Healthy living in hard times

My oped today is on the impact of a downturn on health. Full text over the fold.

A Downturn’s Silver Lining, Australian Financial Review, 7 April 2009

Australia has enjoyed a steady decline in the road toll over the past generation. Thanks to safer cars and tougher road rules, the road toll has fallen about 3 percent a year for the past few decades. But two years stand out from the data: 1983 (down 15 percent) and 1990 (down 17 percent).

Is it just a coincidence that the two biggest drops in the Australian road toll coincided with the last two recessions? Probably not, if research by University of North Carolina Christopher Ruhm is to be believed. In a series of papers, Ruhm and his co-authors have meticulously documented that mortality tends to rise in booms and fall in busts. Recessions make you live longer.

With titles like “A Healthy Economy Can Break Your Heart”, “Good Times Make You Sick” and “Healthy Living in Hard Times”, Ruhm’s research challenges the meme that economic downturns are unambiguously bad. We know that losing a job can be a searing experience, so how can a higher unemployment rate improve overall health?

The answer is that losing your job probably is bad for your health, but most people don’t lose their jobs in a recession.  If Australian unemployment were to rise to 10 percent, nine-tenths of the labour force would still be employed. Even in severe downturns, most people keep their jobs – they just work fewer hours and earn less.

At least in the short term, shorter hours and a slimmer pay packet seem to be good for average health. On-the-job injuries fall when there is less work around. We also have robust evidence that there are more alcoholics and chain smokers in good times than in downturns. Even severe obesity seems to drop when the economy hits the skids (suggesting that belt-tightening might be literal as well as figurative). In recessions, families are more likely to eat at home, and there is more time to exercise. People also get more sleep, which may not make you wealthy or wise, but certainly contributes to good health.

To quantify these effects, let’s look at current predictions of unemployment. In early-2008, the Australian unemployment rate was around 4 percent. This February, Treasury’s Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook forecast that unemployment would rise to 7 percent by June 2010. (Treasurer Wayne Swan has since hinted that it could be higher than this, but has not given an updated figure.) So what would a 3 percentage point increase in unemployment do to mortality in Australia?

To answer this, I used estimates from a cross-country analysis of 23 OECD countries (including Australia) by Ruhm and co-author Ulf Gerdtham. Their headline result is that a 3 percentage point rise in unemployment would reduce mortality in Australia by about 1 percent – saving around 1,650 lives per year.

Which categories of deaths are likely to fall? In proportionate terms, the largest reduction would be a 6 percent drop in vehicle accidents (about 80 fewer deaths), since less economic activity means fewer cars on the road. We can also expect a 5 percent drop in deaths from liver disease (80 lives saved), partly as a result of reduced alcoholism. A slump would also reduce flu and pneumonia deaths by about 3 percent (90 lives saved).

In absolute terms, the biggest gain from a major downturn would be from heart disease. Although an economic slump would only cut deaths in this category by 1 percent, heart disease is the nation’s biggest killer, so that would represent around 500 fewer deaths per year. There might also be a small rise in suicide – though this was not statistically significant in Gerdtham and Ruhm’s analysis, and its magnitude was too small to offset the other improvements. Overall, those most likely to be kept alive by a downturn are prime-age men.

These results are provocative, but need to be kept in perspective.  Physical health may improve in a recession, but mental wellbeing and self-reported happiness decline. Less money reduces the capacity of households to enjoy the good life. And compared with joblessness, the mortality magnitudes are fairly small: a 3 percentage point rise in unemployment might avert 1,650 deaths, but it means that 340,000 Australian workers need to lose their jobs.

As Ruhm firmly notes in one of his papers: “Evidence that health deteriorates when the economy improves is not an argument for inducing recessions, which have overwhelmingly negative consequences even if worse physical health is not one of them.” Or to put it another way, the cloud may have a silver lining, but we’re still going to get wet.

Andrew Leigh is an economist in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University.

There are quite a few calculations in this oped, so I’ve posted details on my website for anyone who’s wondering ‘how did he get that figure?’

This entry was posted in Health economics. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Healthy living in hard times

  1. Kevin Cox says:

    Interesting Andrew.

    However it illustrates my problem with economics as it is practiced. As you point out the reduction in deaths is from the reduced traffic etc. not because there is a recession. Unfortunately though the thinking that changing the economics is a good way of implementing policies is wide spread.

    Emissions trading as a way to encourage investment in renewables will not achieve the desired results. If you want to encourage investment in renewables encourage investment directly. If you want to reduce the road toll make the roads safer. Using economic artifacts like tax concessions, user pays principles, trading in derivatives, trade barriers, subsidies etc to achieve outcomes that one can achieve in more direct ways is inefficient and ineffective.

    We have got into the habit of trying to use economic artifacts because that was about the only way we could do things because of the administrative burdens – but the world has changed and we can now build systems that work directly on problems involving the expenditure of resources. The analysis that shows that there are fewer deaths in a recession is good but as Ruhn says it is not something on which one builds a policy. If only we kept that in mind with other social and environmental problems where we require government and community action.

Comments are closed.