The Inverse Boomerang Pattern: the Global Kaletra Campaign and Access to Antiretroviral Drugs in Colombia and Ecuador



This paper examines a global campaign in which transnational advocacy networks challenged the monopoly rights of Abbott Laboratories over the antiretroviral drug Kaletra. It focuses on the cases of Colombia and Ecuador and analyzes the different trajectories of the campaign in the two countries and how each trajectory contributed differently to the global outcome. In both of these cases, I show that activism operated in an “inverse boomerang” pattern, by which an international NGO reached out to local allies to expand its global coalition, prioritizing its agenda over other domestic considerations. I argue that in cases where transnational campaigns are initiated globally, there is a potential mismatch between global and domestic goals and that the campaigns’ contribution to global norm-making depends on the type of relationship established between international advocates and domestic actors. Such relationships are in turn influenced by the political and economic context and the institutional arrangements of each country.


Transnational advocacy networks Access to medicines Compulsory licensing Boomerang pattern 


  1. Andia T. Pharmaceutical intellectual property rights protection and access to medicines in Ecuador: state sovereignty and transnational advocacy networks. In: Dreyfuss R, Rodriguez Garavito C, editors. Balancing wealth and health: global administrative law and the battle over intellectual property and access to medicines in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andia T. The invisible threat: trade, intellectual property, and pharmaceutical regulations in Colombia. In Intellectual property, pharmaceuticals, and public health: access to drugs in developing countries. 2011; 77–109.Google Scholar
  3. Bob C. The marketing of rebellion: insurgents, media, and international activism. Cambridge University Press. 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter RC. Setting the advocacy agenda: theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. Int Stud Q. 2007;51(1):99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cawthorne P et al. Access to drugs: the case of Abbott in Thailand. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7(6):373–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaves GC, Vieira MF, Reis R. Access to medicines and intellectual property in Brazil: reflections and strategies of civil society. Sur Rev Int Dir Hum. 2008;5(8):170–98.Google Scholar
  7. Chorev N. Changing global norms through reactive diffusion: the case of intellectual property protection of AIDS drugs. Am Sociol Rev. 2012;77(5):1–23.Google Scholar
  8. DNP and MSPS. Política Farmacéutica Nacional. 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Flynn M. Corporate power and state resistance: Brazil’s use of TRIPS flexibilities for its national AIDS Program1. In Intellectual property, pharmaceuticals and public health: access to drugs in developing countries, Shadlen KC, Guennif S, Guzman A, Lalitha N, editors. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2012; 149.Google Scholar
  10. Ford N, Wilson D, Chaves GC, Lotrowska M, Kijtiwatchakul K. Sustaining access to antiretroviral therapy in the less-developed world: lessons from Brazil and Thailand. AIDS. 2007;21:S21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fortunak MJ, Antunes OAC. A Produção de ARV No Brasil–uma Avaliação. Rio de Janeiro: ABIA/MSF, 2006. ABIA; 2008.Google Scholar
  12. Kaldor M. The idea of global civil society. Int Aff. 2003;79(3):583–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keck ME, Sikkink K. Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. Int Soc Sci J. 1999;51(159):89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keck ME, Sikkink K. Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell Univ Pr. 1998.Google Scholar
  15. Klug H. Campaigning for life: building a new transnational solidarity in the face of HIV/AIDS and TRIPS. Law and Globalization from Below 118. 2005.Google Scholar
  16. Krikorian G. The politics of patents: conditions of implementation of public health policy in Thailand. In: Shadlen KC, Sebastian H, editors. Politics of intellectual property: contestation over the ownership, use, and control of knowledge and information. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009. p. 29–56.Google Scholar
  17. Lamprea E. Colombia’s right-to-health litigation in a context of health care reform. In: Gross A, Flood C, editors. The right to health at the public/private divide: a global comparative study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  18. Levi M, Murphy GH. Coalitions of contention: the case of the WTO protests in Seattle. Political Stud. 2006;54(4):651–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moon S, Elodie J, Childs M, von Schoen-Angerer T. A ‘win-Win Solution?’: a critical analysis of tiered pricing to improve access to medicines in developing countries. Online Glob Health. 2011;7:39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MSF. Untangling the web of antiretroviral price reductions. Medicines San Frontiers. 2013.Google Scholar
  21. Nauta W. Mobilising Brazil as significant other in the fight for HIV/AIDS treatment in South Africa: the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and its global allies. In African engagements: Africa negotiating an emerging multipolar world. Dietz T, Havnevik K, Kaag M, editors. Brill. 2011; 133–60.Google Scholar
  22. PAHO. Perfil Del Sistema de Salud de Ecuador. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. 2008.Google Scholar
  23. Passarelli CA, Terto Jr V. Non-governmental organizations and access to anti-retroviral treatments in Brazil. Divulg SaúdeDebate. 2003;27:252–64.Google Scholar
  24. Price RM. Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Polit. 2003;55(4):579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodrigues MGM. Global environmentalism and local politics. State University of New York Press. 2004.Google Scholar
  26. Rodriguez Garavito C. A golden straitjacket? The struggle over patents and access to medicines in Colombia. In: Dreyfuss R, Rodriguez Garavito C, editors. Balancing wealth and health: global administrative law and the battle over intellectual property and access to medicines in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 169–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shadlen KC, Massard da Fonseca E. Health policy as industrial policy Brazil in comparative perspective. Polit Soc. 2013;41(4):561–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tarrow SG. The new transnational activism. Cambridge Univ Pr. 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology DepartmentBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations