<div id="pgtop" class="hldpg">
<div id="lhdNameBnr">
<div id="nameBnr">
<h4><i>New Scientist</i></h4>
</div>
</div>
<p><br><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528752.400-inequality-of-wealth-and-health.html"></a>
</p>
<h1 class="instapaper_title">
Inequality: Of wealth and health
</h1>
<ul class="markerlist"><li>
30 July 2012
by
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=Liz+Else"><b>Liz Else</b></a>
</li></ul>
</div>
<div id="hldmain" class="hldpg floatclearfix">
<div id="hldcontent" class="floatleft">
<div id="maincol" class="floatleft instapaper_body">
<div id="artImg">
<img src="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg21528752.400/mg21528752.400-1_300.jpg" alt="how do you stack up? <i>(Image: Danny Lehman/Corbis)</i>" title="how do you stack up? <i>(Image: Danny Lehman/Corbis)</i>">
<p class="lowlight">how do you stack up? <i>(Image: Danny Lehman/Corbis)</i></p>
<p class="marker"><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/mg21528752.400/1-inequality-of-wealth-and-health.html" target="ns">1 more image</a></p>
</div>
<p><i>The rising affluence of the 1 per cent may not only mean there
is less for everyone else. What does inequality mean for your health?</i></p>
<p class="infuse"><br></p>
<p class="infuse">THE richest 1 per cent of society has
pulled away from the rest of the population at a quickened pace in the
past few decades. This asymmetrical distribution of wealth is nothing
new - humans have lived in lopsided societies for millennia. But the new
question is whether their wealth affects everyone else's health. There
may be economists who argue that inequality isn't bad for the health of
the economy, but it is becoming more difficult to make the case that it
doesn't harm the health of humanity. Growing evidence shows that greater
inequality brings with it more crime, worse public health and social
ills that affect every tier of society.</p>
<p class="infuse">In recent decades, the proportion of wealth controlled by the top percentile has ballooned (see "<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528752.100-inequality-who-are-the-1-per-cent.html">Inequality: Who are the 1 per cent?</a>").
But a global portrait shows that absolute poverty has actually dropped
during that time. According to 2008 World Bank figures, 1.29 billion
people live in absolute poverty, defined as getting by on less than
$1.25 per day, down from 1.94 billion in 1981. The UN's millennium goal
is to cut poverty by half from 1990 levels by 2015.</p>
<p class="infuse">So increasing wealth at the top
doesn't seem to drive more people into absolute poverty. However, once
you move beyond destitution, another damaging problem is exposed: how
you stack up against those around you in social and economic terms
affects your health. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University
College London specialising in the health effects of inequality, sees
the problem as one of relative poverty. Its ills are well documented and
numerous: reduced access to nutritious food, healthcare and education
and increased likelihood of exposure to violence have a significant
impact on mental and physical health, as well as opportunities for
socioeconomic advancement. "We shouldn't be thinking only of absolute
destitution," he says.</p>
<p class="infuse">Thomas McDade, a biological anthropologist at Northwestern University and director of <a href="http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/c2s/" target="nsarticle">Cells to Society</a>
at the Center on Social Disparities and Health at the Institute for
Policy Research in Evanston, Illinois, says that additional research has
unveiled a more challenging landscape. "Increasingly, we're coming to
understand that even if you have a stable job and a middle-class income,
then your health is not as good as that of someone who is in the 1 per
cent. There is something more fundamental about social stratification
that matters to health and the quality of social relationships."</p>
<p class="infuse">The issues of relative poverty are
more nuanced than meeting basic needs for food and shelter. A hundred
years ago it might have been whether you could afford to eat meat once a
week - or have an indoor toilet. Today it might be whether you can
afford to mark your child's birthday with a party, Marmot says. "It
matters because of what it means: can I participate in society?"</p>
<h3 class="crosshead">The great divide</h3>
<p class="infuse">Relative poverty goes hand in hand
with inequality. "What we find is that the bigger the inequalities,
income, educational, social, in a whole variety of ways, the bigger the
health inequalities," Marmot says.</p>
<p class="infuse">One of the measures used to assess
economic disparities within a society is known as the Gini coefficient,
which ranges from 0 - everyone earns the same - to 1 - one person takes
it all (<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/mg21528752.400/1-inequality-of-wealth-and-health.html">see graph</a>). Most countries fall between 0.25 (<a href="http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=26068" target="nsarticle">Denmark</a>) and 0.63 (<a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI/" target="nsarticle">South Africa</a>).
