International development has become an increasingly fragmented and complex undertaking, with private wealth assuming an increasingly important role. At the forefront of this group sits the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has put significant resources behind Public-Private Partnerships such as the Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunizations (GAVI). Utilizing Foucault’s concept of governmentality, this thesis argues that foundations are key catalysts in the formation of such globally oriented partnerships, a trend not indicative of a shift in power from multilateral organizations to non-state actors, but representative of changing rationalities and practices of the government of populations at a global scale. This position is contextualized through a case study of the GAVI Alliance, which demonstrates that in the process of governing specific populations, such conglomerations of public and private actors seek to modify the governmental practices of states, in what Dean (1999) refers to as the “government of government”.

Decreasing the number of people that die from preventable illnesses and reducing poverty and inequality are major public goods that are being addressed from a variety of angles. One way that policy makers and scholars are trying to improve global health is by developing new health technologies that will decrease poverty and inequality. This dissertation investigates whether nanotechnologies for medical applications (nanomedicine) are used to address diseases of poverty (DoP) and the role that public partnerships (PPP) play in nanomedicine research. If scientists are developing nanotechnology based vaccines and medicines for DoP, then I can conclude that the technology is helping to decrease poverty and inequality. There are two parts to my analysis. The first part of my dissertation analyses the landscape of nanomedicine DoP research and then I test how USA medicine sales, disease burden and diseases of poverty correlate with number of nanomedicine publications and patents. I find that there is some nanomedicine research on diseases of poverty, especially for high profile DoP like malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, but overall there is less R&D on DoPs than non-DoPs. However, I cannot determine if USA medicine sales and disease burden have any relationship to research output. In the second part of my dissertation I examine the role of formal public-private partnerships (PPPs) for developing DoP medicines. Many think the formal health PPPs can overcome the various market failures associated with developing medicines for DoP. I analyze PPP websites and interview PPP managers/scientists about their research portfolios, relationship with nanotechnology, and how PPPs are addressing inequality in health R&D. I find that managers/scientists at PPPs have a variety of opinions about nanotechnology, but the general consensus is that nanotechnology will not be used in the near-term for DoP medicines. PPP managers/scientists believe that the technology is too expensive for DoP medicines and it will take too long to approve nanomedicines. Instead of using nanotechnology most PPPs are in favor of using traditional technologies.

No description available.

Zugl.: Leipzig, Hochsch. für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur, Diplomarbeit, 2005

Zugl.: Bielefeld, Univ., Diss., 2006

Zugl.: Leipzig, Univ., Diss., 2007

Zugl.: Münster (Westfalen), Univ., Diss., 2007

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Wollongong, 2002. / Typescript. Bibliographical references: leaf 343-373.

Zugl.: Bayreuth, Univ., Diss., 2008

Thesis (M.P.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 59-64)