Making sense of dictatorships and health outcomes

Governance matters: Exploring the impact of governance on routine immunization performance in 54 African countries: A 10-year (2012-2021) analysis using linear mixed models

BACKGROUND

Immunization coverage across numerous African nations has, unfortunately, shown little improvement and, in some cases, has even decreased over the past decade, leaving millions of children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases. While efforts to improve immunization performance have primarily focused on the health system, effective delivery of immunization services is intricately linked to a country's governance, which, in this context, reflects a government's ability to provide comprehensive services to its citizens. This study investigated the relationship between governance, measured using the Mo Ibrahim Index for African Governance, and the trajectory of immunization coverage for three vaccines in 54 African countries from 2012 to 2021.

METHODS

We conducted an ecological study utilizing publicly available datasets, the WHO/UNICEF estimates of National Immunization Coverage and the Ibrahim Index of African Governance score (IIAG). We described the trends in routine immunization performance, evaluated and assessed the impact of governance on immunization coverage across 54 African countries for the period 2012 to 2021, using linear mixed models and focusing on three vaccines provided through the Expanded Program on Immunization (DTPCV1, DTPCV3, and MCV1).

RESULTS

Among the 54 African countries studied, 32 (59.3 %) witnessed an overall decrease (slope of change in immunization coverage over time < 0) in immunization coverage, with 16 (29.6 %) experiencing a significant decline (slope of change significantly different from zero (P < 0.05)) in coverage. For DTPCV3, 31 countries (57.4 %) demonstrated a decline in coverage, with 12 (22.2 %) being significant declines. Thirty-two countries (59.2 %) reported a decrease in MCV1 coverage over the analysis period, with 17 (31.5 %) significant. Across all three antigens, the IIAG overall score was positively associated with immunization coverage over time. One unit increase in the IIAG score correlated with an average annual increase of 0.64 (95 % CI: 0.35-0.93) percentage points in DTPCV1 coverage, 0.74 percentage points (95 % CI: 0.42-1.07) in DTPCV3 coverage, and 0.60 (95 % CI: 0.30-0.91) percentage points in MCV1 coverage. These findings suggest that an African country with an average IIAG score just one unit higher than their observed average value over the study period, would have achieved a 6.4 %, 7.4 %, and 6.0 % coverage for DTPCV1, DTPCV3, and MCV1, respectively, above its 2021 coverage levels.

CONCLUSION

The Expanded Program on Immunization aspires to reach all eligible populations with life-saving vaccines, regardless of the context. We found that country governance may be an important determinant of immunization performance, potentially explaining the observed stagnation or decline in immunization performance and the heightened vulnerability of immunization programs to external shocks. Understanding the nexus between governance and service delivery suggests that immunization actors, funders, and other stakeholders may need to adjust their expectations of countries' immunization performance accordingly.

Varsity Medical Ethics Debate 2019: is authoritarian government the route to good health outcomes?

Authoritarian governments are characterised by political systems with concentrated and centralised power. Healthcare is a critical component of any state. Given the powers of an authoritarian regime, we consider the opportunities they possess to derive good health outcomes. The 2019 Varsity Medical Ethics Debate convened on the motion: 'This house believes authoritarian government is the route to good health outcomes' with Oxford as the Proposition and Cambridge as the Opposition. This article summarises and extends key arguments made during the 11th annual debate between medical students from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. By contrasting the principles underlying authoritarianism and democracy, it enables a discussion into how they translate into healthcare provision and the outcomes derived. Based on the foundation of said principles, an exploration of select cases represents examples of applications and the results. We analyse the past, present and future implications on the basis of fundamental patient-centred care.

The pox of politics: Troesken's tradeoff reexamined

In The Pox of Liberty, Werner Troesken details the tradeoff between liberal institutions and communicable disease. According to Troesken, individual freedom presents a danger to the public health in the face of infectious disease, while constitutional constraints restrict the government's ability to implement effective policy. Contra Troesken, I argue that decision-makers, amidst a crisis of contagion, neglect intertemporal tradeoffs, thereby discounting long run costs while favoring short run policies. These policies, once implemented, are difficult to reverse due to the path dependent nature of political institutions. Irreversible and self-reinforcing growth in political institutions established to enhance health can have an unintended negative impact on health during future crises, where political agents must operate in a more cumbersome and error-prone institutional environment. Using events from the history of public health in the U.S. as support for my theory, I conclude that Troesken's alleged tradeoff ought to be met with greater skepticism.

Epidemic disease and the state: Is there a tradeoff between public health and liberty?

This paper examines the political economy of epidemic disease. First, it outlines the incentive and information problems facing policymakers in responding to a new epidemic. Second, it considers the existence of a tradeoff between public health and freedom. Informed by a survey of the history of public health and an analysis of the response to Covid-19, it presents evidence that such a tradeoff can obtain in the short run but that, in the long run, the negative relationship is reversed and the trade-off disappears.

Health system efficiency and democracy: A public choice perspective

Due to increasing demand and scarce financial resources for healthcare, health system efficiency has become a major topic in political and scientific debates. While previous studies investigating determinants of health system efficiency focused primarily on economic and social influence factors, the role of the political regime has been neglected. In addition, there is a lack of formal theoretical work on this specific topic, which ensures transparency and logical consistency of arguments and implications. Using a public choice approach, this paper provides a rigorous theoretical and empirical investigation of the relationships between health system efficiency and political institutions. We develop a simple principal-agent model describing the behavior of a government with respect to investments in population health under different political regimes. The main implication of the theoretical model is that governments under more democratic regimes put more effort in reducing embezzlement of health expenditure than non-democratic regimes. Accordingly, democratic countries are predicted to have more efficient health systems than non-democratic countries. We test this hypothesis based on a broad dataset including 158 countries over the period 1995-2015. The empirical results clearly support the implications of the theoretical model and withstand several robustness checks, including the use of alternative indicators for population health and democracy and estimations accounting for endogeneity. The empirical results also indicate that the effect of democracy on health system efficiency is more pronounced in countries with higher income levels. From a policy perspective, we discuss the implications of our findings in the context of health development assistance.