In 1842, the English social reformer Edwin Chadwick documented a 30-year discrepancy between the life expectancy of men in the poorest social classes and that of the gentry. Today, people in the most affluent areas of the UK, such as London’s Kensington and Chelsea, can expect to live 14 years longer than those in the poorest cities, such as Glasgow.
Such inequalities exist, to varying degrees, in all developed countries. Poorer groups fare particularly badly in the neo-liberal system of the US; gaps in life expectancy in some US cities, such as New Orleans, are as large as 25 years.
Understanding and reducing these health inequalities remains a major public policy challenge worldwide. It is not only a moral issue; health inequalities carry significant economic costs. However, the causes of such inequalities are complex and contested, and the solutions are elusive.
The prevailing explanation for health inequalities is rooted in the social determinants of health — that is, the environments in which people work and live. Affluent people have better access to health-promoting environments, such as well-maintained schools that offer a good education, high-quality housing and stable jobs in secure, safe settings. The poorer you are, the more exposed you are likely to be to health-damaging environments.
Various theories draw on this basic framework — and each competing explanation suggests different strategies for reducing health inequalities. For example, the “cultural-behavioral” approach explains health inequalities in terms of differences in individual behaviors, asserting that poorer people have worse health outcomes, owing to a higher propensity to smoke, drink alcohol and eat less healthy foods. This view naturally underpins interventions like targeted smoking-cessation services or health-education initiatives.
The “materialist” approach takes a broader view, arguing that people with more money can essentially purchase better health through superior education, healthcare and social services. Accordingly, countries can reduce health inequalities by introducing higher minimum incomes for their poorest citizens and guaranteeing universal access to public services.
By contrast, “psychosocial” theories suggest that it is the psychological experience of inequality — the feelings of inferiority or superiority generated by social hierarchies — that matters. This view implies that the poorest individuals and communities need to feel productive, valued and empowered to take control of their own lives, rather than feel trapped in a subordinate position.
The “life course” approach combines multiple theories to contend that the unequal accumulation of social, psychological and biological advantages or disadvantages over time, beginning in utero, produces health inequalities. It demands early intervention to put children on a positive health path, together with an adequate social safety net throughout citizens’ lives.
The most encompassing view is that of the “political-economy” school, which argues that health inequalities are determined by capitalist economies’ hierarchical structure and the associated political choices about resource distribution. This analysis calls for the most radical action: To develop an economic and social system in which resources, particularly wealth and power, are more evenly distributed.
Given that all of these theories can, to some extent, be supported by scientific evidence, politics can matter more than science in determining which strategies policymakers pursue to reduce health inequalities. After all, some potential solutions are politically easier to implement within existing systems than others.
For example, interventions aimed at changing individual behavior are far less challenging to prevailing power structures than those that demand extensive social investment or revitalization of the entire system. Thus, governments interested in closing the health gap — such as the British Labour government from 1997 to 2010 — usually end up pursuing such relatively painless “downstream” interventions.
However, this approach has proved to be only partly successful in reducing health inequalities, leaving little doubt that more comprehensive measures are needed. Indeed, most of the health gains over the 19th and 20th centuries were brought about by far-reaching economic, political and social reforms.
Ultimately, more equal societies have better health outcomes. While even the most egalitarian developed countries have health inequalities, all of their citizens are better off and live longer. The poorest and most vulnerable groups in social-democratic countries like Sweden and Norway are far healthier and live longer than their counterparts in neo-liberal countries such as the UK or the US. These more egalitarian countries have also achieved comparatively stable, inclusive economic growth and a high standard of living. So, if assessed from a neutral standpoint, social democracy is clearly the better choice for all.
Clare Bambra is a professor of public health policy and director of the Wolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing at Durham University in the UK.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS