# No Time Like the Present: Centring Politics in the Global NCD Policy Agenda: Comment on "Barriers and Opportunities for WHO ‘Best Buys’ Non-Communicable Disease Policy Adoption and Implementation From a Political Economy Perspective: A Complexity Systematic Review"

## TL;DR

This paper argues that political factors are crucial in the slow adoption of WHO's NCD policies, suggesting a need for more political engagement in health policy design.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a political economy perspective to explain the limited uptake of WHO's NCD Best Buys and advocates for a revised policy learning approach.

## Key findings

- Technical policy advice alone is insufficient for effective NCD policy adoption.
- Political economy factors significantly influence governments' responses to NCD policies.
- A 'double-loop' policy learning approach is needed to address underlying assumptions in policy design.

## Abstract

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) non-communicable disease (NCD) Best Buys provides a comprehensive package of technically sound policy advice in response to the growing global burden of NCDs. However, despite these policy mechanisms being touted as beneficial to countries’ health and economic bottom lines, uptake has remained slow and globally disparate. Loffreda and colleagues’ analysis draws attention to the importance of political economy forces in shaping governments’ responses to NCDs and, in particular, their uptake of the NCD Best Buys. In building on this work, we examine the history and instances of contemporary application of the NCD Best Buys to consider the limitations of these technocratically framed policy recommendations. In doing so, we highlight the risks present in focusing on the technical – while negating the contextually nuanced political – dimension of policy adoption. We thus advocate for greater political engagement in policy design and implementation as well as a revitalised "double-loop" approach to NCD policy learning, where policy and system feedback is not solely used to reify policy advice but rather interrogate the assumptions underpinning such.