Studies have revealed the association between higher Gini scores and
worse health outcomes, which include increased risk of premature birth
and higher mortality rates.</p>
<p class="infuse">A <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4471.full" target="nsarticle">meta-analysis</a>
conducted by S. V. Subramanian at the Harvard School of Public Health,
and colleagues, showed that the US, with a Gini score of 0.36, had
nearly 900,000 deaths that could have been avoided compared with nations
with scores lower than 0.29. The UK, with a score of 0.33, had nearly
12,000 such avoidable deaths.</p>
<p class="infuse">This analysis also revealed a
threshold effect, in which detrimental effects on public health are only
observed after inequality reaches a certain level. In this case, a Gini
score of 0.3. "There's always going to be some degree of inequality,"
Subramanian says, but what matters is how drastic the degree is, or how
quickly it shifts.</p>
<p class="infuse">In the past two decades, more than three-quarters of the countries belonging to the <a href="http://www.oecd.org" target="nsarticle">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development</a>
have seen a growing gap between the rich and poor. "It's not just the
idea of a threshold, but also how inequality has grown over time,"
Subramanian says. He and his colleagues stress that as inequality
increases, more research on the link with poor health is urgently
needed.</p>
<p class="infuse">According to a <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729" target="nsarticle">2011 report</a>
compiled by the US Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007,
the average after-tax household income (adjusted for inflation) among
the top 1 per cent of the US population grew by 275 per cent. Among the
top fifth, it grew by 65 per cent; in the top two-thirds, by nearly 40
per cent; and in the bottom fifth, income grew by just 18 per cent.</p>
<p class="infuse">The divergence in pay, with the top 1
per cent taking a larger share, amplifies inequality. Ultimately, says
Marmot: "We're using the 1 per cent as shorthand for a bigger issue."</p>
<p class="infuse">How does having less relative to your
peers undermine health? Study after study identifies the culprit as
stress. Not day-to-day fretting, but persistent psychological and
physiological reactions to external threats that cannot necessarily be
addressed or avoided. Much of this research focuses on those living in
impoverished communities, but these associations only diminish by degree
as you ascend the economic ranks of a society. "Socioeconomic status,
and social stratification in particular, is a very powerful determinant
of health - for populations and for individuals," says McDade.</p>
<h3 class="crosshead">Toxic stress</h3>
<p class="infuse">Unrelenting stress is toxic because it
can turn the body's defence system against itself. Neuroendocrinologist
Bruce McEwen at Rockefeller University in New York says the stress
response that evolved to protect us from harm can be hijacked and
actually cause harm when the stress never abates. In a normal situation,
the introduction of stress causes the body to deliver a boost of energy
- by sending a surge of glucose to the muscles - and to increase heart
rate, blood pressure and breathing to get oxygen to the muscles in a
hurry. At the same time, blood vessels constrict and clotting factors
increase - ready to slow bleeding in case you are wounded. These
responses are part of a fight-or-flight survival kit, and once the
stress has passed, these should subside.</p>
<p class="infuse">But for people under unremitting
stress, this response never quite switches off - leaving sugar levels
unregulated, high blood pressure, increased risk of blood clots,
depressed sex drive and an immune system buckling under the strain.
