How was river-blindness success built?
Winters argues that OCP triumph narratives were actively assembled from metrics, statues, staged photos, and Bank publicity, even while transmission really did fall in indicator villages.
Source
Constructing Success: The World Bank, Onchocerciasis Control, and What Lies Beneath Triumphalist Global Health Narratives
Study at a glance
- Design
- Qualitative / archival — Archival, oral-history, and grey-literature study of OCP success narratives
- N
- Programme history across eleven countries (1972–2002); not a single sample N
- Population
- World Bank/WHO Onchocerciasis Control Programme publicity and indicator-village evidence
- Outcome
- How metrics, images, and publicity assembled triumphalist narratives alongside real transmission declines
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
How was river-blindness success built?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
The OCP operated in eleven countries from 1972 to 2002.
This image of a child leading a blind adult (usually a man) dates to at least 1952, and variations of it were commonly displayed in promotional materials for the Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa (OCP), a regional disease control programme that operated across a swarth of land more than twice the size of France in eleven countries from 1972 to 2002
Advocates claimed 25 million hectares would be freed for cultivation.
For the land-related benefits, Benton and Skinner put forward the widely cited figure that 25 million hectares of land would be freed for cultivation, or enough to feed about 17 million people each year
What they did
Archival reconstruction, oral history, and grey literature unpack the 25-million-hectare claim, McNamara’s financing role, ivermectin donations, and Reader’s Digest-style success hunting.
What they found
OCP ran in eleven countries (1972–2002). Land-freed figures were broad guesses. A famous blind-man-and-boy image may have been staged before the programme. Constructed success is not the same as zero impact.
The limits
What it doesn't show
This is a history of success-making, not a denial that onchocerciasis burden fell. It does not re-estimate DALYs from scratch.
Key terms
- OCP
- Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa, 1972–2002, WHO-executed and Bank-financed.
- Impact-based success
- Judging programmes by scalable, cost-effective metrics that vertical campaigns display well.
- 25 million hectares
- Widely cited land-freed figure based on contested generalizations, not a reproducible survey.
- APOC
- African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (1995–2015), the OCP’s follow-on in success memory.
Flashcards
0 of 12 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
OCP years were?
Common questions
Was OCP ‘fake’?
No: indicator-village data showed falling transmission; the argument is about how success was narrated.
Why the Bank?
McNamara put the Bank in the financing hot seat despite onchocerciasis not being an obvious first health bet.
Why statues?
Bronze memorials at WHO, the Bank, Merck, and the Carter Center lock in a partnership-success memory.
More on International health