Explaining the Rockefeller and Gates Foundation's Influence in The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Agency Through Adaptation: Explaining The Rockefeller and Gates Foundation’s Influence in the Governance of Global Health and Agricultural Development by Michael Stevenson A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Global Governance Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2014 © Michael Stevenson 2014 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract The central argument that I advance in this dissertation is that the influence of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in the governance of global health and agricultural development has been derived from their ability to advance knowledge structures crafted to accommodate the preferences of the dominant states operating within the contexts where they have sought to catalyze change. Consequently, this dissertation provides a new way of conceptualizing knowledge power broadly conceived as well as private governance as it relates to the provision of public goods. In the first half of the twentieth-century, RF funds drove scientific research that produced tangible solutions, such as vaccines and high-yielding seed varieties, to longstanding problems undermining the health and wealth of developing countries emerging from the clutches of colonialism. At the country-level, the Foundation provided advanced training to a generation of agricultural scientists and health practitioners, and RF expertise was also pivotal to the creation of specialized International Organizations (IOs) for health (e.g. the League of Nations Health Organization) and agriculture (e.g. the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) as well as many informal international networks of experts working to solve common problems. Finally in the neo-liberal era, RF effectively demonstrated how the public-private partnership paradigm could provide public goods in the face of externally imposed austerity constraining public sector capacity and the failure of the free-market to meet the needs of populations with limited purchasing power. Since its inception, the BMGF has demonstrated a similar commitment to underwriting innovation through science oriented towards reducing global health disparities and increasing agricultural productivity in poor countries, and has greatly expanded the application of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) approach in both health and agriculture. Unlike its intellectual forebear, BMGF has been far more focused on end-points and silver bullets than investing directly in the training of human resources. Moreover whereas RF has for most of its history decentralized its staff, those of BMGF have been concentrated mainly at its headquarters in Seattle. With no operational programs of its own, BMGF has instead relied heavily on external consultants to inform its programs and remains dependent on intermediary organizations to implement its grants. Despite these and other differences, both RF and BMGF have exhibited a common capacity to catalyse institutional innovation that has benefited historically marginalized populations in the absence of structural changes to the dominant global power structure. A preference for compromise over contestation, coupled with a capacity for enabling innovation in science and governance, has resulted in broad acceptance for RF and BMGF knowledge structures within both state and international policy arenas. This acceptance has translated into both Foundations having direct influence over (i) how major challenges related to disease and agriculture facing the global south are understood (i.e. the determinants and viable solutions); (ii) what types of knowledge matters for solving said problems (i.e. who leads); and (iii) how collective action focused on addressing these problems is structured (i.e. the institutional frameworks). iii Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking my supervisor Jennifer Clapp. Since assuming this role over five years ago, Jennifer has shown tremendous patience, kindness, commitment, and skill. She has provided me with a high degree of latitude so that I could explore new ideas and take on additional projects, emotional support in times of self-doubt, and guidance in the art of balancing work-family responsibilities and duel careers. I feel very privileged to have had such a wonderful mentor. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Andrew Cooper, Derek Hall, and Dan Gorman, whose expertise and editorial prowess were instrumental to ensuring that I had a defencible end product. At the University of Waterloo, I would like to thank April Wettig for the tremendous administrative and moral support she provided me with over the six years that I was a student in the Global Governance program. I would also like to thank Will Coleman for facilitating access to a much-needed work space at McMaster University in the spring of 2011, and Nancy Johnson for her efforts in ensuring that space available for as long it was. I would like to express my gratitude to my former colleagues at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, and in particular to Jason Thistlethwaite, Stefano Pagliari, Laura Reidel, and Michele-Lee Moore, whose great empathy and sense of humour made returning to graduate school the pleasurable experience it ultimately proved to be. I would also like to thank Michael Moran for helping maintain my interest in my research, and for making academic collaboration from half way around the world a lot of fun. Without a doubt my greatest debt is to my partner Lynne Serviss, whose commitment to me has remained steadfast. Lynne has endured many challenges borne of this PhD. Through them all she has maintained her optimism, wit, and compassion. I love her dearly for this, am extremely fortunate for her daily presence, and look forward to sharing a long life with her. Since initiating this project, Lynne and I have become the parents of two beautiful little boys whose love and affection have ensured that any research-related setbacks were always kept in proper perspective. Their curiosity, creativity, and physical energy are a constant source of inspiration, and we are incredibly lucky to have them in our life. I would like to express my deep gratitude to Tina Serviss for being such a wonderful Oma, and to David Serviss, Christine White and family for ensuring that holidays are always joyous. My mother Beverly Stevenson has been a bedrock of support and a wonderful Nana to her grandchildren, and I am extremely grateful for this. I would also like to thank the dedicated and caring staff at McMaster Children’s Centre, and our many wonderful Westdale friends. A very special thanks to Allison Henderson and Danny Priljeva, James and Danielle Warner, Andrea Soos, Chad and Heather Harvey, and the rest of the ‘book-club’ families. Finally, my love of reading and interest in world affairs were instilled at a very early age and nurtured by my parents. I am forever indebted to them for providing me with so many wonderful learning opportunities. My father would have been especially fascinated by the focus of my thesis research, and it is to his memory that this dissertation is dedicated. iv Table of Contents AUTHOR’S DECLARATION……………………………………………………….. ii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………...iii Acknowledgements.…………………………………………………………………………….iv Table of Contents..………………………………………………………………………………v List of Abbreviations.…………………………………………………………………………..vii Preface....………………………………………………………………………………………...x Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………….1 1.1 Beginnings …………………………………………………………………………………...1 1.2 Contribution to the literature………………………………………………………………....5 1.3 The empirical evidence……………………………………………………………………...14 1.4 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………..17 1.5 Chapter synopses………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Chapter 2: Existing explanations for RF and BMGF agency in global governance……...22 2.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….. 22 2.1 RF and BMGF as products of the American Polity………………………………………….24 2.2 -Mainstream IR’s longstanding neglect of RF and initial disinterest in BMGF ………………26 2.3 – RF historiography at a glance……………………………………………………………...28 2.4 The Small, But Growing Body of BMGF-focused Literature………………………………..37 2.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..42 Chapter 3: The relevance of existing theory to explain the agency of RF and BMGF……45 3.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….45 3.1 Private Governance and Power………………………………………………………………46 3.2 Private power through the provision of public goods………………………………………...49 3.3 Knowledge Construction and Power…………………………………………………………53 3.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………...62 Chapter 4: RF and The Progression To Global Health Governance……………………..66 4.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….66 4.1 The Progressive/Immediate Post-Colonial Era……………………………………………....68 4.2 The Rise of Collective Consciousness………………………………………………………..84 4.3 The Neo-liberal World Order………………………………………………………………..95 4.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………109 Chapter 5: RF’s Global Influence over the Governance of Agricultural Development…111 5.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..111 5.1 A Driver of state-backed agricultural modernization in the progressive era…………………113 5.2 Innovation