Saturday, July 13, 2024

Many poor nations cut back on their own health spending after they get funding from wealthy donor nations.


Seattle researchers have quantified what has long been an open secret about international aid: Many poor nations cut back on their own health spending after they get funding from wealthy donor nations.

For every dollar in health aid received, governments in the developing world on average shifted between 43 cents and $1.14 from their own health budgets into other priorities, says an analysis published Friday in the medical journal The Lancet and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The other priorities could include education, road building — or even the military. But the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) wasn’t able to track where the money went, said Director Christopher Murray.

In a finding sure to fuel debate, the Seattle scientists also report that aid money given directly to governments led those governments to cut their own health spending, while money funneled through nongovernmental organizations did not.

The majority of U.S. health aid is awarded to NGOs, which, in turn, build clinics, train health workers and oversee other health projects. The Gates Foundation takes a similar approach. But many other nations give money directly to governments, which is meant to bolster national health systems.

Lancet Editor Dr. Richard Horton said the results raise “a red flag over aid effectiveness.”

But some economists argue that it makes sense for poor nations to reallocate their scarce resources to plug budget gaps, Murray pointed out.

The findings aren’t a surprise to global health insiders, said Sir Richard Feachem, former executive director of Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Global Fund, which pools money from wealthy nations and foundations, requires recipient nations to maintain their own level of spending. But everyone knew budget shifting was going on.

“This is the first really serious and thorough effort to quantify this phenomenon,” said Feachem, now director of the Global Health Group at the University of California, San Francisco.

Celebrities and corporations have embraced the cause of global health and Americans have poured unprecedented amounts into bed net drives and charities like the ONE Campaign. Many may be distressed to realize their money hasn’t boosted health spending as much as they thought, Feachem said.

“I suspect to some of them, this will be a bit of a shock.”

The institute’s analysis focused on money earmarked for health programs, not the much larger pot devoted to overall development. Fueled, in part, by an influx of cash from the Gates Foundation, international health aid has nearly tripled over the past 10 years to a total of $22 billion in 2007.

Most of that aid goes to African nations where scourges like malaria, diarrhea and tuberculosis claim millions of lives every year.

That’s also where the biggest budget shifts occurred, Murray and his colleagues found.

They also found a lot of variation across the continent. While Zambia slashed its own health budget in direct proportion to aid donations, its tiny neighbor, Malawi, boosted government health spending at the same time it was taking in large amounts of international aid. Malawi is now making the fastest progress of any African nation on reducing child mortality, Murray pointed out.

Poor and middle-income nations in Latin America and Asia have also boosted their own spending on health over the past decade, the analysis found. Worldwide, the combination of international aid and government spending has roughly doubled the amount devoted to health in developing nations.

“There’s more money being spent on health, and we’re seeing progress on health,” Murray said. “That’s good news.”

A commentary published along with the IHME analysis cautioned against jumping to the conclusion that governments in developing nations can’t be trusted to make the best use of aid money.

Funneling money away from national health ministries and into NGO-run programs, many of which focus only on specific diseases, could undermine government health systems that are crucial to things foreign aid rarely supports, like prenatal care, hiring health workers and buying drugs, wrote Devi Sridhar and Ngaire Woods, of the University of Oxford.

They also questioned the data in the report, which relies on incomplete and conflicting budget numbers.

Feachem said his major concern is that governments that cut their own health budgets and rely mainly on aid are vulnerable.

“International aid is fickle,” he said. “Developing countries have to build their own foundation for a future, sustainable health-care system.”

Founded with a $105 million grant from the Gates Foundation, IHME’s charge is to bring statistical rigor to the field of global health, where claims of success are sometimes overblown and politics can influence data.

But Murray and his team have antagonized many in the field.

For this study, they and the Lancet shared the results in advance and invited global health experts to participate in a round-table discussion in London on Friday.

“IHME’s basic remit is to get the numbers straight,” Feachem said. When those numbers are controversial, the institute should also reach out and give interested parties a chance to debate and discuss, he added.

“IHME should take no pleasure in surprising people.”

By Sandi Doughton, 206-464-2491 or [email protected] Seattle Times science reporter

[Seattle Times]


  1. It will make a lot of sense if the Health Global Fund is managed by providers themselves. This will entail running projects in Health institutions. The same thing happened in Agriculture Research Institute where ZAREP took the initiative to manage all their Agri-support to Zambia. We remember very well this disappeared during FTJs term of office. The major problems that exist in most African countries as you have pointed out is using donor funds to eradicate budget over-runs. This can be overcome by providers managing their funds by massive human resource and technical exchanges.

  2. “Dead Aid” – please read Dambisa Moyo’s book and see how ineffective and de-humanising aid is.

  3. I am not surprised to hear this diagnosis but at the same time I do not believe that every form of Aid is ineffective. There are a number of cases where aid has been quite successfulI. Microfinancing of various community development projects for example.

    I think the problem arises where the money is transferred as free cash flow to the governments of poor countries. The donors should know that the individuals in these governments are more susceptible to corruption than any where else.

  4. Aid does help alot, the problem is the attitude of leaders especially african leaders and zambia in particular, they have misplaced priorities as a result it does not matter how much we get in Aid development is still a song we shall sing for decades to come.

  5. It is quite shocking how we have so few comments on this topic. We are busy singing about economic growth and low inflation rates, yet we have been cited as on of the countries that is busy siphoning money out of health and into other activities (I hope to God this is not how the President’s trips are being financed). And when Nwakwi raised the issue of a crisis in the health sector, we chose to shower insults and aspersions on her private life, instead of addressing it. And you wonder why your politicians are busy politicking instead of concentrating on development. Look at the interest in the BY story! Shameful!!!~X(

Comments are closed.

Read more

Local News

Discover more from Lusaka Times-Zambia's Leading Online News Site -

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading