Infectious Disease Control in Northeast Asia : A Comparative Case Study of Disease Surveillance Systems and Regional Cooperation in Japan, China and Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article aims to analyze national infectious disease surveillance systems of the three major Northeast Asian countries — China, Japan, and South Korea — in comparative perspective and investigate their regional cooperative efforts. Since national disease surveillance systems of individual countries are the foundation of global disease control and health governance, it is essential to investigate national disease surveillance systems and assess strengths and weaknesses of each system in comparative perspective. In spite of the importance of the topic and the increasing number of research on global health in International Relations, however, literature on national disease surveillance systems in IR is rare. This article first discusses the importance of global health issues in the IR context and provides a framework for analysis incorporating four dimensions — local, national, regional, and global — into a single framework of global health governance. It then provides basic profiles of national disease surveillance systems such as an historical overview, number of staff, laws and regulations, and organizational structure, and examines institutional characteristics of each focusing on (1) how independent the national pivotal organization is from relevant government organizations; (2) how autonomous and capable local agencies are to cope with diseases. It finds that, overall, disease surveillance systems in the three countries are well developed in the sense that central control towers are effective in collecting and distributing information, making prompt decisions, and implementing them, while local agencies are effective in detecting, reporting, and controlling infection cases swiftly. However, Japan’s system is slightly more decentralized than the other two, and at the same time, the level of independence in Japan’s national key organization is slightly lower than the other two. This article also finds that various bilateral and multilateral attempts for regional cooperation have been made, especially led by China and Japan.
Abstract
This article aims to analyze national infectious disease surveillance systems of the three major Northeast Asian countries — China, Japan, and South Korea — in comparative perspective and investigate their regional cooperative efforts. Since national disease surveillance systems of individual countries are the foundation of global disease control and health governance, it is essential to investigate national disease surveillance systems and assess strengths and weaknesses of each system in comparative perspective. In spite of the importance of the topic and the increasing number of research on global health in International Relations, however, literature on national disease surveillance systems in IR is rare. This article first discusses the importance of global health issues in the IR context and provides a framework for analysis incorporating four dimensions — local, national, regional, and global — into a single framework of global health governance. It then provides basic profiles of national disease surveillance systems such as an historical overview, number of staff, laws and regulations, and organizational structure, and examines institutional characteristics of each focusing on (1) how independent the national pivotal organization is from relevant government organizations; (2) how autonomous and capable local agencies are to cope with diseases. It finds that, overall, disease surveillance systems in the three countries are well developed in the sense that central control towers are effective in collecting and distributing information, making prompt decisions, and implementing them, while local agencies are effective in detecting, reporting, and controlling infection cases swiftly. However, Japan’s system is slightly more decentralized than the other two, and at the same time, the level of independence in Japan’s national key organization is slightly lower than the other two. This article also finds that various bilateral and multilateral attempts for regional cooperation have been made, especially led by China and Japan.
참고문헌 (30)
- Anderson, Emma-Louise, "Infectious Injustice: The Political Foundations of the Ebola Crisis in Sierra Leone", Third World Quarterly, 37(3) (2016)
- Regional Mechanisms of Communicable Disease Control in Asia and Europe, "Asia-Europe Foundation", Asia-Europe Foundation, ~ (2013)
- Boone, Catherine, "Politics and AIDS in Africa: Research Agendas in Political Science and International Relations", Africa Today, 48(2) (2001)
- Chorev, Nitsan, "The World Health Organization between North and South" (2012), Cornell University Press
- Curley, Melissa G., "The securitization of avian influenza: international discourses and domestic politics in Asia", Review of International Studies, 37 (2011)
- Davies, Sara E, "The challenge to know and control: Disease outbreak surveillance and alerts in China and India", Global Public Health, 7(7) (2012)
- Davies, Sara E., "Global Health in International Relations: Editors’ Introduction", Review of International Studies, 40 (2014)
- Davies, Sara E, "Disease Diplomacy—International Norms and Global Security" (2015), Johns Hopkins University Press
- Harman, Sophie, "Global Health Governance" (2012), Routledge
- Hirsch, Jennifer S., "Caught in the Middle: The Contested Politics of HIV", AIDS and Health Policy in Vietnam, 2015, pp.40(1), ~
- Ingram, Alan, "Global Leadership and Global Health: Contending Meta-narratives, Divergent Responses, Fetal Consequences", International Relations, 19(4) (2005)
- Iqbal, Zaryab, "War and the Health of Nations" (2010), Stanford University Press
- Kamradt-Scott, Adam, "The Securitization of Pandemic Influenza: Framing, Security and Public Policy", Global Public Health, 7(2) (2012)
- Kaufman, Joan, "China’s Capacity to Manage Infectious Diseases: Global Implications, A Report of the CSIS Freeman Chair in China Studies" (2009), Center for Strategic & International Studies
- Kevany, Sebastian, "Global Health Diplomacy, ‘Smart Power’, and the New World Order", Global Public Health, 9(7) (2014)
- Kickbusch, Ilona, "Influence And Opportunity: Reflections On the U. S. Role In Global Public Health", Health Affairs, 21(6) (2002)
- Knuk, Margaret E, "Globalization and global health governance: Implications for public health", Global Public Health, 7(1) (2012)
- Lee, Kelley, "What is ‘Global Health Diplomacy’? A Conceptual Review", Global Health Governance, 5(1) (2011)
- Li, Chengyue, "Evaluation on the efficiencies of county-level Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in China: results from a national survey", Tropical Medicine and International Health, 21(9) (2016)
- Li, Chengyue, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention System in China: Trends From 2002-2012", American Journal of Public Health, 106(12) (2016)
- McInnes, Colin, "HIV", AIDS and security, 2006, pp.82(2), ~
- McInnes, Colin, "Global Health and International Relations" (2012), Polity Press
- Nunes, João, "Questioning Health Security: Insecurity and Domination in World Politics", Review of International Studies, 40 (2014)
- Price-Smith, Andrew T., "The Health of Nations-Infectious Disease, Environmental Change, and Their Effects on National Security and Development" (2002), The MIT Press
- Establishment of Korea’s Infectious Disease Surveillance System, "Sir, Won-Seok", Ministry of Health & Welfare, ~ (2014)
- Stoeva, Preslava, "International Relations and the Global Politics of Health: A State of the Art", Global Health Governance, 10(3) (2016)
- Taniguchi, Kiyosu, "Overview of Infectious Disease Surveillance System in Japan", Journal of Epidemiology, 17 (2007)
- Vlieg, Willemijn L., "Comparing national infectious disease surveillance systems: China and the Netherlands", BMC Public Health, 17, pp.17~ (2017)
- Youde, Jeremy, "MERS and Global Health Governance", International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 70(1) (2015)
- Youde, Jeremy, "Private actors, global health and learning the lessons of history", Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 32(3) (2016)