Foreign direct investment and trade in health services: A review of the literature
Globalization is a key challenge facing health policy-makers. A significant aspect of this is direct trade in health services, a result of the rise of transnational corporations, challenges in health care financing, porous borders and improved technology creating the scope for increased 'foreign direct investment' (FDI) in health care. This has gathered momentum with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which aims to further liberalize trade in services, and within which FDI has been noted as perhaps the most critical area for trade negotiation. Given the rapid development of this area, there are little empirical data. This paper therefore seeks to provide the first comprehensive and systematic review of evidence concerning FDI and health services. This process included electronic bibliographic database searches, website searches and correspondence with experts in the area of trade in health services, from which 76 papers, books and reports were reviewed. Perhaps due to the rapid developments in this area, most of the literature is speculative, polarized between those arguing for the benefits of liberalization and those arguing against. However, there seem to be three issues which emerge as of most importance: (i) the extent to which a national health system is commercialized per se is of more significance than whether investment in it is foreign or domestic; (ii) the national regulatory environment and its 'strength' will significantly determine the economic and health impact of FDI, the effectiveness of safeguard measures, and the stability of GATS commitments; and (iii) any negotiations will depend upon parties having a common understanding of what is being negotiated, and the interpretation of key definitions is thus critical. Each of these issues is explored in some depth, with the overall conclusion that countries should take a step back and first think through the risks and benefits of commercialization of their health sector, rather than being sidetracked in to considering the level of foreign investment.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 59 (2004)
Issue (Month): 11 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:11:p:2313-2323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.