@article{HeinzelKoenigArchibugi2022,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko and Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias},
  title     = {Harmful side effects},
  series = {British journal of political science},
  volume    = {53},
  journal   = {British journal of political science},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {0007-1234},
  doi       = {10.1017/S0007123422000564},
  pages     = {1293 -- 1310},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Governments have increasingly adopted laws restricting the activities of international non-governmental organizations INGOs within their borders. Such laws are often intended to curb the ability of critical INGOs to discover and communicate government failures and abuses to domestic and international audiences. They can also have the unintended effect of reducing the presence and activities of INGOs working on health issues, and depriving local health workers and organizations of access to resources, knowledge and other forms of support. This study assesses whether legislative restrictions on INGOs are associated with fewer health INGOs in a wide range of countries and with the ability of those countries to mitigate disability-adjusted life years lost because of twenty-one disease categories between 1993 and 2017. The findings indicate that restrictive legislation hampered efforts by civil society to lighten the global burden of disease and had adverse side effects on the health of citizens worldwide.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BacciniHeinzelKoenigArchibugi2021,
  author    = {Baccini, Leonardo and Heinzel, Mirko and Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias},
  title     = {The social construction of global health priorities},
  series = {International studies quarterly},
  volume    = {66},
  journal   = {International studies quarterly},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0020-8833},
  doi       = {10.1093/isq/sqab092},
  pages     = {15},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Donors of development assistance for health typically provide funding for a range of disease focus areas, such as maternal health and child health, malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other infectious diseases. But funding for each disease category does not match closely its contribution to the disability and loss of life it causes and the cost-effectiveness of interventions. We argue that peer influences in the social construction of global health priorities contribute to explaining this misalignment. Aid policy-makers are embedded in a social environment encompassing other donors, health experts, advocacy groups, and international officials. This social environment influences the conceptual and normative frameworks of decision-makers, which in turn affect their funding priorities. Aid policy-makers are especially likely to emulate decisions on funding priorities taken by peers with whom they are most closely involved in the context of expert and advocacy networks. We draw on novel data on donor connectivity through health IGOs and health INGOs and assess the argument by applying spatial regression models to health aid disbursed globally between 1990 and 2017. The analysis provides strong empirical support for our argument that the involvement in overlapping expert and advocacy networks shapes funding priorities regarding disease categories and recipient countries in health aid.},
  language  = {en}
}