Financing the World Health Organisation: global importance of extrabudgetary funds.

Clicks: 539
ID: 77435
1996
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #1 of 24 articles by views in health policy (amsterdam, netherlands)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
From 1948, when WHO was established, the Organisation has relied on the assessed contributions of its member states for its regular budget. However, since the early 1980s the WHO World Health Assembly has had a policy of zero real growth for the regular budget and has had to rely increasingly, therefore, on attracting additional voluntary contributions, called extrabudgetary funds (EBFs). Between 1984-85 and 1992-93 the real value of the EBFs apparently increased by more than 60% and in the 1990-91 biennium expenditure of extrabudgetary funds exceeded the regular budget for the first time. All WHO programmes, except the Assembly and the Executive Board, receive some EBFs. However, three cosponsored and six large regular programmes account for about 70% of these EBFs, mainly for vertically managed programmes in the areas of disease control, health promotion and human reproduction. Eighty percent of all EBFs received by WHO for assisted activities have been contributed by donor governments, with the top 10 countries (in Europe, North America and Japan) contributing about 90% of this total, whereas the UN funds and the World Bank have donated only about 6% of the total to date. By contrast, about 70% of the regular budget expenditure has been for organisational expenses and for the support of programmes in the area of health systems. Despite the fact that the more successful programmes are heavily reliant on EBFs, there are strong indications that donors, particularly donor governments, are reluctant to maintain the current level of funding without major reforms in the leadership and management of the Organisation. This has major implications for WHO's international role as the leading UN specialised agency for health.
Reference Key
vaughan1996financinghealth Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Vaughan, J P;Mogedal, S;Kruse, S;Lee, K;Walt, G;de Wilde, K;
Journal health policy (amsterdam, netherlands)
Year 1996
DOI
DOI not found
URL URL not found
Keywords
pesticides public health developing countries recommendations health africa diseases africa south of the sahara organizations who international agencies un conferences and congresses ingredients and chemicals malaria--prevention and control parasite control parasitic diseases

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.