Skip Navigation



African Affairs Advance Access published online on September 8, 2005
African Affairs, doi:10.1093/afraf/adi036
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
104/417/591    most recent
adi036v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Butler, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal African Society. All rights reserved

Article

South Africa’s HIV/AIDS Policy, 1994-2004: How Can It be Explained?

Anthony Butler 1

1 Associate Professor of Political Studies at the University of Cape Town


  Abstract

This article aims to explain South Africa’s controversial post-1994 HIV/ AIDS policy. It isolates two competing sets of policy prescriptions: a ‘mobilization/biomedical’ paradigm that emphasized societal mobilization, political leadership and anti-retroviral treatments; and a ‘nationalist/ameliorative’ paradigm that focused on poverty, palliative care, traditional medicine, and appropriate nutrition. It explains the ascendancy of the ameliorative paradigm in terms of its administrative and political viability in South African conditions. It explores how public sector institutions circumscribed the viability of biomedical interventions, while political institutions and state-society relations reduced knowledge transfer and policy learning. It then investigates the intellectual context that shaped the political viability of each paradigm. Finally it argues that the ANC accommodated proponents of each policy paradigm, and that instrumental calculation of the dangers of an inequitable and unsustainable anti-retroviral programme best explains the government’s continued adherence to a cautious prevention and treatment policy.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cultural Studies <=> Critical MethodologiesHome page
K. G. Tomaselli
(Re)Mediatizing HIV/AIDS in South Africa
Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, August 1, 2009; 9(4): 570 - 587.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Socioecon RevHome page
L. Baccaro and K. Papadakis
The downside of participatory-deliberative public administration
Socioecon. Rev., April 1, 2009; 7(2): 245 - 276.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Public Health (Oxf)Home page
N. Nattrass
Are country reputations for good and bad leadership on AIDS deserved? An exploratory quantitative analysis
J. Public Health Med., December 1, 2008; 30(4): 398 - 406.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Policy PlanHome page
L. Gilson and N. Raphaely
The terrain of health policy analysis in low and middle income countries: a review of published literature 1994-2007
Health Policy Plan., September 1, 2008; 23(5): 294 - 307.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Race ClassHome page
J. Wang
AIDS denialism and 'The humanisation of the African'
Race Class, January 1, 2008; 49(3): 1 - 18.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.