Thirteenth Global Studies Conference

Abstract

This paper compares World Health Organization (WHO’s) Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership and the Gavi (General Alliance for Vaccine Immunisation) - the Vaccine Alliance to answer the question why these two global health initiatives with a similar fundamental goal of improving health have a varying degree of effectiveness? What explains the differences? I argue that RBM and Gavi differ in achieving a varying degree of effectiveness because of the variations on their organizational disposition and ability to secure high financial endowment and funding and adopt good governance practices related to transparency, accountability, and alignment and practices of aid effectiveness principles. Gavi is more effective than RBM because it has high funding from the onset and adapts good governance practices, which allows it to fulfil its mandate. Two implications arise from this finding: first, funding is essential for the early stage of founding a partnership, but it is not everything. Ensuring adherence to good governance practices like transparency, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation are also fundamental to the credibility and effectiveness of the organization. It also implies that the likelihood of positive change/high impact and outcome is dependent on having a responsive, innovative, and lesson-learning organization that embodies good governance practices. Further case study should look at other global health actors, including the Clinton Foundation, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the U.S. Presidential Malaria Initiative.