![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) and neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are medical terms referring to a group of diseases, yet they are simultaneously socio-political constructs (EID and NTD). When viewed as such, public health interest in EID has been criticised as prioritising free market, Global North interests. This paper asks if the recent turn to NTD, which directs attention and resources to ‘the bottom billion’ of the world's population, addresses the limitations of focusing on EID. Our approach involves comparing the specific socio-political framing, or ‘worldview’ of NTD, with that of EID. We examine the distinct history, rationales, morals, political and economic tensions and loci of power entailed in each worldview. This analysis suggests that efforts to foreground NTD constitute a site where humanitarian and biomedical industry actors and actions are increasingly blurred. We examine whether the NTD worldview constitutes a break with or a new version of a free market approach to global health, and whether it reworks or solidifies paternalistic Global North–South relations. We consider some of the limits of work on NTD to date, suggesting that although the NTD worldview does not escape the neo-colonial history of global health, it can actualise it under a different form.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Catherine Bateman Steel for her helpful advice, and three reviewers whose comments have helped to strengthen the paper. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Funding
This work has been supported by an Australia Research Council Discovery Project [grant number DP11010181].