Background: “Global health” is an emerging concept that continues to be redefined, but much of that process is not adequately including voices from the south. This has repercussions on programs and global policies, creating a pattern of northern hegemony in research and practice. Structure/Method/Design: The data presented is a result of a literature review of peer-reviewed journals and studies on “global health” in the last decade, as well as outcomes of the Global Colloquium of University Presidents 2013. Results (Scientific Abstract)/Collaborative Partners (Programmatic Abstract): Three main themes emerge from the global health literature. First, the “health” being addressed in global health programs remains disease-focused, primarily defined within the framework of the MDGs, with insufficient attention to social and political determinants of health. This contributes to a lack of contextual understanding of social inequities and population needs, and consequently to poor health outcomes. Second, slow economic growth is portrayed as the cause of and solution for global health issues. Inequalities due to globalization have been seen to cause declines in health and the stagnation of growth, and yet the focus of global initiatives has focused on economic growth as the central goal to development, with the health of populations as an incidental benefit. Additionally, insufficient attention is being paid to the income-inequalities within countries and how these affect population health. Third, the global perspective is generally missing from “global health.” A clear northesouth distinction persists in programs still operating with an “international health” approach, and in perceptions of global health as staving off the spread of diseases indigenous to the south. Global health is currently being defined from a predominantly northern perspective, research is being funded by the north—90% of papers are authored by academics in North American institutions—with the risk that the field will be actively developed through the lens of the north for the benefit of the south, without achieving southern ownership. This is promulgated by superior, funded research programs in the north, while institutions in the south are burdened by challenged research infrastructures and unequal partnerships with northern institutions. Summary/Conclusion: These factors have created unequal partnerships that continue to obscure the voices of the global south in the global discourse on health.