Nd, sometimes, privatisation (Mosley et al., 1990; Birdsall and James, 1993). Over the last fifteen years, the Bank has shown less interest in chronic disease and development, leaving the WHO and other organisations like the NCD Alliance and The Lancet to take the lead in this field (Weisz, 2014b). As mentioned at the start of this introduction, the numerous reports, action plans and scientific papers published by these organisations have further consolidated and propagated the ideas of NCDs as a development issue. Of course, these organisations have brought some of their own concepts and idiosyncrasies ?like the WHO’s addition of a reworked and Peficitinib web weakened notion of PHC ?to the way they frame this issue. But, overall, the way they conceive chronic diseases in the global South is strongly influenced by the analyses and ideas articulated by the World Bank’s experts during the 1980s and 1990s. To illustrate, most of the documents on the topic published by these organisations share the Bank’s understanding that the relationship between NCDs and development is a two-way process, with economic growth generating unhealthy P144 web lifestyles and reducing chronic disease prevalence critical to improving productivity (e.g. WHO, 2010; UNDP, 2013). Likewise, most of these documents, echoing the Bank, express the significance of the NCD epidemic in the global South through rigorous epidemiological data and emphasise the importance of using cost-effective health interventions and public-private partnerships (e.g. Lim et al., 2007; WHO, 2013).3. Chronic diseases and the politics of care A focus on problematisation is, of course, not the only critical approach that can be used to make sense of current efforts to tackle NCDs in the global South. Another, important lens through which to explore these efforts is a critique characterised by a concern with social justice and human rights (Benatar et al., 2003; Benatar, 2005; Kleinman, 2010; Venkatapuram, 2010). This frame points to the political importance of care to the ways in which we approach NCDs across a number of domains. Specifically, the invocation of social justice and human rights acts as a critique of current approaches to NCDs in two ways. First, of the global health community’s selective deployment of the tools, techniques, funds and interventions that permits the care of people. Second, of the ability of the state to ensure the adequate care of its citizens. If the first critique calls the contemporary architecture of global health into question (Farmer et al., 2013; Garrett, 2013), then the second scrutinises the ability of this architecture to deliver sustainable, effective and equitable health improvements on the ground (Benatar, 2005; Venkatapuram, 2010). The politics of NCDs in the global South are thus bound into and directly shaped by the nature, delivery and critique of care by a variety of actors. The ability and will to care, in turn, is shaped by the complex, multi-scalar politics and resource flows that condition so much of the global health enterprise. Care implies a need for empathy, responsibility and duty just as much as it does the fair distribution of medical services and resources and the capacity to access and make use of these (Kearns and Reid-Henry, 2009). It is therefore an essential ?if under-acknowledged ?component of the politics of NCDs in countries of the global South. The capacity to care is constrained by a number of factors that warrant further scrutiny. In the first plac.Nd, sometimes, privatisation (Mosley et al., 1990; Birdsall and James, 1993). Over the last fifteen years, the Bank has shown less interest in chronic disease and development, leaving the WHO and other organisations like the NCD Alliance and The Lancet to take the lead in this field (Weisz, 2014b). As mentioned at the start of this introduction, the numerous reports, action plans and scientific papers published by these organisations have further consolidated and propagated the ideas of NCDs as a development issue. Of course, these organisations have brought some of their own concepts and idiosyncrasies ?like the WHO’s addition of a reworked and weakened notion of PHC ?to the way they frame this issue. But, overall, the way they conceive chronic diseases in the global South is strongly influenced by the analyses and ideas articulated by the World Bank’s experts during the 1980s and 1990s. To illustrate, most of the documents on the topic published by these organisations share the Bank’s understanding that the relationship between NCDs and development is a two-way process, with economic growth generating unhealthy lifestyles and reducing chronic disease prevalence critical to improving productivity (e.g. WHO, 2010; UNDP, 2013). Likewise, most of these documents, echoing the Bank, express the significance of the NCD epidemic in the global South through rigorous epidemiological data and emphasise the importance of using cost-effective health interventions and public-private partnerships (e.g. Lim et al., 2007; WHO, 2013).3. Chronic diseases and the politics of care A focus on problematisation is, of course, not the only critical approach that can be used to make sense of current efforts to tackle NCDs in the global South. Another, important lens through which to explore these efforts is a critique characterised by a concern with social justice and human rights (Benatar et al., 2003; Benatar, 2005; Kleinman, 2010; Venkatapuram, 2010). This frame points to the political importance of care to the ways in which we approach NCDs across a number of domains. Specifically, the invocation of social justice and human rights acts as a critique of current approaches to NCDs in two ways. First, of the global health community’s selective deployment of the tools, techniques, funds and interventions that permits the care of people. Second, of the ability of the state to ensure the adequate care of its citizens. If the first critique calls the contemporary architecture of global health into question (Farmer et al., 2013; Garrett, 2013), then the second scrutinises the ability of this architecture to deliver sustainable, effective and equitable health improvements on the ground (Benatar, 2005; Venkatapuram, 2010). The politics of NCDs in the global South are thus bound into and directly shaped by the nature, delivery and critique of care by a variety of actors. The ability and will to care, in turn, is shaped by the complex, multi-scalar politics and resource flows that condition so much of the global health enterprise. Care implies a need for empathy, responsibility and duty just as much as it does the fair distribution of medical services and resources and the capacity to access and make use of these (Kearns and Reid-Henry, 2009). It is therefore an essential ?if under-acknowledged ?component of the politics of NCDs in countries of the global South. The capacity to care is constrained by a number of factors that warrant further scrutiny. In the first plac.
