Health and Wealth: Cause or Effect? Flashcards
claim of Bloom and Sachs (1998)
poor health outcomes and high levels of tropical disease are a major causal factor driving low economic growth rates and slow economic development
tropical disease burden leads to low labour productivity and low income per capita
how to interpret corr(A,B)>0?
A causes B
B causes A
A causes B and B causes A simultaneously
- feedback effect, not mutually exclusive
- simultaneity
some other factor C causes both A and B
- omitted variables/confounding
purely incidental association
claim of Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2001)
Africa’s tropical disease led European imperialists to establish exploitative, extractive government institutions and thus low per capita incomes today
- less rule of law and typically violent resource extraction
tropical diseases matter through a historical channel and are no longer that big of an impediment today
same argument as Bloom and Sachs in that tropical disease lowered economic development but through different channels
17th-19th century mortality explains 3/4 of current income differences across former colonies
key to dealing with Africa’s geographical inheritance according to the two different theories
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2001)
- addressing the quality of government institutions today
- more attachment to this since A factors in the growth model are seen as key long-run drivers as k only gets you so far
Bloom and Sachs (1998)
- addressing the tropical disease burden
- improving health in terms of human capital k
health, education and income
education as a possible channel linking health and income
could it be the case that there’s lower incomes in places with high disease burden because poor health affects education?
- if you don’t make investments ini education, they might be less productive as adults with lower income
global tropical health problem: worm infections
among the world’s most prevalent diseases
- much less common in temperate/cold climate
- range of negative health consequences
in parts of SSA, 20%-50% or 50%+ of the population have infections - school-age children as the most susceptible
transmission through poor hygiene and sanitation
- eliminating one infection may reduce transmission
- positive externalities/spillovers
highly-effective treatment is cheap and administered infrequently