A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Who is at the table and who has the power? Case study analysis of decision-making processes for the Global Financing Facility in Tanzania. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: In 2015, Tanzania joined the Global Financing Facility (GFF), a global health initiative for Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health and Nutrition (RMNCAH-N). Despite its resource mobilization goals, little is known about power dynamics in GFF policy processes. This paper presents the first power analysis of Tanzania's GFF engagement.

Objective: To examine policy processes in developing GFF documents during its first two phases in Tanzania.

Methods: An exploratory qualitative case study using document reviews (*n* = 22) and key informant interviews (*n* = 21) conducted in 2022-2023. Data were thematically analyzed and interpreted using Gaventa's power cube (levels, spaces, and forms of power).

Results: Stakeholders praised the GFF's country-led, evidence-based approach and local autonomy. However, closed-door decision-making in phase one excluded civil society and the private sector. Invisible power imbalances in funding allocations left stillbirths and adolescent health without dedicated budgets, while vulnerable groups (e.g. people with disabilities) were overlooked. Disbursement-linked indicators emphasized measurable outcomes, reflecting visible power. Phase two showed adaptive learning, with improved inclusivity.

Conclusion: While government-led, global actors (e.g. World Bank, donors) heavily influenced decisions. Greater civil society engagement is needed for accountability. Future efforts must address power imbalances through meaningful citizen participation to strengthen RMNCAH-N services.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2025.2552531DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12416002PMC

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

case study
8
global financing
8
financing facility
8
adolescent health
8
policy processes
8
civil society
8
power imbalances
8
power
6
table power?
4
power? case
4

Similar Publications