Taking a Permanent Bite Out of Malaria
From the Archives
Posted on June 28, 2007
|
| Malaria is a disease that is killing people in sub-Saharan Africa at the rate of about 2 people per minute. Photo Credit: Flickr. |
The last thing donors want to do is to crowd out local efforts to manage malaria or to make domestic malaria programs weaker than they already are. But this is exactly what can happen when external resources transform malaria programs into costly goliaths tied to donor country purchases of medicines and supplies that could not be financed through domestic sources. Great care must be taken as donor countries ramp up their efforts to create incentives for receiving governments to increase their efforts, not to sit back and relax while others do the job.
There is no question that additional funds and new technologies are needed to reduce and even in some areas eliminate malaria, but that means donors need to get into malaria control seriously for the long term. Supporting interventions that save lives today can make those same people more vulnerable to the disease later if malaria comes roaring back. Responsible donors will be careful to increase support in a way that can be sustained, to make a long term commitment for their own support (for decades, not years), and listen carefully to recipient country professionals to judge better what programs can work and be sustained in local conditions.
|
Supporting interventions that save lives today can make those same people more vulnerable to the disease later if malaria comes roaring back.
|
Businesses can also go beyond their workers to contribute their core competencies on a pro bono basis — such as transportation or advertising, for example — to reach beyond the workplace and support enlightened and effective public policies. It is just a matter of getting them involved and ending the idea that donors or a paternalistic government can or should solve the problem alone.
On malaria as well as so many other developmental problems, there may be a silver bullet out there, like a vaccine that will end it once and for all. However, until that happens, success will depend on supporting individuals and communities to manage the problem and keep people healthy. The size of the bite that can be taken out of malaria depends on funding, for sure, but just as much on how predictable are the increased external funds, how well new efforts fit into the local environment, and to what degree all of society is mobilized to take on the challenge.
Contributed by Charles C. Griffin, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development at the Brookings Institution. Reprinted with permission from The Brookings Institution. To view the original article click here.
To read another Global Envision article about the malaria pandemic, see our Malaria Fact Sheet.
Return to top


Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments
Yes! I totally agree. There has to be a focus on long-term and responsible aid. Just looking at the science, malaria is a vector-borne disease and it is much more practical to invest in ways to decrease transmission such as bed nets and teaching responsible farming and domestic practices than investing millions in a 'miracle' drug that will probably not come to fruition or, if it does, will not reach the people who need it the most.
This article brings many excellent points to the table. The thinking, reflected here, that reducing malaria will hinge on local solutions rather than just big donor money is highly popular, and for obvious reason. I heard about a case where an NGO doled out bed nets for free in Africa without instructions or much connection to communty and the results were innefective for the Africans and a waste of money for the donors. Therefore, I think Griffin is right on when warning about the complications of 'external resources transforming malaria programs,' But the problem then is how to keep donors to want to keep giving when articles such as these border on suggesting that they back off and let the locals work. I still agree with this article, I only see a potential issue with the rise of resentment of donor aid.
Question to the above comment -- isn't this type of miracle drug research just the type of thing that governments should be investing in -- as opposed to things such as the military industrial complex in the United States for example. With the right resources and directed capital medicine could probably produce a cure/vaccine for malaria -- but like you mentioned -- would it ever get there?
I agree that there could be an issue with the rise of resentment of donor aid. But It think this is directly related to the western mentality of flying in and playing the hero. We need to look reflexively at our actions and ask ourselves whether our aid is effective within a specific, culturally sensitive, context. I'm not saying that all western aid is like this, of course its not, its more an issue of the public perspective than the actual programs. In response to Amie, of course governments should be investing in public health more than things such as the military industrial complex, but I think that the pharmaceutical industry is so profit driven that sometimes the search for a 'miracle' drug is not cost effective nor is it pursued for the right reasons.