Kedar, thanks for linking to the KFF report.
What is interesting is that there is essentially a 50-50 split between the two engines of US GPH funding disbursement - the state department which is interested in GPH as a foreign policy tool, and the "development-oriented" entities like USAID. I wonder if this mix has changed over time (I imagine more has shifted into state dept over time) and what has driven this shift (rise of Anti - american terrorism and understanding that destabilized countries from famine, poverty, health inequity could be addressed through gph funding).
Also most money goes through bilateral channels. Wonder if this will change in Obama's new vision of multilateral global cooperation and what impact that will have on reprioritization of GPH issues.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I doubt very much that we will switch to more multilateral aid. The nature of development assistance for most wealthy countries is to focus their portfolios on bilateral assistance (which we can set priorities for) rather than paying into a fund (eg the GFATM)
ReplyDelete