Many publications on the WHS are celebratory. Appears to be "multi-stakeholder" and "private-public" governance models - but whose interests are represented, who are the actors and what is the underlying logic --> not yet very clear for me. - **The Shift to Multi-stakeholderism:** Platforms like the WHS represent a shift from traditional multilateralism (WHO-led) to "multi-stakeholderism." This model often gives private actors and corporate-funded foundations an equal or greater voice than sovereign states, which can lead to "regime complexity" and a fragmentation of global health governance1. - **Philanthro-capitalism and Market Logic:** Critical analyses often point to the outsized influence of private interests, such as pharmaceutical giants and large foundations (e.g., the Gates Foundation). These actors frequently steer the global health agenda toward technological "fixes"—such as vaccines and digital tools—at the expense of addressing structural drivers like social inequities, labor rights, and public health infrastructure. - **Northern influence:** The WHS could be critiqued for reinforcing Global North dominance. Despite its "global" name, the agenda-setting and decision-making processes frequently occur in "invitation-only" sessions that exclude or tokenize voices from the Global South, thereby perpetuating historical power asymmetries in health. **Key Analytical Pillars:** - **Power Asymmetries:** Monitor the dominance of Northern institutions and English-speaking "experts" over Global South lived experiences. - **Interests:** Analyze the influence of pharmaceutical and tech giants in steering the agenda toward "innovative solutions" (products) over structural reforms. - **Political Economy:** Track the shift in rhetoric from "Health as a Right" to "Health as an Investment/Security Asset".** **Action:** Critically follow the WHS 2026 agenda for "invitation-only" sessions and private pledging events.