For the last decade, Africa’s development has been propelled by high prices for export commodities, the discovery and exploitation of natural resources, new-found stability and governance improvements in key countries and the ripening demographic dividends.13 However, following the collapse of world prices for oil and other minerals, growth in sub-Saharan Africa decelerated to 1.5% in 2016, the lowest level since the 1980s, with the region’s real GDP per capita contracting by 1.1%; South Africa and oil-exporting countries accounted for most of the region’s slowdown.14 A recent International Monetary Fund report predicts a bleak outlook due to a dramatic drop in the price and volume of exports and falls in employment for 28 sub-Saharan African countries.15 Natural disasters, localised armed conflicts and the Ebola epidemic in west Africa have only compounded an already difficult situation. Although African economies are diverse and include 24 lower and upper middle-income countries according to the World Bank,16 the impact of the economic slowdown will be felt in many parts of a continent that is still heavily dependent on export commodities and vulnerable to political instability.
This is not the first time that Africa has had to cope with serious financial constraints. In the late 1970s and the 1980s, many sub-Saharan Africa’s countries were hit hard by the combination of high oil prices (which was then imported) and low prices for key export commodities, compounded by recurrent natural disasters and political instability.17 This led to economic recession, unsustainable debt and the imposition of austerity programmes that devastated public services. That negative economic cycle was overcome, also on the account of foreign direct investment in the continent and remittances from its diaspora.18 However, back then, mistakes were made; structural adjustment programmes and health sector reform policies were designed and implemented under the guidance of development partners. The general consensus is that these programmes and policies were largely ill-conceived and impacted negatively on the development of many of Africa’s fragile economies and nascent public services.19 In the health sector, these prolonged crises were all associated with falls in the value of public salaries and health workers numbers,20 frequent drug shortages and neglect of infrastructure and equipment maintenance. The introduction of user fees and community-based financing schemes did not alleviate the impact of insufficient public funds,21 with long-lasting regressive effects on population health.22
Past experiences also illustrate the different coping strategies that institutions and individuals adopted to weather the economic storm and bounce back. In Mozambique, prioritising essential primary care services and protecting personnel and generic drug expenditures helped protect the country’s health system during its civil war years.23 A focus on infectious diseases, essential drugs and context-specific primary health care (PHC) policies were the steps South Africa took to protect the health system from apartheid era distortions.24 25 Across the continent in the 1980s and 1990s, health professionals started selling public drugs to compensate for reductions and delays in their salary payments.26 In Malawi, international partners stepped in to support the top-up and payment of health worker salaries in the public sector.27 And many patients were forced to rely on their personal savings, remittances and borrowing to guarantee continued access to services.28
As well as facing the challenges of economic contraction, declining public budgets and political instability, many of the poorer countries on the continent presently have to contend with the changing priorities of donors and aid programmes (box 1).
Box 1Shifting environments and disrupted health financing strategies in three low-income African countries
In postconflict Sierra Leone in 2001, the national government and international donors embarked on an ambitious Free Health Care Initiative (FHCI) to remove user fees from the provision of healthcare to pregnant/lactating women and under-5s. The Ebola epidemic in 2014 and the global economic slowdown have come to jeopardise the initiative. A recent review27 concluded that there are currently not enough domestic resources to pay for the requirements of the FHCI, or universal health coverage (UHC), and that increased donor support will be needed for the next decade.
In Mozambique, the dip in commodity prices, a resumption of armed confrontation, a severe drought in parts of the country and the discovery of hidden government debts have all recently dented confidence in the country economy. While the government and development partners had been content to develop a sustainable health financing strategy up until 2015, inspired by the aim of UHC, the discovery of the hidden debts has resulted in international donors suspending aid and loans to the country28. Although the aid-dependent health sector has been granted an additional 10% in public funds to compensate for the withdrawal of foreign assistance, the plans to strengthen the country’s health financing system have been all but put on hold.
In Guinea-Bissau, most donors suspended direct contributions to the State budget in 2014 following the latest coup d’état, leaving the chronically underfunded health sector susceptible to the problems of illegal charges and health workers routinely misappropriating revenues from the sale of medicines.29 Similar to what happened before in other countries,25 the World Bank temporarily agreed to support public health salaries, with the objective of avoiding public servants’ strikes, supporting modernisation of the public administration and stabilising a volatile situation. With the end of this support and collaboration with the national government still suspended, international health partners are negotiating health financing arrangements directly with non-governmental organisations to allow the provision of basic health services in the country.