Its overall budget was flat -- WHO decided to reduce infectious disease activities to fund other priorities. In complete fairness, the article suggests that WHO intended to shift some detection and emergency response responsibilities to member countries, and put some resources in that new paradigm. But even if so, the management of that transition now seems suspect.
I've seen various press references that the WHO had its budget cut after the financial crisis. But as near as I can tell (its budget transparency is almost zero), its budget in 2006 was $3.3bn, vs $4.0bn in 2014.
The CDC, by the way, has an ample budget, much of it dedicated to non-infectious disease activities like tobacco and chronic disease. A bit goes to gun control. These activities may be worthy, but it isn't clear that they protect public health in the same sense that epidemic control does.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-health-agenc...
Its overall budget was flat -- WHO decided to reduce infectious disease activities to fund other priorities. In complete fairness, the article suggests that WHO intended to shift some detection and emergency response responsibilities to member countries, and put some resources in that new paradigm. But even if so, the management of that transition now seems suspect.
I've seen various press references that the WHO had its budget cut after the financial crisis. But as near as I can tell (its budget transparency is almost zero), its budget in 2006 was $3.3bn, vs $4.0bn in 2014.
The CDC, by the way, has an ample budget, much of it dedicated to non-infectious disease activities like tobacco and chronic disease. A bit goes to gun control. These activities may be worthy, but it isn't clear that they protect public health in the same sense that epidemic control does.