Prolonged exposure to stress hormones can have other effects as well,
including affecting the brain by altering the structure of neurons and
their connections, which in turn can influence behaviour and change
hormonal processes.</p>
<p class="infuse">In the well-known <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/whitehallII/research/findings/2011_working_hours" target="nsarticle">Whitehall II study</a>,
which followed more than 10,000 UK civil servants since 1985, Marmot
and his colleagues found that reported stress levels were amplified as
you descended the organisational hierarchy - with corresponding declines
in health. Workers on the bottom of the heap were far more likely to
suffer coronary heart disease than those at the top.</p>
<p class="infuse">In a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/27/0811910106.abstract" target="nsarticle">2009 study</a>,
Michelle Schamberg and Gary Evans at Cornell University in New York
looked at the role stress plays in the educational performance gap
between those from richer and poorer backgrounds. The researchers
hypothesised that childhood stress might impair working memory. They
assessed 195 17-year-olds, about half of whom grew up below the poverty
line and half in middle-income families.</p>
<p class="infuse">To measure the amount of stress the
children endured over the years, the researchers drew on a measure
called allostatic load, with higher numbers indicating higher levels of
exposure to stress. It is the sum of six risk factors: blood pressure
(systolic and diastolic); concentrations of three stress-related
hormones (cortisol, adrenalin and noradrenalin); and body mass index.</p>
<p class="infuse">On average, the figures were higher
for the poor children than for those from the middle-income families. A
discrepancy in working memory broke down along the same lines. The
17-year-olds who lived in poverty could hold an average of 8.5 items in
their memory at a time, compared with the better-off children, who could
run to 9.4. When Evans and Schamberg ran statistical analyses to
control for the effects of allostatic load, the relationship between
upbringing and working memory disappeared; the deficits seen in the
poorer children seemed to be down to their experience of stress.</p>
<p class="infuse">The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, have also accumulated several decades'
worth of data about stress and childhood. As part of ongoing <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ace/index.htm" target="nsarticle">studies</a>
into childhood risk factors, researchers came up with a stress scoring
system. The method shows how, as the number of adverse experiences
increases, so does the risk of health problems ranging from alcoholism
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and suicide
attempts.</p>
<p class="infuse">And in an intriguing <a href="http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/3/161.abstract" target="nsarticle">2007 study</a>,
Peter Gianaros at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, examined
the correlation between the way people classify themselves in terms of
socioeconomic status, and the size of the perigenual area of their
anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain involved in
self-control, the experience of emotion and the regulation of reactions
to stress. In an experiment with 100 men and women, Gianaros found that
the lower the participants ranked themselves in terms of socioeconomic
status, the smaller the volume of this area.</p>
<p class="infuse">It is a preliminary finding, but
McEwen speculates that awareness of one's own circumstances is likely to
be a factor. "If you're living in a place like New York City with huge
gradients of differences between rich and poor, you're going to know
where you are. You're going to have the sense that 'I'm not able to do
this or that'. It's going to have even more of an effect on how you view
yourself and how you behave."</p>
<p class="infuse">The uberwealthy, then, affect everyone
else by extending the measuring stick by which we gauge our own
successes and opportunities. But there are also other important ways in
which they affect those below them.</p>
<p class="infuse">"The magnitude of inequality damages
social cohesion," says Marmot. "The rich live separate lives from the
rest of us, live in different neighbourhoods, send their children to
different schools." When the wealthy pay directly for the necessary
services in their lives, they become less willing to spend tax money on
everyone else, which begins to erode public services and creates a
hierarchy of quality. "The whole argument against a service for the poor
and a different one for the rich is that a service for the poor is a
poor service," Marmot says. "That really says we are not one society."</p>
<p class="infuse">Then there are health differences that change as you go up through society's ranks. A <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/files/CDCfinal.pdf" target="nsarticle">2007 survey</a>
by the US Federal Reserve found that the wealthiest people were more
likely to describe themselves as being in good or excellent health. This
group also expected to live longer, while those with the least also had
the lowest expectations for their longevity.</p>
<p class="infuse">Health follows a social gradient, but
Marmot argues that at some point, as wealth increases, the additional
rise in health becomes very shallow. "The difference between somebody
earning $1 million and $2 million is just not detectable in the
evidence," he says. "You don't keep getting more and more benefit from
more and more income." The extra millions piled on top aren't going to
make the 1 per cent live much longer, but even a small amount of extra
income could make a huge difference to the health of a swathe of the
population below.</p>
<p class="infuse">The policy implications seem obvious,
if politically contentious: a more even distribution of wealth would
improve health on national and global scales. But that appears unlikely
to happen without a radical shift in western political culture; in
recent times governments of all political persuasions have presided over
growing inequality.</p>
<p class="infuse">As the divide between the top
percentile and everyone else widens, inequality is an issue that will
not go away. And as the body of evidence accumulates, a clearer picture
is emerging of inequality and its relation to health, self-worth, the
ability to participate in society and to take control of one's life.
Knowledge, as they say, is power - especially in the hands of 99 per
cent of the population.</p>
<p><i><b>Liz Else</b> is associate editor at <i>New Scientist</i></i></p>
<div id="hldartIssueInfo">
<div id="artIssueInfo" class="bxbg floatclear">
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/issue/2875">
<img src="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/covers/20120728.jpg" alt="Issue 2875 of New Scientist magazine" title="Issue 2875 of New Scientist magazine" class="cover floatleft"></a><br clear="all"></div></div>
</div></div></div><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br><br>