An organizational analysis of the World Health Organization: narrowing the gap between promise and performance

The World Health Organization's (WHO's) nearly half century amelioration of suffering stands as a singular achievement in international cooperation. But after 45 years, the Organization has grown into a complex bureaucracy with an outdated organizational structure. A multidisciplinary framework, which emphasizes organizational theory, yields some insights into these problems. Using this approach, this paper examines the structure, culture, mission, and rules of WHO, and adds a perspective, not otherwise found in the literature, to the growing debate on the future of the Organization. Previous studies of international organizations have explained their behavior as the consequence of the dominant external interests of powerful members. This perspective suggests that organizations like WHO have fewer options and less control of their policies and output. By contrast, there has been very little analysis explaining how international organizations function internally. This paper refutes an exclusively external perspective and shows that the internal organization is also important to understanding WHO. Several conclusions are drawn from this perspective. WHO's organizational myths, as a politically neutral technical agency staffed with uniquely qualified staff, need to be validated and enhanced to attract funding. A new organizational structure, based on an 'open systems' model, is proposed. This strategy would strengthen the WHO Representative Country Offices, redefine staff objectives, close the Regional Offices, and establish open, public elections of the Director General. Traditional WHO culture should only be used for health problems that are well matched to WHO's critical tasks. For more complex social and economic issues, newer, often non-medical, approaches are needed. The internal and external rules, which shape the incentives of WHO staff and leaders, need to be realigned to close the gap between WHO's myths and its day to day work. In the short run it is possible for WHO to do more with its limited budget if it changes its organizational structure; in the long run a reorganized WHO will be able to garner more funding and attract wider international participation.

WHO's special programmes: undermining from above

Despite the World Health Organisation's spoken commitment to developing integrated primary health care, its most visible and successful activities are not integrated within countries; they are its disease specific intervention programmes, such as the Global Programme on AIDS and the programmes for the control of diarrhoeal and acute respiratory diseases. The 10 or so special programmes, all but one of which (the onchocerciasis control programme) are based in Geneva, have found increasing favour among donors, but critics say that they undermine WHO's attempts to integrate its activities at country level and discourage countries from developing their own capacity.

WHO in crisis

Media attention has been focused on the leadership of the World Health Organisation, rather than on the real factors that limit WHO's effectiveness. These factors relate to the organisation's structure and also to its current priorities, methods, and management. This article examines the objectives and strategy of WHO in view of financial constraints and donor countries' demands; WHO's stated goal of integrated primary health care; staff morale; and the growing dislocation between the regions and headquarters.

National and international health agencies. Profile of key players

The major players in international health and health policy have a tremendous potential to contribute to the wellbeing of humankind. Multilateral organizations, such as WHO, have universal areas of concern. The financial multilateral agencies play a key role in influencing development through the leverage of financial resources. Bilateral agencies of donor countries influence health policy direction by the magnitude of their financial resources. Private organizations, including universities, foundations, professional associations, nongovernmental organizations, and US industry, play an important role in identifying important policy issues through research, designing and developing appropriate technology, and acquiring the knowledge base necessary to form sound international health policy decisions.

AIDS funding falls

Images