To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article explores how informal medicine sellers (IMSs) in Mexico City “contest” and “reassemble” antibiotic control standards in ways that both challenge and respond to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) governance. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, we examine the “rationales”—moral, political, economic, technoscientific, and practical—that IMSs invoke to justify bypassing antibiotic prescription, dispensing and accounting regulations, and the “practical tinkering” they perform to make antibiotics available and “appropriately” used under conditions of scarcity and oversight failure. Rather than viewing IMSs as simply breaking official rules, we adopt a “social life of standards” perspective to argue that their actions reflect localized enactments of antibiotic control—versions shaped by community needs, corruption, poverty, and distrust in public health infrastructures. These practices are ambivalent, blurring boundaries between public service and profit and systemic subversion and informal regulation. By tracking how IMSs adapt, collectivize, and sometimes deliver treatments, we show how antibiotic governance is reworked from below—not only in response to AMR, but also to structural exclusions from formal care. We argue that rather than treating IMS rationales and practices as part of the problem, they should be studied as grounded responses to systemic failure—and potential sources of insight for context-sensitive regulatory design.