Relationship Between the Distribution of Income in the Population and the Health of the People - Literature review Example

HEALTH SCIENCES AND MEDICINE Introduction There is a lot of literature in support of the idea that there is always a strong relationship between the income distribution in the country and health. In addition, environmental factors determine the extent of exposure to health hazards and the capability of a given group to access healthcare services and hence the inequalities observed. Scholars have from time to time been researching to come up with an explanation concerning these inequalities. This article will provide response concerning two of these researches by discussing the various issues addressed, the assumptions used and the conclusions made. Topics addressed The research paper presented by Pickett and Wilkinson (2015) establishes the relationship between the distribution of income in the population and the health of the people. The main argument presented is that public health has the tendency of being better when there is equal distribution of income and tend to worsen with increasing income inequalities. There is thus, a good evidence to show that societal problems such as mental illness, imprisonment, violence, teenage births and lack of trust, drug and substance abuse, obesity as well as poor performance in school relate to inequality in income distribution. This is best observable in a population where there is an observable increasing rate of income disparities amongst different groups of the communities residing in the area. Therefore, according to Pickett and Wilkinson (2015), reducing the gap in income distribution among the various classes of the society directly, reflects to an improvement in the health and wellbeing of the entire population in the country. On the other hand, the other paper mostly, concentrates on the environmental disparities that contribute to the inequalities in the health of the public. According to the paper, the groups and places that have a lower social and economic status experience poor health than the groups and areas that are more advantaged (Pearce et.al., 2010). This therefore, means that differences in the exposure of the characteristics or factors that damage the environment is the major factor causing the inequalities in the health of the various groups of people. In addition, the argument presented is that the disparities in the distribution of health is a function of the conditions under which the members of the group grow, work, live and age inclusive of their physical environment (Pearce et.al., 2010). Groups that are socially, disadvantaged have higher chances of exposure to the environments and conditions that damage their health. In addition, low income earners have also higher chances of residing in environments that are more dangerous to the health and social wellbeing (Martuzzi, Mitis & Forastiere 2010). Generally, the paper applied the foundation of environmental justice, which refers to the fairness in the distribution of the bad things and good things in the environment. To explain further, the second paper is in opposition to the assumption that the risks posed by the environment are consistent across the various societal strata. Instead, it establishes its argument based on the capability of effect modification, which means that different social groups face different risks (Deguen & Zmirou-Navier 2010). The two approaches that act in opposing directions are the differential exposure, relied upon by the first paper and effect modification, which intercepts the other idea. Differential exposure occurs when the groups with low income get more exposure to the health hazards while effect modification occurs when the group is likely to suffer equally due to the same level of exposure to the same risks. It therefore, constructs its argument based on environmental inequality that leads to health inequality (Deguen & Zmirou-Navier 2010). There are very strong similarities in the structure and the topics addressed by both papers in the context of health. Both papers attempt to provide a clear explanation on the health disparities observed among the various groups or classes that exist in the society. They both point to the main factors contributing to the problem and present proper evidence to support the findings. In addition, they all accept the contribution of income distribution as one of the major contributing factors of the problem and admit that reducing income distribution means a solution to the problem. This is because, environmental factors that determine the risk of exposure relate to the income of the particular group involved. High income earners have the capability of relocating or residing in much safer areas than the low income earners (Pickett & Wilkinson 2015). However, the former research paper is more specific in its findings focusing mostly on the relationship between the inequality in the distribution of income and that of health. The later paper is more general focusing on the environmental factors that contribute to the problem. The former restricts itself to income disparities amongst the various classes and ignores the external effects of the environment while the later incorporates all factors regarding the nature of the environment and the risk of exposure without ignoring the contribution of income distribution (Pearce et.al., 2010). Significance of the arguments presented The act of recognising the idea that some factors such as low income, disadvantage as well as membership to a group socially or culturally marginalised can make individuals prone to illness continues to ignite interest in the manner of combining universal programs as well as policies that aim at specific classes of people (Martuzzi, Mitis & Forastiere 2010). The society continues to accept the idea and push for policy reforms that aim at addressing the root cause of the problem to improve public health at all areas and in all the different classes existing in the society (European Environment Agency 2012). The postulations therefore, continue to open the way for the best solution in the future. In addition, the arguments continue to establish a change in the means used by the government to address the social factors that dictate the health of the public and the means of improving the efforts employed (European Environment Agency 2012). The public health department relies on these ideas as the base for changing the policies of the government. This goes to the high level of re-designing the policies, reshaping the structures and the processes of the government to pave the way for the implementation of the policies (European Environment Agency 2012). This is finally, heading towards greater integration between the government, non-governmental organisations and actors as well as the general public leading to the best solution or means of eliminating the problem to ensure a healthy nation with a healthy population. Regardless of the idea that equality in the distribution of income and ability of accessing healthcare services are among the core values of the country, the argument presented by the first paper proves that poor health among various groups in the country comes from unequal distribution of income (Deguen & Zmirou-Navier 2010). This argument therefore, acknowledges the important of law as a perfect tool in addressing the problem. Legislation can thus, play an important role in addressing some for the social and economic determinants of the problem. The arguments presented provide light on the importance of addressing the social injustices that exist in the country rather than just concentrating on lifestyle and biomedical initiatives (Martuzzi, Mitis & Forastiere 2010). Finally, it is clear that in order to make progress in tackling the problem of inequality in health, it requires joint or combined efforts of all the various organs of the government, non-government organisations and the public. Strengths and weaknesses present Concerning the former research paper, it is very evident from other previous studies that there is a strong relationship between income and the ability to access healthcare services. This directly, reflects to the idea that low income means fewer chances of accessing healthcare services and hence poor health (Martuzzi, Mitis & Forastiere 2010). Also, high income means higher chances of accessing healthcare services and hence better health and wellbeing. It thus, gives a clear picture of the existing situation and the major contributing factor to the problem. However, this argument ignores the fact that there are other serious contributing factors that affect the health of a particular group. These may include; availability, location and distribution of healthcare services, quality of the services offered and knowledge of the people concerning exposure to the risk factors (Deguen & Zmirou-Navier 2010). For example, cigarette smoking can have very adverse effects on the smoker and the individuals nearby and has no close connection to the income of the people but the only linked to the knowledge of the people concerning the effects of smoking. In addition, the use of basic household expenditure as a measure of the income of the people provides a clear picture concerning the income of the individuals since there is a direct relationship between the income of the individual and the amount spent by the same individual. Thus, the method can provide a fairly, accurate measure of the social and economic status of the group especially through proper administration and use of reliable data collection instruments (Pickett & Wilkinson 2015). However, questions arise regarding the accuracy of the data and the comparisons made since there are several other determinants of the amount spent by an individual. These may include; attitude, lifestyle and cultural beliefs as well as individual interests and preferences. Regarding the latter, it is very clear that environmental factors such as pollution and exposure to harmful substances introduced to the environment determine the health of individuals in the area (European Environment Agency 2012). Impurities that enter the body affect the various processes and present harmful effects to the body. However, the effects of these substances depend on the nature of the substances, the concentration and the duration of exposure. All these are factors that are difficult to establish since different substances can cause effect at different amounts and the time required to begin showing symptoms may be longer than the duration taken by the research. All these factors present errors in the final results obtained. Income affects the area one can reside and the ability to relocate if one detects a health hazard in the environment living. Therefore, high income earners can easily, evade harmful environments and establish new settlements in safer areas. However, this assumption becomes faulty considering the fact that urbanization and the establishment of industries is occurring in almost all corners of the country (European Environment Agency 2012). This simply, means that most people have equal chances of exposure to the health hazards from industries. This factor invalidates the assumption despite the fact that harmful effects presented in the area depends on the nature of the industries located in the area and government policies regarding the emission and disposure of the substances. In addition, there are universal standards and rules set by the government and enforced by courts regarding the emission and disposure of both solid and gaseous wastes from industries (European Environment Agency 2012). These rules apply to all industries and hence equal exposure and risk to the public. This brings out the idea that apart from environmental disparities, there are other factors that account for the health inequalities observed in the society. This is irrespective of the differences in the concentration of industries in different areas. Conclusion Both the two papers attempt to provide proper account for the inequalities in health observed in the society. The first one base its argument on the inequalities in the distribution of income while the other one base on environmental factors such as pollution. There are a number of factors that challenge the credibility of the assumptions used by the two papers because of the numerous factors that contribute to the problem and the government efforts to harmonise the public health sector. However, the evidence presented by the two papers are clear, real and applicable ideas that trace the root cause of the problem and shade light towards the realisation of a permanent solution to the problem. Bibliography Deguen SV, Zmirou-Navier D. 2010, ‘Social inequalities resulting from health risks related to ambient air quality - A European review’, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 27-35. European Environment Agency, 2012, Air quality in Europe - 2012 report, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. Martuzzi M, Mitis F, Forastiere F. 2010, ‘Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health’, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 21-26. Pearce J, Richardson EA, Mitchell R, Shortt NK: 2010, ‘Environmental justice and health: the implications of the socio-spatial distribution of multiple environmental deprivation for health inequalities in the United Kingdom’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 522-539. Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. 2015, ‘Income inequality and health: a causal review’, Social Science & Medicine, 128, 316-326. Read More