In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rulers of the industrial world started to worry about the health of the people. National governments discovered that military recruits were too unfit to serve. City governments worried that slums were spreading disease. Corporations realized that poor health was reducing productivity.
Policymakers tore up the old laissez-faire (leave health to the individual) playbook and generated a dizzying variety of innovative policies. Governments, starting with former chancellor Bismarck’s Germany, introduced compulsory health insurance. Schools embraced “open air classrooms.” Companies created work-based football teams to encourage their employees to get fit: Arsenal was spawned by the Woolwich Royal Arsenal Factory in 1886 and West Ham United by the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co, in 1895. Entrepreneurs such as John Harvey Kellogg invented health-promoting foods. Former US president Teddy Roosevelt turned the White House basement into a gym, complete with boxing ring, and created five new national parks.
It is time for today’s policymakers to treat health with the same combination of urgency and fresh thinking. In the UK and the US, a 200-year trend for people to live longer and healthier lives is in danger of dead-ending. Everywhere obesity is swelling to epidemic proportions: A 2019 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study found that the cost of high obesity rates to health services globally is US$990 billion a year, with obesity costing an average of 3.3 percent of GDP in the OECD as a whole and 5.3 percent in Mexico.
People need to tear up the key assumptions that have governed health thinking over the past few decades: That healthcare is about fixing broken people rather than promoting well-being; that the government’s responsibility for healthcare is exhausted so long as it provides services marked “health”; that nanny statism is a bad thing; and that food companies should be left to make money regardless of the costs they impose on society.
We also need to launch an age of experiments in which we explore the power of a wide range of institutions to promote better health.
Some promising experiments have already begun. National health services in Japan and South Korea have discovered the power of what management gurus call “stretch targets”: setting ambitious targets for improving health and encouraging a wide range of institutions to help reach them.
Health services are also learning the power of “place-based policies” to address regions with particularly bad health outcomes. In the early 1970s, North Karelia province in Finland introduced a suite of policies — from lifestyle coaching to improved drug treatment for hypertension — to address its high rate of cardiovascular mortality. The policy was so successful, with coronary disease falling by 84 percent from 1972 to 2014, that it was rolled out nationally.
Governments have demonstrated the power of both taxes and labeling to improve behavior. In 2016, then-British chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne announced that he would impose a sugar tax levy on soft drinks. The results were encouraging: Soft drink producers reduced the sugar content of their drinks by an average of 35.4 percent, a change that might explain the stabilization of obesity rates in the latest British National Health Service (NHS) annual health survey. In the same year Chile, where three-quarters of the adult population were obese, introduced a new front-of-package warning label (a black octagon) on foods that contained added sugar, sodium or added fats. The scheme was so successful that it spread across Latin America. Hungary and Mexico have gone even further, introducing comprehensive taxes on unhealthy food, with sales of the products subjected to the tax in Hungary falling by a quarter.
Companies are also discovering the power of “nudges” to encourage healthier behavior among their employees. The most innovative company here is arguably the South Africa-based insurer Discovery Ltd. Discovery has invented a healthcare program, Vitality, which uses an air-miles type system to reward its customers for healthy behavior: You can move up from one level to another and accumulate rewards that can be used on gym membership, healthy food or exotic holidays.
Discovery has exported its model abroad by forming a partnership with Prudential Plc in the UK and Humana Inc in the US. Outside the health and food industries, a growing number of other companies are also using “nudges” of various sorts: subsidizing gym membership, sponsoring sports activities, providing healthier snacks, though Western companies are unlikely to go as far as Japanese companies and measure the waistlines of employees to make sure they are not getting too fat.
We need to go further: consolidate these changes, embrace new ones and link the pursuit of health to the pursuit of competitiveness. A new report on health and prosperity from the British IPPR think tank has some interesting ideas. Why not use the proceeds of food taxes to subsidize healthy foods? The central problem with diet is that unhealthy foods tend to be significantly more expensive than unhealthy ones. So, tax hamburgers to subsidize spinach. Why not use the purchasing power of big government departments to encourage healthy eating? Farming subsidies tend to go to agri-business rather than eco-farmers. Food in government institutions, from schools to hospitals to prisons, is often unhealthy as well as unappetizing. Soldiers often regain the weight that they lose exercising by eating preprocessed meals. Why not use NHS apps to subsidize healthy foods or gym memberships?
Tesco chief executive officer Ken Murphy has floated the idea of using loyalty cards to analyze what people buy and advise them to choose other options if they are consuming too much salt or fat.
The NHS could piggyback on this technology.
A more ambitious approach to healthcare would encounter powerful resistance. Food companies are masters of pretending to be responsible citizens while fighting for their short-term interests: Kentucky Fried Chicken has launched a legal challenge against 43 councils in England over planning policies to restrict food takeaways near schools. The cry of “nanny statism” is a powerful one — particularly when the state starts to inspect your shopping basket. However, far more companies have an interest in improving the health of their workers than they do in stuffing them with salt and fat. More people support aggressive health-intervention, such as taxing junk food, than worry about nanny statism. Food and drink companies show no compunction about using AI-enabled nudging to sell their wares. Why should governments disarm themselves?
The late Victorians and Edwardians succeeded in laying the foundations of a century of improved health, because they understood that health is not only an individual good, but also a collective one, and not only a nice thing to have, but also a tool of national competitiveness. Today’s people need to learn the same lessons.
Adrian Wooldridge is the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A former writer at The Economist, he is author of The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS