Prevention is better than cure

The ongoing struggle to reduce the cost of vaccines in developing countries like Ghana.

 

Monday saw me in Committee room 1 in Westminster amongst Parliamentarians and health and development activists at the start of World Immunisation Week. Now I am in Ghana where more than 50 years ago I was inoculated against polio. This has now been eradicated in Ghana by the sort of mass immunisation campaign that I am privileged to see launched here this week.

Today, in Ghana the target is two of the biggest child killers in the world pneumonia and diarrhoea. These two diseases account for an estimated 20 per cent of all under 5 deaths in the country, but are largely preventable through the introduction of the pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines. In the UK we take for granted the access and availability of these vaccines and we have little experience of the fatal impact of these diseases. But pneumonia and diarrhoea each kill roughly 500,000 children under 5 every year and 85 per cent of the diarrhoea deaths caused by rotavirus are in the developing world. In Ghana the fatal impact of these diseases is very real.

I am travelling to Ghana with the GAVI Alliance. This unique partnership between governments, North and South, civil society, and private sector philanthropists and businesses has revolutionised the market in and delivery of vaccines globally and saved the lives of millions. The origins of GAVI's funding lie in the very special coming together of activists and government that led to the UK’s historic commitments to the UN 0.7 per cent of GDP target for development. This is an enduring achievement of the last Labour government. The good news is that this saw the advent of a new national consensus. The consequence of which is that David Cameron and Andrew Mitchell, who hosted the last funding conference for GAVI, have committed a further £814 million pounds to the cause. This recognises not simply the need I see so clearly demonstrated in Ghana and indeed throughout my work in Africa but also of the effectiveness of GAVI and its unique model. This builds local ownership whilst intervening in world markets to reduce the cost of vaccines to developing nations through innovative funding mechanisms. The IFFIm on which I worked with Gordon Brown during our time at the Treasury was the first of these. Designed and championed by a very special partnership between the treasury, the city, and civil society including the Vatican, it proved to be a groundbreaking approach to securing sustainable funding for development. I am now seeing first hand in Ghana the product of a next generation initiative, the Advanced Market Commitment (AMC), which is delivering life saving pneumococcal vaccines to the poorest countries at a 90 per cent price reduction compared to the cost in the US and EU. And it has accelerated the pace of delivery so that by 2015 an additional 700,000 lives ought to be saved.

The child that I saw my self struggling for breath in the arms of her father, whilst a weeping mother looked on at the Princess Marie Louise Hospital in central Accra ought not to be joined by countless others. Politics and the budget process that protects DFID’s spending are too often disparaged by so many in the sadly cynical and disillusioned country that we have become. Not least by so many young people who have been turned off completely by the whole process. We all need reminding from time to time why politics and the contest of ideas and values matter so desperately. And why we need to restore and revitalise our own politics.

One of GAVI’s strengths, as I see it, is that GAVI builds and supports local ownership and participation. A traditional leader in rural Ghana told us through his linguist, the original version of our own Number 10 spokesperson, why he had called together the village community to get vaccinated. Ghanaian health professionals had proudly outlined the “cold chain”, the logistical triumph that will ensure that children in the remotest parts of Ghana will still get access to the vaccine in good time and at maximum effectiveness. The Health Minister rightly outlined the Ghanaian taxpayers’ contribution to the funding of the whole process supported by GAVI. This is best practice in international development. Britain’s contribution ensures that somewhere in the world every 2 seconds a child is being vaccinated and a life is saved every 2 minutes from diseases that no child in the UK ever dies. On my way back from the medical field unit so similar to the one my mum took me all those years ago now, I saw a “Tro-Tro”, Ghana’s ubiquitous minivan taxi system. They are famed for the proverbs emblazoned on them with great colour and decorative flourish. This one simply said, “Prevention is better than cure". 

Paul Boateng is a former chief secretary to the Treasury, ex-High Commissioner in South Africa and a Labour peer

Paul Boateng, a former British high commissioner to South Africa, MP, cabinet minister and civil rights lawyer, is a member of the House of Lords and a trustee of the Planet Earth Institute

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA