ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND HEALTH
*********************************************************************
=================================================================
. ========== .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net .
. ========== .
. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send .
. E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP .
. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from .
. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com. .
. Permission to repost, reprint or quote is hereby granted. .
. Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com .
. with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. .
=================================================================
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND HEALTH
It seems obvious that poor people are more likely to be sick, and
to die at an earlier age, compared to rich people. Several
recent studies from the U.S. confirm that this is the
case.[1,2,3,4]
What is not so obvious is that the health of the poor is harmed
in proportion to the size of the gap between rich and poor. It
isn't the absolute level of poverty that matters so much as the
size of the gap between rich and poor. In other words, "...what
matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less
the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is
distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better
the health of that society," according to an editorial in the
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL April 20th.[5] Two recent studies of the
U.S. indicate that this is so,[6,7] and they are not the first to
make the case.[8,9]
The two recent studies, published in April in the BRITISH MEDICAL
JOURNAL, examine all 50 states within the U.S. Each study
defines a measure of income inequality and compares it to various
rates of disease and other social problems. Both the studies
--one from Harvard and one from University of California at
Berkeley --conclude that the greater the gap between rich and
poor, the greater the chances that people will be sick and die
young. It isn't the absolute level of wealth in a society that
determines health; it is the size of the gap between rich and
poor. Let's look at some of the details:
George Kaplan and his colleagues at Berkeley measured inequality
in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income
received by the less well off 50% of households.[6] It ranged
from about 17% in Louisiana and Mississippi to about 23% in Utah
and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New
Hampshire have the most EQUAL distribution of income, while
Louisiana and Mississippi have the most UNEQUAL distribution of
income.
This measure of income inequality was then compared to the
age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a pattern
emerged: the more unequal the distribution of income, the greater
the death rate. For example in Louisiana and Mississippi the
age-adjusted death rate is about 960 per 100,000 people, while in
New Hampshire it is about 780 per 100,000 and in Utah it is about
710 per 100,000 people. Adjusting these results for average
income in each state did not change the picture: in other words,
it is the gap between rich and poor, and not the average income
in each state, that best predicts the death rate in each state.
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other
social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality
in the distribution of income also had higher rates of
unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage
of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and a
greater percentage of people without medical insurance. Again,
the gap between rich and poor was the best predictor, not the
average income in the state.
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income
distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer
books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational
performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills,
and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater
proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of
homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of
the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher
proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher
proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs
per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for
police protection.
The Harvard researchers used a slightly different measure of
inequality, called the Robin Hood index.[10] The higher the
Robin Hood index, the greater the inequality in the distribution
of income. The researchers calculated the Robin Hood index for
all 50 states and then examined its relationship to various
measures of health and well being.
They found that the Robin Hood index correlated with the overall
age-adjusted death rate. Each percentage point increase in the
Robin Hood index was associated with an increase in total
mortality of 21.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The Robin Hood index was also strongly associated with the infant
mortality (death) rate; with deaths from heart disease; with
deaths from cancer; and with deaths by homicide among both blacks
and whites.
The Harvard team concludes that reducing inequality would bring
important health benefits. For example, if the Robin Hood index
were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England),
deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%.
These studies are important because they confirm work that has
previously found a relationship between income inequality and
health, using data of good quality from all 50 states.[11]
Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth[12] has been
increasing in the U.S. for about 20 years.[13,14,15,16] In 1977
the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured 16.8% of the nation's
entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was capturing 18.9%. During
the 4-year Clinton presidency the wealthiest 5% have increased
their take of the total to over 21%, "an unprecedented rate of
increase," according to the British ECONOMIST magazine.[17]
Inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is even
greater than the inequality in income. In 1983, the wealthiest
5% of Americans owned 56% of all the wealth in the U.S.; by 1989,
the same 5% had increased their share of the pie to 62%.[16,pg.29]
These trends in inequality in the U.S. are accelerating as time
passes. We now know that these trends have real consequences for
the health of people and society. As a nation, we have
traditionally thought it was acceptable if the rich got richer,
so long as the poor were minimally provided for. These studies
now reveal that such a situation is not acceptable. As the gap
grows between rich and poor, the health of the nation
deteriorates, the social fabric unravels, and the cost of
maintaining community goes up.
How does the gap between rich an poor harm the health of the
poor? Evidently, the psychological hardship of being low down on
the social ladder has detrimental effects on people, beyond
whatever effects are produced by the substandard housing,
nutrition, air quality, recreational opportunities, and medical
care enjoyed by the poor.[18]
The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by
extraterrestrial beings. It has been created by the policies of
governments: taxation, training, investment in children and their
education, modernization of businesses, transfer payments,
minimum wages and health benefits, capital availability, support
for green industries, encouragement of labor unions, attention to
infrastructuire and technical assistance to entrepreneurs, among
others. In the U.S., government policies of the past 20 years
have promoted, encouraged and celebrated inequality. These are
choices that we, as a society, have made. Now one half of our
society is afraid of the other half, and the gap between us is
expanding. Our health is not the only thing in danger. They
that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
--Peter Montague
================================================================
[1] George Davey Smith and others, "Socioeconomic Differentials
in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor
Intervention Trial: I. White Men," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC
HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 486-496.
