Assessing the sustainability of public health in the era of globalization

Abstract

In recent times, globalization has emerged as more than purely an economic phenomenon manifesting itself on a global scale. The elements of globalization include international movement of goods and people, financial capital, and information along with technological developments, political dynamics, tourism, and ecological consequences. This study used the Globalization Convergence Index (GCI) as a measure of multi-dimension globalization and linked it with health indicators to analyze if high-ranking countries were doing better in terms of mortality rates. Different statistical tests were performed to measure the impact of the globalization process on mortality indicators of public health. Findings suggest that highly globalized countries have better health measured in the form of low mortality rates. On domain level, technology was found to be the major driving force for reducing mortality rates followed by social-cultural and ecological domains. In globalization debate, the top-ranked countries were usually lauded as "achievers", while low-ranked ones were regarded as "losers". In our opinion, care should be taken while interpreting the observed positive association as simple evidence that globalization is mostly good for our health.

Health Capital and a Sustainable Economic-Growth Nexus: A High-Frequency-Data Analysis during COVID-19

“…Thus, through increasing productivity, health capital fosters sustainable economic growth. In return, the increase in economic growth will positively affect health expenditures and health statuses with a feedback effect [50].…”

“…For example, if instead we focus on sectors such as tourism, transportation, and agriculture, seasonal effects and similar behaviors would be encountered, and it would not have allowed us a chance to perform an accurate analysis. Alternatively, if the indices of software, investment, and technology companies were chosen, since we are dealing with sectors that act with too many expectations, companies that price their growth with respect to the future rather than to today would be included in the analysis [50]. The general index, on the other hand, would be more problematic, since it comprises many firms from all sectors, including health companies and others, mentioned above.…”