The Bank of England says we’re on the brink of recession. This new paper shows why we should care. Quite simply, people born in recessions die earlier than those born in booms - around 15 months earlier.
This is not because the poverty inflicted by recessions causes greater childhood mortality. This result holds for those who reach the age of 40 - mainly because people born in recession are more prone to cardio-vascular disease. It seems that conditions in childhood or even in the womb - either family stress or poorer nutrition - have long-lasting effects.
There are three implications of this.
1. It means recessions matter. Of course, it doesn’t follow that the solution is to manage the “business cycle” better (pdf). It might instead mean we should try harder to pool economic risks. Recessions happen because 2% of people suffer a 50% drop in income rather than because 100% suffer a 1% fall. In theory, this sort of thing is insurable.
2. It adds to evidence that conditions in childhood, or even earlier, matter for adult development. We can put this paper alongside some of James Heckman’s work on skill and health formation.
3. It suggests that the correlation between social class and health is due at least in part to causation from poverty to ill-health. Further evidence on this is the fact that people who move “up” from one class to another die earlier on average than those who stay in a high class.
* The results come from a study of twins in Denmark. Of course, because twins put greater stress upon family resources, one would expect the impact of recession upon twins to be greater than that upon the single-born. But this doesn’t mean the latter is zero.
This is not because the poverty inflicted by recessions causes greater childhood mortality. This result holds for those who reach the age of 40 - mainly because people born in recession are more prone to cardio-vascular disease. It seems that conditions in childhood or even in the womb - either family stress or poorer nutrition - have long-lasting effects.
There are three implications of this.
1. It means recessions matter. Of course, it doesn’t follow that the solution is to manage the “business cycle” better (pdf). It might instead mean we should try harder to pool economic risks. Recessions happen because 2% of people suffer a 50% drop in income rather than because 100% suffer a 1% fall. In theory, this sort of thing is insurable.
2. It adds to evidence that conditions in childhood, or even earlier, matter for adult development. We can put this paper alongside some of James Heckman’s work on skill and health formation.
3. It suggests that the correlation between social class and health is due at least in part to causation from poverty to ill-health. Further evidence on this is the fact that people who move “up” from one class to another die earlier on average than those who stay in a high class.
* The results come from a study of twins in Denmark. Of course, because twins put greater stress upon family resources, one would expect the impact of recession upon twins to be greater than that upon the single-born. But this doesn’t mean the latter is zero.
The paper also seems to suggest -- since the effect is concentrated in poor households with bad access to social and health services -- that the effect may be history by now. In any case, the data they use is for twins born 1873-1906. The first year of life in 2008 is quite different than in 1906.
Posted by: stefan | August 13, 2008 at 07:49 PM
One might have guessed that the years 1940-45, and a few thereafter, might have shown strong effects. Did they look at that?
Posted by: dearieme | August 13, 2008 at 07:53 PM
Oops, Stefan's simultaneous comment makes my inquiry redundant.
Posted by: dearieme | August 13, 2008 at 07:54 PM
The WW2 years may actually have been good for longevity (assuming you survived!). There is good evidence of a "golden cohort" born in the years around 1930 (so young teenagers mostly during the war) are showing the strongest acceleration in longevity than any generation before. One theory is that wartime rationing has had a positive long-term effect. Another is that this is the first generation to give up smoking in any numbers in time for it to have an impact. And there are also of course medical advances. My point is, there are so many potential factors that pulling out any one is likely to provide a false answer.
Posted by: Bruce | August 15, 2008 at 02:01 PM