Bill Gates recently announced that the Gates Foundation will spend down its endowment over the next 20 years, contributing approximately $200 billion to global health and development.
Thank you for sharing your valuable insights. I couldn’t agree more.
The second point is actually the one I’ve been thinking about the most lately, and I’m hearing more and more people bring it up: the consolidation and restructuring of existing global health partnerships. As one of the key architects, Gates has a responsibility to take the lead in making those changes.
As for the last point, it remains unclear whether the reforms announced at this WHA are merely a short-term response to the US withdrawal or a long-term strategic adjustment. I don’t have high hopes for the WHO to reform on its own. But clearly, the Gates Foundation should not be the key player driving WHO reform—member states should be.
Great holistic view which points to what the needed evolution of the «development industry», not only the Gates Foundation’s. Keep your reflections coming!
Wow Peter! My head just kept nodding in agreement as I read through your piece. The one on sunsetting initiatives particularly resonated. Provocations like this will do more for sustainable impact than good intentions alone.
Thank you for your service in these critical areas and for sharing your opinion on the way forward! One topic which I did not feel was sufficiently addressed is the role of global goods for health. There is a presumption that there are sustainable models where business drives outcomes. For local ownership to work, and for community-based support to flourish, there are fundamental dependencies on global commons. Whether open source, community/crowd-supported resources and infrastructure, or just volunteer domain-specific expertise, someone needs to support these global goods. The tragedy of the commons is even more important when we wish to transition health services to low resource settings. Unfortunately, recent funding re-prioritization has failed to address the support of global goods and a user-fee model is unlikely to replace it.
On this, you are on point for each proposal you raise. Perhaps the reason I have always leaned back on you; your understanding of global health and the challenges that bely it particularly in terms of innovations required to navigate past them is solid and living! You could not have put it better.
On # 1, 3 & 4: Africa CDC just launched a continental R & D framework that might benefit from ‘venture investment and nurturing ’ through such Gates funded initiatives to support manufacturing, further R & D on new ideas and concepts; and find new ways for inspiring and sustaining venture investment and or financing on the continent other than ODA) .
On # 2–Not just GAVI and Global Fund, I think all ODA should take the path of setting timelines for achieving milestones and exiting. One of the things we are struggling with is how to get AU member countries to appreciate the value of investing in R & D for health. No doubt this mentality is rooted in the expectation that ODA would stay forever.
On # 5: I think the major changes needed at WHO should come from within its leadership and renewed mandate; what the Gates can do is simply backfill the financing gap left by the exiting of major players like the US.
I wish we had a way to follow these write ups with an on line discussion, like an X or Twitter stream, here. Perhaps this is the innovation we must birth for this substack platform!!
Thanks Peter. A fundamental point is whether charity billionaires - however well intended can be allowed to implicitly direct public policy simply because of the influence of their vast resources. My take on that is being released shortly in another article.
Thank you for sharing your valuable insights. I couldn’t agree more.
The second point is actually the one I’ve been thinking about the most lately, and I’m hearing more and more people bring it up: the consolidation and restructuring of existing global health partnerships. As one of the key architects, Gates has a responsibility to take the lead in making those changes.
As for the last point, it remains unclear whether the reforms announced at this WHA are merely a short-term response to the US withdrawal or a long-term strategic adjustment. I don’t have high hopes for the WHO to reform on its own. But clearly, the Gates Foundation should not be the key player driving WHO reform—member states should be.
Great holistic view which points to what the needed evolution of the «development industry», not only the Gates Foundation’s. Keep your reflections coming!
Wow Peter! My head just kept nodding in agreement as I read through your piece. The one on sunsetting initiatives particularly resonated. Provocations like this will do more for sustainable impact than good intentions alone.
Thank you for your service in these critical areas and for sharing your opinion on the way forward! One topic which I did not feel was sufficiently addressed is the role of global goods for health. There is a presumption that there are sustainable models where business drives outcomes. For local ownership to work, and for community-based support to flourish, there are fundamental dependencies on global commons. Whether open source, community/crowd-supported resources and infrastructure, or just volunteer domain-specific expertise, someone needs to support these global goods. The tragedy of the commons is even more important when we wish to transition health services to low resource settings. Unfortunately, recent funding re-prioritization has failed to address the support of global goods and a user-fee model is unlikely to replace it.
On this, you are on point for each proposal you raise. Perhaps the reason I have always leaned back on you; your understanding of global health and the challenges that bely it particularly in terms of innovations required to navigate past them is solid and living! You could not have put it better.
On # 1, 3 & 4: Africa CDC just launched a continental R & D framework that might benefit from ‘venture investment and nurturing ’ through such Gates funded initiatives to support manufacturing, further R & D on new ideas and concepts; and find new ways for inspiring and sustaining venture investment and or financing on the continent other than ODA) .
On # 2–Not just GAVI and Global Fund, I think all ODA should take the path of setting timelines for achieving milestones and exiting. One of the things we are struggling with is how to get AU member countries to appreciate the value of investing in R & D for health. No doubt this mentality is rooted in the expectation that ODA would stay forever.
On # 5: I think the major changes needed at WHO should come from within its leadership and renewed mandate; what the Gates can do is simply backfill the financing gap left by the exiting of major players like the US.
I wish we had a way to follow these write ups with an on line discussion, like an X or Twitter stream, here. Perhaps this is the innovation we must birth for this substack platform!!
Please check out my follow up blog https://open.substack.com/pub/singerp/p/bill-gates-spends-200-billion-readers?r=1ytch0&utm_medium=ios
Mr. Gates, ( George ) thank you !!!
I’m Jorge Melenudo Escamilla
I say again, good work !!!
Thanks Peter. A fundamental point is whether charity billionaires - however well intended can be allowed to implicitly direct public policy simply because of the influence of their vast resources. My take on that is being released shortly in another article.