Policy Implementation Versus Revocation: A Qualitative Exploration of Policy Change Communication between the U.S. Government and Global Health Implementing Partners in Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe Public

Switzer, Margaret (Spring 2022)

Permanent URL: https://etd.library.emory.edu/concern/etds/cf95jc62x?locale=fr
Published

Abstract

Context: The Global Gag Rule (GGR), also known as the Mexico City Policy (MCP), is a United States-based foreign policy that, when implemented, prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive certain categories of U.S. foreign assistance funds from providing or advocating for abortion, or counsel on or refer clients for abortion services as a method of family planning. Since 1984, this policy has been repeatedly enacted by Republican presidents and revoked by Democratic presidents. In 2017, former President Trump implemented an expanded version of the policy, renamed Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA). On January 28, 2021, President Biden revoked PLGHA via presidential memorandum.

 

Objective: To analyze the communication patterns of Trump’s PLGHA and Biden’s 2021 revocation from the perspectives of NGOs from three countries, and the associated implications for sustainable global health programming.

 

Methods: This study utilized 41 in-depth interviews with representatives from global health implementing partners in Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA.

 

Results: The implementation of PLGHA in 2017 was accompanied by more consistent communication from the U.S. government and prime partners, as compared to its revocation in 2021. This lack of comprehensive information and guidance on the proper implementation of the revocation of the GGR placed uncertainty on study participants. Due to uncertainties about what was permissible under current restrictions and fears of the policy being reinstituted by a future U.S. president, global health partners experienced unsteadiness moving forward with their programs and funding decisions in the wake of PLGHA’s revocation.

 

Discussion: The United States, through its reneging of the GGR every 4-8 years, has caused negative impacts on NGOs’ abilities to effectively implement global health programs, especially in sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). If this policy remains as is, to be implemented and revoked by Republican and Democratic presidents, then U.S. implementing agencies and global health prime partners are responsible for providing more comprehensive guidance and communication about the policy to NGOs to ensure complete and accurate implementation.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Acronym List

 

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1

Introduction and Rationale

Problem Statement

Research Question

Purpose Statement

Significance Statement

Definition of Terms

 

Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………………...8

Background Information on GGR/MCP/PLGHA

Explanation of International Global Health Partners

Implementation of PLGHA by former President Trump

Recent Revocation of PLGHA under President Biden

 

Chapter 3: Methods…………………………………………………………………………….29

Introduction

Research Partnership & Team Roles

Population and Sample

Interview Procedures

Data Collection Instruments

Data Analysis

Ethical Considerations

 

Chapter 4: Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………………….36

 

Chapter 5: Results………………………………………………………………………………37

Communication of PLGHA

Communication of the Revocation of PLGHA

Communications from U.S. Government Agencies

Communications from INGO Headquarters

Communications from Prime Partners to Sub-Primes

Communications from Civil Society Organizations

Communications from Mass Media Channels

Comparison of Communications Between 2017 and 2021

PLGHA Monitoring, Compliance or Guidance Mechanisms

Monitoring & Compliance of 2021 Revocation

Impact of Frequent Policy Changes

 

Chapter 6: Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..60

Implications & Recommendations

Policymakers/Legislators

Advocates & Civil Society

International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)

Recommendations for Future Action

 

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………...67

About this Master's Thesis

Rights statement
  • Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.
School
Department
Degree
Submission
Language
  • English
Research Field
Mot-clé
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor
Committee Members
Dernière modification

Primary PDF

Supplemental Files