The paper asserts that politicisation and framing can offer a valid explanation for Global Governance in pandemic crises, and accordingly investigates how both affected the international responses to SARS and Ebola. The author argues that—even in the allegedly rational scientific field of health—policymakers engage in framing in order to cope with uncertainty of international crises through categorising epidemic outbreaks and prescribing a particular course of action. Tracing the evolution of both epidemics, the paper identifies five frames, namely "securitisation of medicine", "medicalisation of insecurity", economics, human rights and development.
The author holds that they significantly impacted the sense-making phase of the evolving epidemics and thereby determined the extent or lack of collective response. In the face of uncertainty of pandemic crisis, the triangular relationship between policymakers, the public sphere and accountability can offer a more elaborate account of crisis management and collective action, as political frames become important as sense-making vehicles within broader global governance processes and can best explain policy responses.
Under the WHO six-phased classification scheme, both the 2003 SARS epidemic and the 2014 Ebola epidemic qualified as phase five and thereby should have triggered comparable immediate international containment efforts. The divergent outcomes—effective collective response in the case of SARS and crisis protraction with regards to Ebola—are therefore especially striking. Whereas SARS remained limited to around 700 deaths, Ebola had already killed more than 1,400 people by the time that the WHO first acknowledged the epidemic.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Global Governance and Health
2.1 The Politics of Crisis, the Public Sphere and Accountability Ties
2.2 Pandemics and Framing: A Matter of Medicine or Security?
3. Methods
4. Pandemic Crises Revisited
4.1 The 2003 SARS Outbreak
4.2 The 2014 Ebola Outbreak
5. Conclusion and Discussion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This dissertation investigates how politicisation and framing, driven by the public sphere and accountability ties, shape international responses to global health crises. It specifically examines the triangular relationship between policymakers, public expectations, and crisis management, arguing that the "uncertainty paradox" in pandemic situations enables competing political frames to dictate policy outcomes rather than rational situational assessments alone.
- The impact of "securitisation" versus "medicalisation" frames on crisis response
- The role of the public sphere in pressuring governments during pandemics
- Accountability ties between decision-makers and domestic/international stakeholders
- Comparative analysis of the 2003 SARS outbreak and the 2014 Ebola outbreak
- The "governance trilemma" of messy problems, polycentrism, and capacity asymmetries in global health
Excerpt from the Book
The 2003 SARS Outbreak
Known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS was first officially detected in China in February 2003 although earliest cases can be traced back to November 2002 (Global Alert and Response 2003). The local outbreak of the epidemic quickly developed into a full-fledged global outbreak with 8,096 cases of infections across 29 countries and five continents, causing an estimated 774 deaths (ibid.; Smith 2006). SARS took the international community by surprise as it had not previously been identified as an emerging infectious disease and thus was only referred to as ‘atypical pneumonia’ in its early stages (WHO 2003c; Wallis & Nerlich 2005:2630). Despite this, it triggered an unprecedented collective response by the international community and the disease was contained accordingly quickly within 8 months by July of the same year (WHO 2003a; Mackenzie & Merianos 2013).
SARS was heavily securitised from the beginning. While most actors sought to boost the sensation of crisis, the Chinese government initially applied a strategy of denial and information-gatekeeping both from its citizens and the international community (Pomfret 2003; Tai & Sun 2007:995-96). However, the Chinese stance on collective action changed significantly throughout the evolution of the epidemic (see figure 3). Attempts to de-securitise the crisis lasted until April 2003 when China officially declared SARS a national threat (Tai & Sun 2005:996). The change of heart interestingly coincides with the emergence of a multitude of strong international securitisation frames. The first securitisation moves can be seen in the public expression of anxiety and heightened speculation about the extent of the health threat. Due to the refusal of the Chinese government to admit the unfolding crisis and collaborate, the Chinese public turned to the international sphere via social media and the internet (Huang 2004; Thomson & Yow 2004). Citizens, health professionals and NGOs thereby securitised the outbreak through the global dissemination of information and spreading their concern about the scale of the epidemic (ibid.; Fidler 2004a; Wong & Leung 2008). This public constraining dissensus rivalled the government’s non-crisis frame, and thus significantly contributed to the crisis acceptance of Chinese policymakers (Fidler & Batman 2004:114; Tai & Sun 2007).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research problem, highlighting the disparity in international response efficacy between the SARS and Ebola outbreaks and introducing the central role of framing in crisis management.
2. Global Governance and Health: Discusses the theoretical framework, identifying the "governance trilemma" and the influence of accountability ties between policymakers and the public sphere on health outcomes.
3. Methods: Explains the process-tracing and content analysis approach used to test the hypothesis through a comparative study of the SARS and Ebola crises.
4. Pandemic Crises Revisited: Conducts a detailed analysis of the competing frames during the 2003 SARS and 2014 Ebola outbreaks, illustrating how securitisation and medicalisation influenced political responses.
5. Conclusion and Discussion: Synthesizes the findings, confirming that collective action in global health is deeply embedded in political and social dynamics rather than purely technical assessments.
Keywords
Global Health Governance, Framing, Securitisation, Medicalisation, Public Sphere, Pandemic Crises, SARS, Ebola, Accountability, Crisis Management, Collective Action, Uncertainty Paradox, Politics of Accountability, International Response, Risk Assessment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this dissertation?
The dissertation argues that international responses to pandemic crises are not merely driven by objective scientific or medical data, but are significantly shaped by political "framing"—specifically the contest between narratives like securitisation and medicalisation—which are in turn influenced by public sphere pressures and accountability ties.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The research intersects global governance, international relations, crisis management, and public health policy, focusing on how transnational threats are socially constructed and interpreted by decision-makers.
What is the primary objective of the work?
The main objective is to investigate how politicisation and framing processes affected the international response to the 2003 SARS and 2014 Ebola outbreaks, thereby explaining why responses varied in speed and effectiveness.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a qualitative "most-similar systems design" combined with process-tracing and content analysis to evaluate the frames applied by officials and various actors across the two specified case studies.
What is the focus of the main section?
The main body examines the specific dynamics of the SARS and Ebola crises, detailing how different "frames" (securitisation, medicalisation, economics, human rights, and development) were used by stakeholders to either amplify or minimize the perceived threat of the outbreaks.
How would you summarize the work in a few keywords?
Key concepts include: Global Governance, Framing, Securitisation, Medicalisation, Accountability, Public Sphere, and Pandemic Crisis Management.
Why did the international community react differently to SARS compared to Ebola?
The author suggests that the rapid response to SARS was driven by strong public pressure and a convergence of securitisation frames, whereas the initial slow response to Ebola was exacerbated by a lack of public interest and the dominance of frames that downplayed the crisis as a minor or regional medical issue.
What role does the "public sphere" play in pandemic management?
The public sphere acts as a source of "constraining dissensus" or pressure, holding policymakers accountable and forcing them to adopt certain narratives when scientific consensus is absent or when public anxiety reaches significant levels.
- Quote paper
- Franca König (Author), 2015, Global Governance and Health. International Responses to SARS and Ebola and the Influence of Framing and Politicisation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1148159
