound opportunity, MNCH actors began to focus more on human rights perspectives and SRHR actors adopted greater use of quantifiable indicators and economic argumentation. This shift emphasises the inherent importance of SRHR to maternal and child health survival.
Conclusion
As opportunities arise, coalitions respond based on principles and policy beliefs, as well as to perceptions of advantage. Global health policy-making is an arena of contested interests, power and ideas, shaped by the interaction of coalitions. Although policy-making is often seen as a process that should be guided by evidence rather than interest-based politics, this study concludes that a participatory process of debate among different actorcoalitions is vital to progress and can lend greater legitimacy, accountability and transparency to the policy process.
Papers by Lori Mcdougall
The Lancet, 2016
Efforts to achieve the new worldwide goals for maternal and child survival will also prevent stil... more Efforts to achieve the new worldwide goals for maternal and child survival will also prevent stillbirth and improve health and developmental outcomes. However, the number of annual stillbirths remains unchanged since 2011 and is unacceptably high: an estimated 2·6 million in 2015. Failure to consistently include global targets or indicators for stillbirth in post-2015 initiatives shows that stillbirths are hidden in the worldwide agenda. This Series paper summarises findings from previous papers in this Series, presents new analyses, and proposes specific criteria for successful integration of stillbirths into post-2015 initiatives for women's and children's health. Five priority areas to change the stillbirth trend include intentional leadership; increased voice, especially of women; implementation of integrated interventions with commensurate investment; indicators to measure effect of interventions and especially to monitor progress; and investigation into crucial knowledge gaps. The post-2015 agenda represents opportunities for all stakeholders to act together to end all preventable deaths, including stillbirths.
The Lancet, 2014
Remarkable progress has been made towards halving of maternal deaths and deaths of children aged ... more Remarkable progress has been made towards halving of maternal deaths and deaths of children aged 1-59 months, although the task is incomplete. Newborn deaths and stillbirths were largely invisible in the Millennium Development Goals, and have continued to fall between maternal and child health efforts, with much slower reduction. This Series and the Every Newborn Action Plan outline mortality goals for newborn babies (ten or fewer per 1000 livebirths) and stillbirths (ten or fewer per 1000 total births) by 2035, aligning with A Promise Renewed target for children and the vision of Every Woman Every Child. To focus political attention and improve performance, goals for newborn babies and stillbirths must be recognised in the post-2015 framework, with corresponding accountability mechanisms. The four previous papers in this Every Newborn Series show the potential for a triple return on investment around the time of birth: averting maternal and newborn deaths and preventing stillbirths. Beyond survival, being counted and optimum nutrition and development is a human right for all children, including those with disabilities. Improved human capital brings economic productivity. Efforts to reach every woman and every newborn baby, close gaps in coverage, and improve equity and quality for antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care, especially in the poorest countries and for underserved populations, need urgent attention. We have prioritised what needs to be done differently on the basis of learning from the past decade about what has worked, and what has not. Needed now are four most important shifts: (1) intensification of political attention and leadership; (2) promotion of parent voice, supporting women, families, and communities to speak up for their newborn babies and to challenge social norms that accept these deaths as inevitable; (3) investment for effect on mortality outcome as well as harmonisation of funding; (4) implementation at scale, with particular attention to increasing of health worker numbers and skills with attention to high-quality childbirth care for newborn babies as well as mothers and children; and (5) evaluation, tracking coverage of priority interventions and packages of care with clear accountability to accelerate progress and reach the poorest groups. The Every Newborn Action Plan provides an evidence-based roadmap towards care for every woman, and a healthy start for every newborn baby, with a right to be counted, survive, and thrive wherever they are born.
Reproductive Health, 2013
Urgent action is needed to address preterm birth given that the fi rst country-level estimates sh... more Urgent action is needed to address preterm birth given that the fi rst country-level estimates show that globally 15 million babies are born too soon and rates are increasing in most countries with reliable time trend data. As the fi rst in a supplement entitled “Born Too Soon”, this paper focuses on the global policy context. Preterm birth is critical for progress on Millennium Development Goal 4 (MDG) for child survival by 2015 and beyond, and gives added value to maternal health (MDG 5) investments also linking to non-communicable diseases. For preterm babies who survive, the additional burden of prematurity-related disability may aff ect families and health systems. Prematurity is an explicit priority in many high-income settings; however, more attention is needed especially in low- and middle-income countries where the invisibility of preterm birth as well as its myths and misconceptions have slowed action on prevention and care. Recent global attention to preterm birth hit a tipping point in 2012, with the May 2 publication of Born Too Soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth and with the 2nd annual World Prematurity Day on November 17 which mobilised the actions of partners in many countries to address preterm birth and newborn health. Interventions to strengthen preterm birth prevention and care span the continuum of care for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health. Both prevention of preterm birth and implementation of care of premature babies require more research, as well as more policy attention and programmatic investment.
Reproductive Health, 2013
Uploads
Volume 5 - Issue 5 by Lori Mcdougall
Advocacy coalitions play an increasingly prominent role within the global health landscape, linking actors and institutions to attract political attention and resources. This paper examines how coalitions negotiate among themselves and exercise hidden forms of power to produce policy on the basis of their beliefs and strategic interests.
Methods
This paper examines the beliefs and behaviours of health advocacy coalitions using Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as an informal theoretical lens. Coalitions are further explored in relation to the concept of transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink) and of productive power (Shiffman). The ACF focuses on explaining how policy change takes place when there is conflict concerning goals and technical approaches among different actors. This study uses participant observation methods, self-reported survey results and semistructured qualitative interviews to trace how a major policy project of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) era, the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, was constructed through negotiations among maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) advocacy coalitions.
Results
The Global Strategy represented a new opportunity for high-level political attention. Despite differing policy beliefs, MNCH and SRHR actors collaborated to produce this strategy because of anticipated gains in political attention. While core beliefs did not shift fundamentally and collaboration was primarily a short-term tactical response to a time-bound opportunity, MNCH actors began to focus more on human rights perspectives and SRHR actors adopted greater use of quantifiable indicators and economic argumentation. This shift emphasises the inherent importance of SRHR to maternal and child health survival.
Conclusion
As opportunities arise, coalitions respond based on principles and policy beliefs, as well as to perceptions of advantage. Global health policy-making is an arena of contested interests, power and ideas, shaped by the interaction of coalitions. Although policy-making is often seen as a process that should be guided by evidence rather than interest-based politics, this study concludes that a participatory process of debate among different actorcoalitions is vital to progress and can lend greater legitimacy, accountability and transparency to the policy process.
Papers by Lori Mcdougall
Advocacy coalitions play an increasingly prominent role within the global health landscape, linking actors and institutions to attract political attention and resources. This paper examines how coalitions negotiate among themselves and exercise hidden forms of power to produce policy on the basis of their beliefs and strategic interests.
Methods
This paper examines the beliefs and behaviours of health advocacy coalitions using Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as an informal theoretical lens. Coalitions are further explored in relation to the concept of transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink) and of productive power (Shiffman). The ACF focuses on explaining how policy change takes place when there is conflict concerning goals and technical approaches among different actors. This study uses participant observation methods, self-reported survey results and semistructured qualitative interviews to trace how a major policy project of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) era, the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, was constructed through negotiations among maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) advocacy coalitions.
Results
The Global Strategy represented a new opportunity for high-level political attention. Despite differing policy beliefs, MNCH and SRHR actors collaborated to produce this strategy because of anticipated gains in political attention. While core beliefs did not shift fundamentally and collaboration was primarily a short-term tactical response to a time-bound opportunity, MNCH actors began to focus more on human rights perspectives and SRHR actors adopted greater use of quantifiable indicators and economic argumentation. This shift emphasises the inherent importance of SRHR to maternal and child health survival.
Conclusion
As opportunities arise, coalitions respond based on principles and policy beliefs, as well as to perceptions of advantage. Global health policy-making is an arena of contested interests, power and ideas, shaped by the interaction of coalitions. Although policy-making is often seen as a process that should be guided by evidence rather than interest-based politics, this study concludes that a participatory process of debate among different actorcoalitions is vital to progress and can lend greater legitimacy, accountability and transparency to the policy process.