I welcome the counter-arguments on this, but I think the writer makes a fair point around protecting current institutions and systems which are weakening due to political changes / pressure / defunding. It isn’t ideal when countries withdraw funding from the WHO; and arguably if institution X was less reliant on funding from nation states, it would also be likely less beholden to them politically. More beholden to philanthropists, so here comes the private actors Vs. states as funders debate again, which I’m not going to put forward a solution to now as much as say “it’s an debate alright”.
These institutions aren’t perfect by any means—the masks debacle by the WHO being a case in point—but a question is if it didn’t exist as a mechanism for near—and long-term health protection, would we suggest it should be founded? Answer is likely yes; so if they are underresourced, why not consider funding.
More controversial perspective: the message going round now is “we have lots of money, we just want to keep the bar high for what we do with it; ergo be ambitious”. So I think it’s fair enough to say “maybe making sure health protection / poverty alleviation systems to keep the world going in the right direction are fit for increased funding in the absence of these more ambitious and fitting ideas being put forward”…
I guess I’m saying what’s the appropriate default? Very high bar for innovative long-term ideas seems reasonable because this is an emerging field with high uncertainty. But lower bar for ways in which the world is on fire now, and where important institutions could get worse / lead to worse outcomes if defunding / underfunding continues?
I welcome the counter-arguments on this, but I think the writer makes a fair point around protecting current institutions and systems which are weakening due to political changes / pressure / defunding. It isn’t ideal when countries withdraw funding from the WHO; and arguably if institution X was less reliant on funding from nation states, it would also be likely less beholden to them politically. More beholden to philanthropists, so here comes the private actors Vs. states as funders debate again, which I’m not going to put forward a solution to now as much as say “it’s an debate alright”.
These institutions aren’t perfect by any means—the masks debacle by the WHO being a case in point—but a question is if it didn’t exist as a mechanism for near—and long-term health protection, would we suggest it should be founded? Answer is likely yes; so if they are underresourced, why not consider funding.
More controversial perspective: the message going round now is “we have lots of money, we just want to keep the bar high for what we do with it; ergo be ambitious”. So I think it’s fair enough to say “maybe making sure health protection / poverty alleviation systems to keep the world going in the right direction are fit for increased funding in the absence of these more ambitious and fitting ideas being put forward”…
I guess I’m saying what’s the appropriate default? Very high bar for innovative long-term ideas seems reasonable because this is an emerging field with high uncertainty. But lower bar for ways in which the world is on fire now, and where important institutions could get worse / lead to worse outcomes if defunding / underfunding continues?