| This paper seeks to answer the following question: Is the "securitization" of global health by American foreign policymakers actually good for global health? The paper is divided into three parts, each approaching the question from a different perspective. The first part of the paper consists of a review of the literature on global health and foreign policy; the review identifies support within the global health community for global health's securitization, as well as concern about securitization's implications for global health funding and outcomes. The second part of the paper employs a historical analysis to contextualize the securitization discussion, concluding that while foreign policymakers have always applied a national security frame to foreign aid - including global health aid - the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks emphasized to policymakers the threat posed by nonstate actors to a degree that has meaningfully affected policy. The third part of the paper draws from United States budget data and United States Agency for International Development data to evaluate the percentage of total outlays directed to foreign aid over time, the percentage of foreign aid directed to global health programs over time, and the global burden of disease experienced by countries that receive the greatest amounts of American global health aid. The paper concludes that while the September 11th terrorist attacks appear to have increased foreign aid's percentage of total outlays and global health's percentage of foreign aid, the magnitude of the change is smaller than has been suggested by many global health researchers and advocates. The paper further suggests that a concerning discrepancy exists between the countries experiencing large burdens of disease and those receiving large proportions of U.S. global health aid. |
