False Distinctions Between International Health and Global Health

Globe graphic
Image credit
iStock

Over the past 2 decades, the growth in popularity of the term “global health” has been accompanied by various efforts to distinguish it from “international health.” As a result, many misconceptions about the meaning of both terms have cropped up. In particular, fundamental attributes long espoused in international health, such as a focus on health equity and multi-disciplinary approaches, have been claimed by some to be the new and exclusive purview of global health (see this discussion in The Lancet). Whereas the term global health may signal a change in emphasis toward issues that affect everyone around the world, health programs and initiatives using both terms still address health concerns from local to national, international and global levels.

International Health has always had a multidisciplinary, health-equity focus.
In 1978, WHO and UNICEF jointly sponsored the International Conference on Primary Health Care in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, with 134 countries and 67 international organizations represented. Before global health ever gained currency as a term, the conference issued the Alma Ata Declaration, widely recognized as one of the major milestones of public health in the 20th century. The declaration called for “Health for All,” recognizing universal approaches and the importance of factors beyond the health sector in overcoming, among other things, the health inequities existing both within and between countries:

  • “The Conference strongly reaffirms that health…is a fundamental human right and that the attainment of the highest possible level of health is a most important world-wide social goal whose realization requires the action of many other social and economic sectors in addition to the health sector.”
  • “The existing gross inequality in the health status of the people, particularly between developed and developing countries as well as within countries, is politically, socially, and economically unacceptable and is, therefore, of common concern to all countries.”

 

Transnational cooperation has always been a component of international health. International Health has never defined itself as bilateral aid between nations, although proponents of a distinct term for global health have tried to label it as such. The term international health first came into use in the 19th century. A series of 14 International Sanitary Conferences were held to develop cooperative approaches to epidemic control across and within national borders. In 1903, the 11th such conference called for the creation of an “International health office.” Ultimately, these conferences proved instrumental in the founding of the WHO, which led, among other initiatives, to an international effort to eradicate smallpox. The eradication of smallpox in 1980 relied on an extraordinary collaboration of countries, and, according to former WHO Director-General Margaret Chan, “[it] shows the power of international health cooperation to do great and lasting good.”

International health has also always been linked with nongovernmental action, focusing on locally developed, sustainable solutions. For example, the International Health Commission at the Rockefeller Foundation, founded in 1913, worked in over 80 countries to help combat specific diseases, with a strategy based on building local institutions and strengthening sustainable public health networks, with both government and non-governmental actors.

Bilateral health assistance between governments has been and continues to be part of the world’s health architecture, whether it’s called global or international health. A major component of bilateral aid, however, is actually military aid and has little to do with good health.

Ultimately, neither International Health nor Global Health is an entirely accurate term. But it is important not to create or perpetuate false distinctions between the 2 that do not exist.

In 1961, the Department of International Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which I now chair, created the first academic program in this field. It began with a focus on equity, social justice, and ambitions of overcoming nationalism, socioeconomic disparities, and other barriers to health, while promoting international organizations—specifically working with WHO. The approach involved building local capabilities and organizations in collaborative and multi-disciplinary approaches, and training people to be able to work in diverse settings around the world. You can read more about the Department and why we decided to keep our name as Department International Health here.

 

David Peters, MD, DrPH, MPH is the Edgar Berman Chair and Professor of the Department of International Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Director of the Johns Hopkins Alliance for a Healthier World.

Join the thousands of subscribers who rely on Global Health NOW summaries and exclusive articles for the latest public health news. Sign up for our free weekday enewsletter, and please share the link with friends and colleagues: http://www.globalhealthnow.org/subscribe.html

Secondary Topic
Comments +

7 comments

Ulrich R. Laas…
November 3, 2017

Although I agree with David in principle I think both terms have a wide overlap but not a complete one. Whereas International Health is historically related to a legal dimension - international law - it carries this accent in spite of a multitude of additional fields of action until today. On the other hand Global Health in my understanding rather emerged from the engagement of civil organisations with focus on a more general understanding of global population health. However, I am strongly convinced that this debate of terminological fine tuning (a third proposal was planetary health) is less important than evidence-based and effective action in the field.

Alain Blaise
November 7, 2017

Thank you for your clarification, that would help.

Mathew George
November 10, 2017

Isn't it true with concepts like 'Health Systems' as it is used now in LMICs imply only health care systems, which originally had a much wider focus. This is true with other concepts in public health as well, for instance primary health care in several circles are mistakenly equated as primary level care.

Dean Shuey
November 12, 2017

Thank you. In my opinion, the constant renaming of things, whether it be ligaments in the groin or health initiatives, serves little purpose other than generating banners, logos, meetings and confusion, e.g. the switch from PHC to UHC.

Susan adong
December 20, 2017

Let's just eliminate diseases which afflict people unnecessarily whether through international health or global health

Arinze Awiligwe
February 1, 2018

I think the emergence of the term global Health was ultimately inevitable considering not only the rapidly increasing complexities of health issues we face today, but also the growing articulation of several facets to the much needed interventions. Public health, population health, International Health or Global Health, nothing really has changed and modus operandi of key interventions have simply undergone obvious evolution, but the proponents of Global Health have succeeded in articulating and branding the pillars of the term; describing it as a System based, Ecological and Transdisciplinary approach to solving complex health issues across borders, through innovative, integrative, sustainable and affordable solutions within the normative framework of human rights and equity. Whatever term is used in books or by academic institutions, what is rather more important is Health for all.

Heitham Hassoun
March 8, 2018

Very interest topic!
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?
In fact, I do appreciate the author's premise and we often confuse the terms and concepts around "internationalization" and "globalization".
However, I think more puzzling is the persistent focus on LMIC by global health preponderants. The global burden is chronic diseases and they afflict everyone regardless of boundaries and economies. We should focus on evidence, data, quality, safety, and value!
One World:One Health

Post a Comment

Restricted HTML

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Back to top