When funding shrinks, impact must grow the economic case for peer learning networks-small

When funding shrinks, impact must grow: the economic case for peer learning networks

Reda SadkiGlobal health, The Geneva Learning Foundation

Humanitarian, global health, and development organizations confront an unprecedented crisis. Donor funding is in a downward spiral, while needs intensify across every sector. Organizations face stark choices: reduce programs, cut staff, or fundamentally transform how they deliver results. Traditional capacity building models have become economically unsustainable. Technical assistance, expert-led workshops, international travel, and venue-based training are examples of high-cost, low-volume activities that organizations may no longer be able to afford. Yet the need for learning, coordination, and adaptive capacity has never been greater. The opportunity cost of inaction Organizations that fail to adapt face systematic disadvantage. Traditional approaches cannot survive current funding constraints while maintaining effectiveness. Meanwhile, global challenges intensify: climate change drives new disease patterns; conflict disrupts health systems; demographic transitions strain capacity. These complex, interconnected challenges require adaptive systems that respond at the speed and scale of emerging threats. Organizations continuing expensive, ineffective approaches will face programmatic obsolescence. …

Civil society organisations and global health initiatives Problems of legitimacy

Do Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) actually help global health?

Reda SadkiGlobal health

This summary analyzes two important articles examining the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in global health: “Civil society organisations and global health initiatives: Problems of legitimacy” by Doyle and Patel (2008), and “Civil society in global health policymaking: a critical review” by Gómez (2018). While both articles challenge dominant assumptions about CSOs in global health, Doyle and Patel focus more on issues of legitimacy, representation and effects on democracy. Gómez focuses more on the lack of theoretical and empirical evidence for CSOs’ influence across all stages of the policy process.  Doyle and Patel (2008) challenge the assumption that CSOs automatically enhance representation and democracy in global health governance. Gómez (2018) similarly critiques the lack of evidence for CSOs’ assumed comparative advantage in health program delivery. Doyle and Patel conclude that failure by advocates to respond to the sceptical arguments put forward here may weaken the legitimacy of CSO involvement …