Consider critically the arguments for and against the value of relative as opposed to absolute income as a key determinant of health

Authors Avatar

Consider critically the arguments for and against the value of relative as opposed to absolute income as a key determinant of health

When debating the absolute to relative income as key determinants of health, we are asking the fundamental question of is the lack of money that causes poorer individuals to have worse health or other factors such as emotional negativity due to inequality? As argued by Joanne Lindley (2005) “The absolute income hypothesis suggests that health improves with average income but at a decreasing rate, that is there is a ‘curvi-linear’ relationship between income and health”.  This implying the impact of income on health is purely individualist and  the decrease of personal income leads to a decrease in health.  Lindley (2005) goes on toe argue that “The relative income hypothesis (also known as the Wilkinson hypothesis) suggests otherwise, arguing that health depends on the degree of income inequality in society (Wilkinson, 1996); that is, for any given average level of income the more equally distributed this income the higher will be the average standard of health”. The importance of understanding is the impact of income on health is the influence it would have on government policies, for example polices used to improve the overall inequality in a community could create the progression towards significant health benefits. In this essay I will explore the factors for and against each theory and how each influences individual health.

Evidence has always led to the fact that a low level of health is often attributed to low levels of income. As argued by Kathryn Neckerman (2004; 524) evidence “predicts that if the increase in inequality has led to a decrease in the income of those at the bottom end of the income distribution, then we would expect some decline in their health and hence an increase in inequality in health”. However she argues that the evidence that suggests income inequality creates a decrease in health is a lot ‘weaker’.  Angus Deaton (2001) in (Kathryn Neckerman, 2004) points out that the ‘redistribution’ of income within countries would improve the health of individuals even if the average income remains at the same level, therefore, the redistribution of income between ‘rice and poor’ countries would technically lead to improvements in the average health internationally.

In terms of relative income, it is expected for example, if groups of income increase, without the income increase of one individual, then that individual’s health would deteriorate. In this case, the individual’s health is relative to others. Neckerman (2004; 525) states that relative income hypothesis implies that “it is not just the conditions experience by those in absolute poverty that lead to poor health” and rather they are “psychosocial and other factors that remain unevenly distributed all the way up the income scale that perpetuate income inequalities in health”.  It suggests that the stresses and other material factors that contribute to income inequalities lead to the inequalities in health. Neckerman (2004) refers to the whole concept of ‘keeping up with the joneses’.

Join now!

According to a ‘neo-material interpretation’ John Lynch (2000; 1002) states “the effect of income inequality on health reflects both lack of resources held by individuals, and systematic under-investments across a wide range of community infrastructure”. For example the improvement and provision of better hospitals could be argued to increase the ‘health protective resources’ not only for the community but also for the individuals within that community.  However, the psychosocial environment interpretation views health inequalities as the consequence of ‘perceptions of relative income’. Psychosocialist argue that the ‘perceptions’ formed create negativity in terms of emotional welfare which then transcends into a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay