Elsevier

The Lancet

Volume 358, Issue 9277, 21 July 2001, Pages 194-200
The Lancet

Articles
Income inequality, the psychosocial environment, and health: comparisons of wealthy nations

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05407-1Get rights and content

Summary

Background

The theory that income inequality and characteristics of the psychosocial environment (indexed by such things as social capital and sense of control over life's circumstances) are key determinants of health and could account for health differences between countries has become influential in health inequalities research and for population health policy.

Methods

We examined cross-sectional associations between income inequality and low birthweight, life expectancy, self-rated health, and age-specific and cause-specific mortality among countries providing data in wave III (around 1989–92) of the Luxembourg Income Study. We also used data from the 1990–91 wave of the World Values Survey (WVS). We obtained life expectancy, mortality, and low birthweight data from the WHO Statistical Information System.

Findings

Among the countries studied, higher income inequality was strongly associated with greater infant mortality (r=0·69, p=0·004 for women; r=0·74, p=0·002 for men). Associations between income inequality and mortality declined with age at death, and then reversed among those aged 65 years and older. Income inequality was inconsistently associated with specific causes of death and was not associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), breast or prostate cancer, cirrhosis, or diabetes mortality. Countries that had greater trade union membership and political representation by women had better child mortality profiles. Differences between countries in levels of social capital showed generally weak and somewhat inconsistent associations with cause-specific and age-specific mortality.

Interpretation

Income inequality and characteristics of the psychosocial environment like trust, control, and organisational membership do not seem to be key factors in understanding health differences between these wealthy countries. The associations that do exist are largely limited to child health outcomes and cirrhosis. Explanations for between-country differences in health will require an appreciation of the complex interactions of history, culture, politics, economics, and the status of women and ethnic minorities.

Introduction

There has been great interest in understanding links between income inequality and health.1, 2, 3, 4 Some studies have examined income inequality in relation to between-country health differences,5, 6 while others have analysed associations of income inequality and health within countries.7, 8 Two distinct questions have been raised. First, for a given average income, is the extent of inequality in the distribution of income associated with differences in average population health between countries or between regions (eg, states) within a country? As an extension of this question, it has been proposed that the quality of the psychosocial environment—characterised by such things as social capital and sense of control over life—is the main explanatory mechanism for such associations.1, 6, 9 Although there is evidence at the individual level that psychosocial factors, like distrust,10 control,11 and the quality of interpersonal relationships12 affect health, little is known about whether population level analogues of these psychosocial factors explain health differences between countries. Such psychosocial indicators have been shown as unimportant in understanding between country differences in self-rated health.13 The second question is that if an association does exist between income inequality and health at the population level, to what extent is that association the mathematical result of the underlying association between income and health at an individual level.14, 15 Several within USA studies have investigated aspects of this.15, 16 The present analyses investigate the first question.

The theory that income inequality, and its potential effect on aspects of the psychosocial environment, can account for international health differences has become influential for interpreting health inequalities and in a number of countries has been embraced in policy documents focused on strategies to improve population health.3 Interest in the health effects of unequal income distribution was generated by the observation that income inequality was strongly associated with life expectancy among nine Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations.5 These data from the late 1970s and early 1980s showed that more economically unequal countries like the USA and UK had lower life expectancy than more egalitarian Nordic countries. After publication of this provocative idea, concerns were raised about accuracy of the income data, and contrary findings were published.17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Despite the fact that these studies produced inconsistent findings, the theory that income inequality and its psychosocial effects are critical determinants of population health continues to be generally accepted and widely promoted.22, 23, 24

Important questions remain about the underlying empirical evidence to support claims that countries with more income inequality and poorer psychosocial environment have worse population health. Previous research has been based on small numbers of countries and limited health indicators, such as life expectancy—a synthetic, overall measure of population health which can mask differences in the age and cause of death structure between countries. Across Europe, between country differences in the cause of death structure have been shown to be important in interpreting differences in the extent of within country health inequalities.25

We aimed to assess associations between income inequality and low birthweight, life expectancy, self-rated health, and age-specific and cause-specific mortality among countries providing data in wave III of the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS). The LIS is widely regarded as the premier study of income distribution in the world.26 We have also examined how aspects of the psychosocial environment such as distrust, belonging to organisations, volunteering (all proposed as measures of social capital,27 and perceived control over one's life circumstances were associated with between-country variations in health. We have also included data on belonging to trade unions and the proportion of women elected to national government, as indicators of class relations within the labour market and broader sociopolitical participation of women.28

Section snippets

Country selection

Wave III (1989–92) of the LIS provides the most recent, complete income inequality data available and includes 23 countries—Taiwan, Czech republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Russia, Slovak republic, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and USA. Taiwan was excluded because health data were not available. We first examined income inequality and life expectancy among the remaining 22 countries.

