22 Apr Follow up #3
The wheels are churning since the AAGs…this is installment no. 3.
Matt Sparke, in his talk, Global Health Targets and Enclaving of Aid and Research, raised some terribly intriguing questions. Particularly, he pointed to the Seattle enclave of global health. If you’ve never been to Seattle or don’t know the geography very well, you can read about South Lake Union in Seattle Geographies. South Lake Union is a mecca of sorts – of the global health industry. They even have their own South Lake Union Transit (, or SLUT) tram (although, i think they’ve recently renamed it).
Overall, Seattle is home to the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Health Alliance International (HAI), along with Seattle BioMed and Infectious Disease Research Institute (IDRI) among a host of other smaller and more pointed NGOs and health advocates. Matt Sparke has written elsewhere about Seattle’s bid to sell itself as the bio-tech / global health capital of the world.
Sparke asked “what are the links between Seattle’s health enclave and health enclaves around the world? What is driving those linkages between the enclaves? And how does spatial selectivity fit – how does the choice of site get worked out?”
He pointed to something that i’ve had a tough time working out in my head – how spatial selectivity for health enclaving is really about the “biggest bang for the buck” – and who then gets left in and left out – who gets to think of themselves and engage themsevles as particular health or illness subjects to access care and resources.
In exporting these enclaves, then, how does it translate across space, borders – what are the transnational translations of enclaving and the inherent governance technologies?
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.