Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The central task of any critical social science is speaking truth about power. After a brief review of ‘glass half full’ and ‘glass half empty’ perspectives on recent developments in global health, I argue that such a critical perspective need not answer the question about the glass, but rather ask what more could have been achieved under different social arrangements. I continue with a discussion of how globalization has re-scaled distributional conflicts so they need no longer be resolved within national borders, and enhanced the power of transnational corporations and the ultra-wealthy to the probable detriment of national policy space. I then examine the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s and the 1990s as an early step in the normalization of austerity, and the associated human collateral damage. I conclude by arguing that the constraints in improving health and reducing health inequalities associated with globalization are substantial, while suggesting that they should not be overstated – a point underscored by the selective nature of the policy choices comprising austerity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ted Schrecker (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: