Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:13:58.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How beneficent is the market? A look at the modern history of mortality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2006

Richard A. Easterlin
Affiliation:
University of Southern California, Department of Economics, Los Angeles, California 90089-0253 USA
Get access

Abstract

A short answer is, not very. In contrast to economic growth, where the free market is commonly viewed as a prime mover, mortality in the last two centuries has not been greatly helped by market forces. The classic sources of market failure – information failures, externalities, public goods, principal-agent, and free rider problems – have been pervasive. Nor has economic growth itself been behind the worldwide improvement in life expectancy. In the primitive state of nineteenth century health knowledge, the immense rise in urbanisation engendered by economic growth largely vitiated any positive level-of-living effects by increasing exposure to disease. Instead, public policy initiatives, based on new knowledge of disease and new institutions, have been essential to the improvement of life expectancy, both in urban areas and nationwide.

Sweepings from butchers' stalls, dung, guts, and blood, Drowned puppies, stinking sprats, all drenched in mud, Dead cats, and turnip tops, come tumbling down the flood. – Jonathan Swift, A Description of a City Shower, 1710

Type
Articles
Copyright
Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)