« Why the left should take the flat tax seriously | Main | Anorak's corner »

September 12, 2005

Comments

Mr. Econotarian

I think that malaria and AIDS are major growth retarders in parts of Africa.

On the other hand, until a country leaves the "unfree" level of the Economic Freedom index, there is little chance for the population to leave poverty regardless of public health programs.

AIDS is really, really bad for economic growth in poor countries, but cannot compete with Robert Mugabe's rule, for instance, in terms of growth-killing.

Owen Barder

Chris

Thanks for picking this up.

William D. Nordhaus has also published a series of studies which show that improved health has made an enormous contribution to increasing economic prosperity (see, for example, his paper “The Health of Nations: The Contribution of Improved Health to Living Standards.” in Kevin H. Murphy and Robert H. Topel, eds., Measuring the Gains from Medical Research: An Economic Approach.)

Furthermore, the Commission for Macroeconomics and Health report in 2001 was an influential statement of the evidence on the relationship between prosperity and health.

I think you are exactly right about the likely impact on fertility rates.

Vaccination has been an astonishingly important success in global health - one that we are in danger of taking for granted here in the rich countries. It is a huge opportunity, and I am full of admiration for Gordon Brown for his combination of vision and intelligence in driving this forward.

Owen

nikolai

The proposed effects are all a bit removed from the cause aren't they?

Vaccination causes lower child deaths; which causes women to have fewer children to reach their optimum family size; which causes lower female death rates; which increases the profitability of educating women; which causes increased economic growth. I don't think the likely sizes of any of these changes will be sufficient to feed through to have much of an effect.

My bet is that: (a) more outside money for medical programs (stimulating employment), and, (b) less disability and illness caused by disease (improving productivity) will be more likely to cause increased economic growth.

MasterillioViktoria

It is compelling to read this theory and space of its appendix in gambling.
That I be informed less it - it concerns statistics, is applied to the conclusiveness of the nonlinear equations.
Profoundly much the exegesis to the facer purpose (representing till conditions anybody so plainly explain nothing a smog) interests:
There is a teleshow - the virtuoso and the leader.
There are three doors. Behind one of them the windfall, behind two others is not present.
The chief offers a creme de la creme to the thespian that conformably chooses any of 3 doors (their probabilities are correspond to).
After the choice is made, the leader who knows where lies a prize, opens one of those doors that are not chosen via the trouper and shows that there the prize is not present. Also suggests the competitor to choose aeons ago again already between 2 doors.
Topic - how to arrive to the player? (In a source it is specified that it is necessary to supplant a selection, the odds of a pickings behind a door on which was specified nearby the actor who is doing not direct = 66.7 %.
Profoundly much I put off appropriate for councils or at least references where to look.
Representing more intersting look http://www.obu.edu/centers/images/index.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad