The World Health Organization has been able to interest some of the world's top economists in joining the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, to study macroeconomics of health services for the poor peoples of the world. The commission has been ahistorical, apolitical, and atheoretical. It has adopted a selective approach to conform to a preconceived ideology. It has ignored earlier work done in this field. And it has pointedly ignored such major developments in the health services as the Alma-Ata Declaration. These failings have brought the quality of the scholastic work to an almost rock-bottom level. The commission's tunnel vision in its recommendations on so important a subject is not surprising. Its emphatic recommendations for perpetuating vertical programs against major communicable diseases (tuberculosis, AIDS, and malaria) on the grounds that such programs have proved convenient to “donors” reveals the real motivations for an almost openly ideology-driven agenda. This is a serious danger signal for scholars who wish to take a scientific attitude toward program formulations for the poor that provide maximum returns from limited resources. The concept of DALYs (disability adjusted life years) is bristling with gross infirmities. The WHO-generated data used for DALY calculations, converted into dollar terms, are patently invalid, unreliable, and not comparable between and even within countries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
World Health Organization. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health—Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development. Geneva, 2001.
2.
SenA.Development as Freedom. Knopf, New York, 1999.
3.
SenA.Health in development. Bull. World Health Organ. 77: 519–623, 1999.
4.
NavarroV.Development and quality of life: A critique of Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom. Int. J. Health Serv. 30: 661–674, 2000.
5.
McKinlayJ. L.Issues in the Political Economy of Health. Tavistock, London, 1984.
6.
BanerjiD.Health economics in developing countries. J. Indian Med. Assoc.49: 417–421, 1967.
7.
AndersenS.Operations research in public health. Public Health Rep. 79(4), April 1964.
8.
BanerjiD.Scientific bases of the national tuberculosis programme. In Serious Implications of the Proposed Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme for India, pp. 3–11. Voluntary Health Association of India and Nucleus for Health Policies and Programmes, New Delhi, 1996.
9.
BanerjiD.Administration of the family planning programme: A plea for an operational research approach. Manage. Government1(2): 48, 1969.
10.
BanerjiD.Operational research in the field of community health. Opsearch9: 135–142, 1972.
11.
BanerjiD.A simplistic approach to health policy analysis: The World Bank team on the Indian health sector. Int. J. Health Serv. 24: 151–159, 1994.
12.
World Bank. India: Health Sector Financing. Washington, D.C., 1992.
13.
NavarroV.A historical review (1965–1967) of studies on class, health, and quality of life: A personal account. Int. J. Health Serv. 28: 389–406, 1998.
14.
World Health Organization. New Public Health and WHO's Ninth General Programme of Work. Geneva, 1995.
15.
World Health Organization. New Challenges for Public Health. Geneva, 1996.
16.
LeavellH. R.ClarkE. G. (eds.). Preventive Medicine for the Doctor in His Community: An Epidemiological Approach, Ed. 3. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953.
17.
World Health Organization. Primary Health Care: Report on the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR, September 6–17, 1978. Geneva, 1978.
18.
WHO Resolution WHA.32.33. In Handbook of Resolutions and Decisions, Vol. 2 (1973–84). WHO, Geneva, 1985.
19.
RosenG.History of Public Health. M. D. Publications, New York, 1958.
20.
SokheyJ.Immunization Programme in India: A Handbook for Medical Officers. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, 1984.
21.
BanerjiD.Western response to the Alma-Ata Declaration. Econ. Polit. Weekly21, July 12, 1986.
22.
BanerjiD.Crash of the immunization program: Consequences of a totalitarian approach. Int. J. Health Serv. 20: 501–510, 1990.
23.
GuptaJ. P.MuraliI.National Review of the Immunisation Programme in India. National Institute of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, 1989.
24.
MahalonobisP. C.An approach of operational research to planning in India. Sankhya24: 5–90, 1951.
25.
ChurchmanC. W.Introduction to Operations Research. John Wiley, New York, 1957.
26.
DuttP. R.Health Services in India: The Primary Health Centres, Ed. 2. Central Health Education Bureau, New Delhi, 1965.
27.
BhattacharyaS. N.Community Development: An Analysis of the Programme in India. Academic Press, Calcutta, 1970.
28.
Government of India. Health Survey and Development Committee: Report, Vol. 2. Publications Division, Delhi, 1946.
29.
GonzalezC. L.Mass Campaign and the General Health Services. WHO Public Health Papers No. 29. WHO, Geneva, 1965.
30.
Government of India. National Health Policy 2002. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, 2002.
31.
Voluntary Health Association of India. Independent Commission on Health in India: Report. New Delhi, 1997.
32.
BanerjiD.Family Planning in India: A Critique and a Perspective. People's Publishing House, New Delhi, 1967.
33.
BanerjiD.Health and Family Planning Services in India: An Epidemiological, Socio-cultural, and Political Analysis and a Perspective. Lok Paksh, New Delhi, 1985.
34.
BanerjiD.A fundamental shift in the approach to international health by WHO, UNICEF, and the World Bank: Instances of the practice of “intellectual fascism” and totalitarianism in some Asian countries. Int. J. Health Serv. 29: 227–259, 1999.
35.
BanerjiD.Landmarks in the Development of Health Services in Countries of South Asia. Nucleus for Health Policies and Programmes, New Delhi, 1997.
36.
BanerjiD.Serious Implications of the Proposed Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme for India. Voluntary Health Association of India and the Nucleus for Health Policies and Programmes, New Delhi, 1996.
37.
World Health Organization. Expert Committee on Tuberculosis: Eighth Report. Geneva, 1964.
38.
World Health Organization. WHO Report on Tuberculosis Epidemic 1995. TB/95/183. Geneva, 1995.
39.
ChakrabortyA. K.Tuberculosis situation in India: Measuring it through time. Indian J. Tuberculosis40: 215–226, 1993.
40.
GrzybowskiS.Epidemiology of tuberculosis with particular reference to India. Indian J. Tuberculosis42: 195–200, 1995.
41.
World Health Organization. WHO Report 2002: Global Tuberculosis Control. Geneva, 2002.
42.
News item: Drugs “expire” as do patients: WHO plan to curb TB can't reach patients. Pioneer (New Delhi), March 24, 2002.
43.
NavarroV.Science or ideology: A response to Murray and Frenk. Int. J. Health Serv. 31: 875–880, 2001.
44.
News item: AIDS alarm in China. Statesman (New Delhi), April 12, 2002.
45.
Research into Action: A Newsletter of the Council of Health Research for Development26, October-December 2001.
46.
World Health Organization. International Conference on Health Research for Development. Bangkok, 2002.
47.
World Health Organization. World Health Report 2000: Health Systems: Improving Performance. Geneva, 2000.
48.
NavarroV.Assessment of the World Health Report 2000. Lancet355: 1590–1601, 2000.
49.
NavarroV.Health and equity in the world in the era of “globalization.”Int. J. Health Serv. 29: 215–226, 1999.
50.
LererL.MatzopoulosR.“The worst of both worlds”: The management reform of the World Health Organization. Int. J. Health Serv. 31: 415–437, 2001.