[2] George Davey Smith and others, "Socioeconomic Differentials
in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor
Intervention Trial: II. Black Men," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC
HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 497-504.
[3] Gopal K. Singh and Stella M. Yu, "US Childhood Mortality,
1950 through 1993: Trends and Socioeconomic Differentials,"
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996),
pgs. 505-512.
[4] C. Wayne Sells and Robert Wm. Blum, "Morbidity and Mortality
among US Adolescents: An Overview of Data and Trends," AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs.
513-519.
[5] Editorial, "The Big Idea," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312
(April 20, 1996), pg. [985].
[6] George A. Kaplan and others, "Inequality in income and
mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and
potential pathways," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312 (April 20,
1996), pgs. 999-1003.
[7] Bruce P. Kennedy and others, "Income distribution and
mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood
index in the United States," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312
(April 20, 1996), pgs. 1004-1007.
[8] Richard G. Wilkinson, "Income distribution and life
expectancy," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 304 (January 18, 1992),
pgs. 165-168. See also footnote 11, below.
[9] Robert J. Waldmann, "Income Distribution and Infant
Mortality," THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS Vol. 107 (November
1, 1992), pgs. 1283-1302.
[10] The Robin Hood index (RHI) is calculated by dividing the
population into 10 groups, richest to poorest. The RHI
calculation proceeds by first summing the percentage of income
for each 10% group whose percentage of available income exceeds
10% and then subtracting the product of the number of 10% groups
that meet this criterion times 10%. Example: in Massachusetts in
1990, the top 10% received 29.93% of income; the next lower 10%
received 16.41% of all income; the next lower 10% received 13.09%
if all income; the next lower 10% received 10.83% of all income,
and the remaining six 10% groups each received less than 10% of
income and are therefore ignored in the RHI calculation. The RHI
index for Massachusetts in 1990 is therefore calculated from the
top four 10% groups: (10.83% + 13.09% + 16.41% + 29.93%)-(4x10%)
= 70.26%-40% = 30.26%. See Appendix, pg. 1007, of Kennedy, cited
above in note 7.
[11] The body of literature linking health to the gap between
rich and poor is reviewed in Richard G. Wilkinson, "Commentary: A
reply to Ken Judge: mistaken criticisms ignore overwhelming
evidence," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 311 (November 11, 1995),
pgs. 1285-1287, which was written as a response to Ken Judge,
"Income distribution and life expectancy: a critical appraisal,"
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 311 (November 11, 1995), pgs.
1282-1285.
[12] Wealth is the net worth of a household, calculated by adding
up the current value of all assets a household owns (bank
accounts, stocks, bonds, life insurance savings, mutual fund
shares, houses, unincorporated businesses, consumer durables such
as cars and major appliances, and the value of pension rights),
then subtracting the value of all liabilities (consumer debt,
mortgage balances, and other outstanding debt).
[13] Sheldon Danziger and others, "How the Rich Have Fared,
1973-1987," AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Vol. 79 (May, 1989), pgs.
310-314.
[14] McKinley L. Blackburn and David E. Bloom, "Earnings and
Income Inequality in the United States," POPULATION AND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Vol. 13, No. 4 (December, 1987), pgs. 575-609.
[15] Johan Fritzell, "Income Inequality Trends in the 1980s: A
Five-Country Comparison," ACTA SOCIOLOGICA Vol. 36 (1993), pgs.
47-62.
[16] Edward N. Wolff, TOP HEAVY; A STUDY OF THE INCREASING
INEQUALITY OF WEALTH IN AMERICA (New York: Twentieth Century
Fund, 1995). Although this is a study of wealth inequality,
chapter 6 deals with income inequality.
[17] "Up, down and standing still," THE ECONOMIST February 24,
1996, pgs. 30, 33.
[18] George Davey Smith, "Income inequality and mortality: why
are they related?" BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312 (April 20,
1996), pgs. 987-988.
Descriptor terms: wealth; income distribution; equity;
inequality; economy; poverty; morbodity statistics; mortality
statistics; homicide; tobacco use; education; disabilities;
incarceration; robin hood index; harvard; berkeley;
################################################################
NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and
money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this
service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible
contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or
$500.00). Please send your contribution to: Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036.
--Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################
BACK TO
*********************************************************************