IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v12y2017i02p223-244_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development assistance for health: what criteria do multi- and bilateral funders use?

Author

Listed:
  • Ottersen, Trygve
  • Kamath, Aparna
  • Moon, Suerie
  • Martinsen, Lene
  • Røttingen, John-Arne

Abstract

After years of unprecedented growth in development assistance for health (DAH), the system is challenged on several fronts: by the economic downturn and stagnation of DAH, by the epidemiological transition and increase in non-communicable diseases, and by the economic transition and rise of the middle-income countries. This raises questions about which countries should receive DAH and how much, and, fundamentally, what criteria that promote fair and effective allocation. Yet, no broad comparative assessment exists of the criteria used today. We reviewed the allocation criteria stated by five multilateral and nine bilateral funders of DAH. We found that several funders had only limited information about concrete criteria publicly available. Moreover, many funders not devoted to health lacked specific criteria for DAH or criteria directly related to health, and no funder had criteria directly related to inequality. National income per capita was emphasised by many funders, but the associated eligibility thresholds varied considerably. These findings and the broad overview of criteria can assist funders in critically examining and revising the criteria they use, and inform the wider debate about what the optimal criteria are.

Suggested Citation

  • Ottersen, Trygve & Kamath, Aparna & Moon, Suerie & Martinsen, Lene & Røttingen, John-Arne, 2017. "Development assistance for health: what criteria do multi- and bilateral funders use?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 223-244, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:12:y:2017:i:02:p:223-244_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133116000475/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Josephine Borghi & Garrett W. Brown, 2022. "Taking Systems Thinking to the Global Level: Using the WHO Building Blocks to Describe and Appraise the Global Health System in Relation to COVID‐19," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(2), pages 193-207, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:12:y:2017:i:02:p:223-244_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.