Back in 2012, I shared a chart showing that workplace deaths declined substantially after the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
But I then shared a second chart showing that workplace deaths declined just as much before OSHA was created.
The moral of my story was quite simple. Deaths primarily fell because America become much more prosperous. And there’s a lot of evidence that wealthier is healthier.
Today, let’s look at a similar example.
A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research looks at the impact of public health measures in the early 1900s. They start by sharing some good news.
Since the mid-19th century, mortality rates in the Western world have plummeted and life expectancy has risen dramatically. Sometimes referred to as the mortality transition, this development is widely recognized as one of the most significant in the history of human welfare (Fogel 2004). Two features characterize the mortality transition. First, it was driven by reductions in infectious diseases and diseases of infancy and childhood (Omran 2005; Costa 2015). Second, it was concentrated in urban areas.
Do government policies deserve the credit?
There’s some evidence for that hypothesis.
…recent reviews of the literature emphasize the role of public health efforts, especially those aimed at purifying the water supply. For instance, Cutler et al. (2006) argue that public health efforts drove the dramatic reductions in food- and water-borne diseases at the turn of the 20th century. Similarly, Costa (2015) argues that clean-water technologies such as filtration and chlorination were “the biggest contributor[s] to the decline in infant mortality”
To be sure, there were huge public projects in the first several decades of last century. Here’s the data on sewage treatment facilities.
And here’s some data on milk purification efforts.
And the study has data on other aspects of public health as well.
The key question is whether all these efforts were successful. The three authors decided to investigate.
Using data on 25 major American cities for the years 1900-1940, the current study revisits the causes of the urban mortality decline at the turn of the 20th century. Specifically, we conduct a statistical horse race that attempts to distinguish the effects of ambitious, often extraordinarily expensive (Costa 2015, p. 554), public health interventions aimed at controlling mortality from food-and-water-borne diseases. Following previous researchers (Troesken 2004; Cutler and Miller 2005; Beach et al. 2016; Knutsson 2018), we explore the extent to which filtering and chlorinating drinking water contributed to the decline in typhoid mortality observed during the period under study and, more generally, to the observed declines in total and infant mortality. In addition, we explore the effects several other municipal-level efforts that were, at the time, viewed as critical in the fight against typhoid and other food- and water-borne diseases (Meckel 1990; Levitt et al. 2007; Melosi 2008) but have not received nearly as much attention from modern-day researchers. These interventions include: the treatment of sewage before its discharge into lakes, rivers and streams; projects designed to deliver clean water from further afield such as aqueducts and water cribs; requirements that milk sold within city limits meet strict bacteriological standards; and requirements that milk come from tuberculin-tested cows. Because the urban mortality transition was characterized by substantial reductions in infant and childhood mortality (Omran 2005) and because exclusive breastfeeding was not the norm during the period under study (Wolf 2001, 2003), improvements in milk quality seem a particularly promising avenue to explore.
But here’s the surprising result.
They did not find much evidence that public health efforts made a difference.
…our results suggest that the building of a water filtration plant cut the typhoid mortality rate by nearly 40 percent. More generally, however, our results are not consistent with the argument that public health interventions drove the extraordinary reductions in infant and total mortality observed between 1900 and 1940. Specifically, we find that efforts to purify milk had no appreciable effect on infant mortality and no effect on mortality from non-pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), which was often transmitted through infected milk. Likewise, neither chlorinating the water supply nor constructing sewage treatment plants appears to have been effective. …Our results point to other factors such as better living conditions and improved nutrition as being responsible for the sharp decline in urban mortality at the turn of the 20th century.
Here’s the chart showing that infant mortality consistently declined, largely independent of public health efforts.
I’m not suggesting, by the way, that public health spending is bad. Nor am I asserting that it’s a waste of money.
Notwithstanding some of the jokes that target libertarians, the goal isn’t to abolish every regulation or program governing safety and health. Maybe I’m a bad libertarian, but I’d pick a city with sewage treatment over one without.
But my main point is that I don’t need to make that choice. Nobody does.
The data strongly suggests that economic growth and rising levels of prosperity are the real drivers of improved health outcomes. Market-driven prosperity is what generates the wealth needed to improve public health, whether the actual delivery takes place via public or private action.
[…] on the seen rather than the unseen , I’ve unfortunately had several reasons to write about government policies and premature […]
[…] the way, this type of cost-benefit analysis is universally accepted by economists. There are disagreements about […]
[…] link between prosperity and longevity isn’t big news, but Switzerland’s rapid upward ascent is very […]
[…] link between prosperity and longevity isn’t big news, but Switzerland’s rapid upward ascent is very […]
[…] Liberty is not only a good principle, it also generates the best health outcomes. […]
[…] P.S. Back in 2012, I pointed out that the economy’s sub-par performance under Obama would lead to almost 60,000 premature deaths. I openly acknowledged that this back-of-the-envelope calculation was very speculative, but what’s not speculation is that richer societies are healthier societies. […]
[…] I’ve written that policy makers need to consider both the human toll of the coronavirus and the human toll of a depressed economy. […]
[…] written about this correlation many times, both as a general concept, and also when addressing specific topics such as the adverse impact of President Obama’s […]
[…] written about this correlation many times, both as a general concept, and also when addressing specific topics such as the adverse impact of President Obama’s […]
How about a column on the dental insurance scam? It’s not insurance, it’s a discount coupon. Limited benefit, limited services for a limited time…not insurance. Big third party payers essentially fix prices because dentists can’t charge more (or sometimes not at all) nor can they charge less based on their contract. It is not a free market at all even though there are thousands of competing dentists. As you say, third party payers and price controls never work! This situation has created the “access to care” fallacy which has brought in more government involvement, more costly regulation, more layers of administration and more sub-standard providers. There is already a surplus of providers! And the “subsidized” cost of dental school is out of control exactly for the reasons you say. Dentistry is a microcosm of the entire healthcare industry.
“What’s Wrong with Government-Run Healthcare?”
PragerU
Published on Oct 15, 2018
Water treatment can be done centrally, if you want drinkable toilet water and drinkable garden or lawn water; or by house (filters supplied and refreshed regularly by water supplier). Individual filters supply far cleaner drinking/cooking water, and many homes (not the poor) have them already. Common drinking water is open to city-wide infections and possible terrorism, and has to filter far higher quantities of water.
Not to say some minimal filtering (far cheaper for the city or town, balanced by extra individual cost of personal filters) shouldn’t be done centrally, but a really robust system should be based on individual usage for individually limited purposes.
See “The Blue Death” by Dr. Robert Morris (my cousin) for a comprehensive book on the history of water-born diseases.
Yes. Market-driven prosperity is behind most of the lifestyle improvements we’ve seen over the past century or two. Progressives like to give government the credit, but government cannot successfully mandate anything unless the underlying economy makes it affordable. Government tends to be more of a follower than a leader on these things.
Here’s my post on how we got the 40-hour workweek: