Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41723461›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2026

Health equity and the global social contract: beyond incrementalism and illusionary solidarity.

Moses Mulumba, Jessica Oga, Christopher Baguma, Juliana Nantaba, Ana Lorena Ruano

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for equity in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Moses MulumbaAfya na Haki Institute, Nakwero, Uganda.
Jessica OgaAfya na Haki Institute, Nakwero, Uganda.
Christopher BagumaAfya na Haki Institute, Nakwero, Uganda.
Juliana NantabaImpacting Health Hub, Liverpool, UK.
Ana Lorena RuanoCentre for International Health, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. ana.lorena.ruano@uib.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been celebrated as global social contracts, yet their reliance on voluntary commitments and aspirational targets conceals a structural flaw. By divorcing poverty and inequity from colonial histories, debt regimes, and extractive global finance, these frameworks function as a neocolonial placebo: soothing global conscience while entrenching asymmetries of power and resources. Drawing on examples from debt distress, vaccine apartheid, and intellectual property monopolies during COVID-19, this commentary demonstrates that global health governance operates less as solidarity than as economic containment. Reparative justice provides the necessary rupture. A post-2030 Global Social Contract must impose enforceable obligations on former colonial powers, embed structural restitution through debt and tax justice, and democratise health governance under the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities. Anything less risks reproducing selective generosity while abandoning equity to the logics of extraction and impunity.

Indexed as

Global HealthHealth EquityInternational CooperationSocial JusticeCOVID-19HumansSustainable DevelopmentGlobal health governanceGlobal social contractHealth equityReparative justiceSustainable development goals

Identifiers

PMID41723461
PMCPMC12983504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.