↓ Skip to main content

Emergence of multilateral proto-institutions in global health and new approaches to governance: analysis using path dependency and institutional theory

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Emergence of multilateral proto-institutions in global health and new approaches to governance: analysis using path dependency and institutional theory
Published in
Globalization and Health, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1744-8603-9-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo J Gómez, Rifat Atun

Abstract

The role of multilateral donor agencies in global health is a new area of research, with limited research on how these agencies differ in terms of their governance arrangements, especially in relation to transparency, inclusiveness, accountability, and responsiveness to civil society. We argue that historical analysis of the origins of these agencies and their coalition formation processes can help to explain these differences. We propose an analytical approach that links the theoretical literature discussing institutional origins to path dependency and institutional theory relating to proto institutions in order to illustrate the differences in coalition formation processes that shape governance within four multilateral agencies involved in global health. We find that two new multilateral donor agencies that were created by a diverse coalition of state and non-state actors, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and GAVI, what we call proto-institutions, were more adaptive in strengthening their governance processes. This contrasts with two well-established multilateral donor agencies, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, what we call Bretton Woods (BW) institutions, which were created by nation states alone; and hence, have different origins and consequently different path dependent processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Papua New Guinea 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 89 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Student > Master 20 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 25 27%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 19 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#1,071
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,533
of 205,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.