Last weekend I wrote about UNICEF’s report that child mortality had declined by large amounts across the globe from 1990 to 2010 (UNICEF defines child mortality rates by the number of children per 1000 live births who do not make it to age 5). Of course, the report did not speculate about how much economic growth may have contributed to this decline, but the capitalist in me wanted to know. Wouldn’t it be good to know if it was better to save children’s lives by encouraging the growth of government programs or by encouraging the growth of the marketplace? So I spent some free time in the last few days gathering data from Wikipedia to see how well GDP numbers correlated with child mortality numbers.
The quick summary is, yes, countries that had stronger GDP growth tended to see greater reductions in child mortality, although the correlation wasn’t as strong as a pure capitalist might like to see. There is perhaps nothing surprising or remarkable about this, but I’m trying to stimulate more discussion of the great news about world reduction in child mortality, which I don’t feel has gotten nearly as much attention as other recent reports like the one on US poverty. A few disclaimers before I present the data:
- I am assuming that the child mortality numbers from UNICEF are reliable. Gathering comparable data from every single country in the world is quite difficult, and there was much surveying and modeling.
- I am assuming that Wikipedia’s GDP numbers are reliable. (The third Wikipedia link has three different sources for 2010 GDP; I went with the CIA World Factbook source because it listed the most countries.)
- I am assuming that I copied and pasted all of those numbers inerrantly.
- I decided to compare a percentage of child mortality reduction with a percentage of GDP growth per capita, as opposed to with a percentage of GDP growth, or comparing absolute numbers for any of them. I also did not account for inflation or changes in the value of the dollar. By using the same basic reported numbers for every country I thought this was the simplest and best way to analyze the average rise in living standards per person, but you may disagree.
- Because I decided to use percentages, I did not analyze every country in the entire UNICEF report. I arbitrarily excluded countries that had a reported 1990 child mortality rate below 30 deaths per 1,000 live births because I don’t think that a 60% reduction from 10 to 4 says as much about the living standards of a country as does a 60% reduction from 100 to 40. In other words, once your country gets to a relatively decent child mortality number, the marginal cost of reducing that number by a given percent is much higher than reducing that number by the same percent for a country with a much more horrid child mortality number. I’m just looking at the “bad” countries and seeing how much their economy grew on their way to getting better, but you may argue that I should have chosen a different number than 30 as my cut-off. Additionally, you may argue that I should have chosen high or low cutoffs for GDP per capita to exclude outliers from that dimension.
- I also excluded a few ad hoc countries for which I could not find GDP data for both 1990 and 2010, but this should not greatly affect the overall averages and trends based on the 134 countries that I did analyze.
So this is not a report on “How Child Mortality Reduction Correlates With GDP Growth By Country.” It’s a report on “How Child Mortality Reduction Correlates With GDP Growth From High Child Mortality Countries For Which I Could Find Decent Data Under A Variety Of Hopefully Reasonable Assumptions.” Here we go…
Continue reading How Good Is GDP Growth At Reducing Child Mortality?