The Economist commented this week on the recent controversies over the Gates Foundation's global health work. The most recent example of this controversy was when the head of the WHO malaria program asserted that Gates is becoming a monopoly and driving inappropriate research in malaria.
Our Economist correspondent defends the Gates Foundation. In doing so, he (because all Economist correspondents are male, right?) points out that Gates competes with other major donors like the US Government and the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (GFATM). He also believe that Gates has the resources to fund comprehensive programs, and therefore the worry that their influence will limit a diversity of work is unfounded.
Ultimately, the Economist believes that the distrust of Gates is based in jealousy from smaller organizations, like the WHO. The presumption is that the UN wants to be the monopoly on policy, and that they are just being catty to resent the status that Gates now has.
There's definitely something to that, but I think the WHO would say that it has the right to its special influence. It gains its authority from the General Assembly and is answerable to them. The Gates Foundation is answerable to Bill, Melinda, and Bill's Dad (also named Bill). Isn't that an important difference?
UN agencies are certainly hampered by their need to work within the demands of member states (sometimes being forced to publish only “official” data, for example), but there is also a value to their semi-insider status. Because they speak for the international community, the UN speaks with authority in the developing world and is able to influence policy in a positive way. It is worth preserving that influence.
In closing, the Economist has this to say, and I think says it very well:
“A big new non-government organisation, crashing into the jungle like a young elephant, is bound to cause resentment, and perhaps bound to have unintended ripple effects. But without this elephant's input of new money and ideas, the battle-front against malaria and other deadly diseases might present an even worse picture, especially if the field were left to governments and inter-governmental bodies.”
