Globalization & Health – The international partner universities of East African health professional programmes: why do they do it and what do they value?
“Globalization and funding imperatives drive many universities to internationalize through global health programmes. University-based global health researchers, advocates and programmes often stress the importance of addressing health inequity through partnerships. However, empirical exploration of perspectives on why universities engage in these partnerships and the benefits of them is limited.” This article analyses “who in international partner universities initiated the partnerships with four East African universities, why the partnerships were initiated, and what the international partners value about the partnerships.” The authors “…applied Burton Clark’s framework of “entrepreneurial” universities characterized by an “academic heartland”, “expanded development periphery”, “managerial core” and “expanded funding base”, developed to examine how European universities respond to the forces of globalization, to interpret the data through a global health lens.”
International Journal of Health services – Is There Less Labor Market Exclusion of People With Ill Health in “Flexicurity” Countries? Comparative Evidence From Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium
K Heggebo et al; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0020731419847591
“Higher employment rates among vulnerable groups is an important policy goal; it is therefore vital to examine which social policies, or mix of policies, are best able to incorporate vulnerable groups – such as people with ill health – into the labor market. We examine whether 2 “flexicurity” countries, Denmark and the Netherlands, have less labor market exclusion among people with ill health compared to the neighboring countries of Norway and Belgium. We analyze the 2 country pairs of Denmark–Norway and the Netherlands–Belgium using OLS regressions and propensity score kernel matching of EU-SILC panel data (2010–2013). Both unemployment and disability likelihood is remarkably similar for people with ill health across the 4 countries, despite considerable social policy differences. There are 3 possible explanations for the observed cross-national similarity. First, different social policy combinations could lead toward the same employment outcomes for people with ill health. Second, most policy instruments are located on the supply side, and demand side reasons for the observed “employment penalty” (e.g., employer skepticism/discrimination) are often neglected. Third, it is too demanding to hold (full-time) employment for a sizeable proportion of those who have poor health status.”