Is Economic Freedom Good for Public Health?

New research on how the growth of government may affect public health, even if only indirectly.

The protection of public health is often a justificiation for increasing government power. But could increasing government power also have negative consequences, including for public health itself?

A new paper, "How does economic freedom influence public health? Evidence from U.S. cities" by economists Justin Callais, Kelly Hyde, Ilia Murtazashvili, and Yang Zhou, forthcoming in the Southern Economic Journal, investigates the relationship between economic freedom and public health, and finds evidence that the former may be good for the latter.  Here is the abstract:

Although there is substantial agreement how microeconomic forces—income, risk aversion—shape public health outcomes, there is substantial disagreement about the relationship between macroeconomic forces—market liberalization and economic freedom—on public health. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between public health, economic freedom, and wealth using a large sample of metropolitan-level data from the United States. We find that economic freedom does have a statistically significant and positive impact on general, physical, and mental health, but the overall results are small in magnitude. When we disaggregate the three areas of economic freedom, we find that areas with lower government spending and freer labor markets have the strongest positive effect on physical and mental health. However, our results are strongest for the richest group of respondents, suggesting that the economic freedom-health relationship is perhaps indirect, and shown through income.

The authors note that their findings undermine efforts "to blame market capitalism, globalization, and neoliberal policies forworsening mental and physical health in the United States." At the same time, they caution caution that there are reasons to question whether the findings show a causal relationship, in part because the research relies upon self-reported health data, but it nonetheless suggests the existence of health-related trade offs when government policies seek to improve public health.

Comments

[bernard11]

At the same time, they caution caution that there are reasons to question whether the findings show a causal relationship, in part because the research relies upon self-reported health data,

Not to mention that they have no causal model other than, maybe, rich people can afford better health care.

A friend recently told me an important fact: 100% of those who confuse correlation and causation die.

[Mr. Bumble]

So profound.

[bernard11]

I didn't think it was profound, just mildly clever.

[Michael P]

Causal models abound: We only have to look across our northern border to see how expansive government healthcare turns into death advisors (one-person death panels).

[Magister]

The United States spends more per capita on healthcare with worse outcomes than other wealthy nations.

It is scant consolation that the United States has insurance company death panels for those with health insurance; better or worse than what those with no health insurance get?

[Michael P]

We have a less-healthy demographic mix than those other wealthy nations. And the fact that you even need to ask the second question reflects poorly on you -- of course it's better to be able to voluntarily contract for health insurance than to have the government impose it on you, just as it's better to be able to buy health care out of pocket than to not be able to.

[Nige]

'than to have the government impose it on you,'

How dare the government impose the medical treatment you need on you. (Without giving millions to a middleman.)

[Sarcastr0]

We have a less-healthy demographic mix than those other wealthy nations.

Well, this could deserve a bit of teasing out. Pivoting directly from there to some kind libertopian paeon is kind of a tell how much you've thought through the consequences.

[bernard11]

No. They don't.

[Krayt]

Any government policy that slows medical progress mass-murders, as technology lags further and further behind where it otherwise would be. You can't give it out for free until it has been invented.

[Nige]

'as technology lags'

'You have to suffer enormous medical debt because of science fiction'

[Sarcastr0]

Cool techno-thriller plot. But there's a reason no one does policy with that time horizon and risk tolerance.

With the possible exception of the Effective Altruist movement, who got increasingly far-future focused in their self-confident wankery towards the end.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If you are actually looking for insight into public health, focus exclusively on U.S. cities seems a blinkered approach to identifying an informative sample.