Kontekstiks:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) is among the most important of all international institutions, and its performance attracts much commentary, especially during health crises such as the ongoing COVID19 pandemic or the 2014–16 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa, when WHO was accused of costly failures. Although close attention to its performance is to be expected, it is nonetheless striking how frequently analysts advocate for reform.” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 1)

Autorid lubavad:

“In this paper we present the results of our inquiry based on a systematic survey of literature on WHO performance and reform. We employ a framework for analysis that we developed for this purpose based on organizational theory and performance literatures from five disciplines: economics, sociology, political science, management, and psychology.” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 2)

WHO osalistering ja kõrge eesmärk:

“As of March 2022, 194 nations are WHO members (World Health Organization, 2022a), supporting its objective—“the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health“ (World Health Organization, 1946).” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 2)

WHO sisesed kontrollimehhanismid:

“WHO has several institutional processes to self-assess and advance reforms. It carries out thematic, programmatic and office-specific evaluations through its Evaluation Office (World Health Organization, 2019).” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 2)

Hinnangud …

“When we surveyed academic articles, we found they almost never specified any basis for judging WHO, how improvements would be measured, or the detailed logic of how proposals would change WHO’s performance.” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 3)

Andmeallikad:

“For our systematic review of global health literature related to WHO’s performance, reform, or governance we used Pubmed, Google Scholar, Academic Search Premiere, and EBSCO Global Health. (Search conducted in November 2018.)” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 3)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“We find that despite its substantial gaps, the literature offers some tentative suggestions for further investigation, although in none of the categories we defined was there general positive agreement. WHO’s goals and strategies were unclear and in dispute. Its legitimacy and governance were found lacking. Its authority and relationships appeared to be weak and susceptible to non-democratic interference. The structure and performance of WHO seemed to be antagonistic to its mission and its workforce appeared to be overly specialized and inadequately adaptable.” (Moser and Bump, 2022, p. 9)

Moser, F., & Bump, J. B. (2022). Assessing the World Health Organization: What does the academic debate reveal and is it democratic? Social Science & Medicine314, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115456