Literature DB >> 26392240

Is globalization really good for public health?

Arno Tausch1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In the light of recent very prominent studies, especially that of Mukherjee and Krieckhaus (), one should be initially tempted to assume that nowadays globalization is a driver of a good public health performance in the entire world system. Most of these studies use time series analyses based on the KOF Index of Globalization. We attempt to re-analyze the entire question, using a variety of methodological approaches and data. Our re-analysis shows that neoliberal globalization has resulted in very important implosions of public health development in various regions of the world and in increasing inequality in the countries of the world system, which in turn negatively affect health performance.
DESIGN: We use standard ibm/spss ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions, time series and cross-correlation analyses based on aggregate, freely available data. MAIN OUTCOMES: Different components of the KOF Index, most notably actual capital inflows, affect public health negatively. The "decomposition" of the available data suggests that for most of the time period of the last four decades, globalization inflows even implied an aggregate deterioration of public health, quite in line with globalization critical studies. We introduce the effects of inequality on public health, widely debated in global public health research. Our annual time series for 99 countries show that globalization indeed leads to increased inequality, and this, in turn, leads to a deteriorating public health performance. In only 19 of the surveyed 99 nations with complete data (i.e., 19.1%), globalization actually preceded an improvement in the public health performance. Far from falsifying globalization critical research, our analyses show the basic weaknesses of the new "pro-globalization" literature in the public health profession.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  globalization; inequality; infant mortality

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26392240     DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Health Plann Manage        ISSN: 0749-6753


  5 in total

Review 1.  The health impact of trade and investment agreements: a quantitative systematic review and network co-citation analysis.

Authors:  Pepita Barlow; Martin McKee; Sanjay Basu; David Stuckler
Journal:  Global Health       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 4.185

Review 2.  Analyzing the impacts of global trade and investment on non-communicable diseases and risk factors: a critical review of methodological approaches used in quantitative analyses.

Authors:  Krycia Cowling; Anne Marie Thow; Keshia Pollack Porter
Journal:  Global Health       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 4.185

3.  The Relative Importance of Globalization and Public Expenditure on Life Expectancy in Europe: An Approach Based on MARS Methodology.

Authors:  Pedro Antonio Martín Cervantes; Nuria Rueda López; Salvador Cruz Rambaud
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  The impact of economic, social, and political globalization and democracy on life expectancy in low-income countries: are sustainable development goals contradictory?

Authors:  Arif Eser Guzel; Unal Arslan; Ali Acaravci
Journal:  Environ Dev Sustain       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 4.080

5.  Effects of globalization, energy consumption and ICT on health status in Australia: the role of financial development and education.

Authors:  Mohammad Mafizur Rahman; Khosrul Alam
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 4.135

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.