Results

We first examined data on income inequality and life expectancy for 22 countries in the wave III LIS database, As we have argued elsewhere, when data points are few, the selection of countries can be crucial to interpretation of results.34 Thus, we have presented data from all available countries in figure 1, which shows that income inequality was strongly and negatively associated with life expectancy (p=0·0001). However, this association was largely induced by the data point for Russia, where

Discussion

There are inherent limitations in interpreting associations based on sixteen, or fewer observations. To illustrate this point, in figure 2A we have selected the nine countries that were used in the 19925 study which reported a correlation of r=0·86 between more equal income distribution and life expectancy from data for the late 1970s and early 1980s. When we used these same nine countries but analysed data for 1989–92, higher income inequality was associated with lower life expectancy, albeit

References (37)

  • RG Wilkinson

    Unhealthy societies: the afflictions of inequality

    (1996)
  • G Davey Smith

    Income inequality and mortality: why are they related? Income inequality goes hand in hand with underinvestment in human resources

    BMJ

    (1996)
  • JW Lynch et al.

    Income inequality and mortality: importance to health of individual income, psychosocial environment, or material conditions

    BMJ

    (2000)
  • A Wagstaff et al.

    Income inequality and health: what does the literature tell us?

    Anmt Rev Public Health

    (2000)
  • RG Wilkinson

    Income distribution and life expectancy

    BMJ

    (1992)
  • MG Marmot et al.

    International comparators and poverty and health in Europe

    BMJ

    (2000)
  • GA Kaplan et al.

    Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways

    BMJ

    (1996)
  • BP Kennedy et al.

    Income distribution and mortality: cross-sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States

    BMJ

    (1996)
  • I Kawachi et al.

    Social capital, income inequality, and mortality

    Am J Public Health

    (1997)
  • SA Everson et al.

    Hostility and increased risk of mortality and acute myocardial infarction: the mediating role of behavioural risk factors

    Am J Epidenriol

    (1997)
  • MG Marmot et al.

    Contribution of job control and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidence

    Lancet

    (1997)
  • GA Kaplan et al.

    Social functioning and overall mortality: prospective evidence from the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study

    Epidemiology

    (1994)
  • G Ellison

    Inequality, social trust, and self-reported health status in high-income countries

    Ann New York Academy Sci

    (1999)
  • H Gravelle

    How much of the relation between population mortality and unequal distribution of income is a statistical artifact?

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • M Wolfson et al.

    The relationship between income inequality and mortality is not a statistical artefact

    BMJ

    (1999)
  • K Fiscella et al.

    Poverty or income inequality as predictors of mortality: longitudinal cohort study

    BMJ

    (1997)
  • K Judge

    Income distribution and life expectancy: a critical appraisal

    BMJ

    (1995)
  • RG Wilkinson

    A reply to Ken Judge: mistaken criticisms ignore overwhelming evidence

    BMJ

    (1995)
  • Cited by (345)

    • Radioactive decay, health and social capital: Lessons from the Chernobyl experiment

      2022, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
      Citation Excerpt :

      In recent years, the literature has increasingly focused on the relationship between social capital and health (Macinko and Starfield, 2001; Kawachi et al., 2004). A number of contributions suggested a negative correlation between social capital and mortality rates (Kawachi et al., 1997; Wilkinson et al., 1998; Kennedy et al., 1998; Veenstra, 2002; Lochner et al., 2003; Skrabski et al., 2003; Kennelly et al., 2003), psychiatric disorders (Veenstra, 2002) and suicide rates (Helliwell, 2007), and a positive correlation with self-rated health (Lynch et al., 2001; Subramanian et al., 2001; 2002; Wen et al., 2003). The most recent literature has recognized that the relationship between the social capital and health may be characterised by reverse causality and that policy implications derived from simple empirical correlations may be misleading.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text