Spending to save? State health expenditure and infant mortality in India

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Spending to Save? State Health Expenditure and Infant Mortality in IndiaSonia Bhalotra D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E S ABSTRACT Spending to Save? State Health Expenditure and Infant Mortality in India *There are severe inequalities in health in the world, poor health being concentrated amongst poor people in poor countries. Poor countries spend a much smaller share of national income on health expenditure than do richer countries. What potential lies in political or growth processes that raise this share? This depends upon how effective government health spending in developing countries is. Existing research presents little evidence of an impact on childhood mortality. Using specifications similar to those in the existing literature, this paper finds a similar result for India, which is that state health spending saves no lives. However, upon allowing lagged effects, controlling in a flexible way for trended unobservables and restricting the sample to rural households, a significant effect of health expenditure on infant mortality emerges, the long run elasticity being about -0.24. There are striking differences in the impact by social group. Slicing the data by gender, birth-order, religion, maternal and paternal education and maternal age at birth, I find the weakest effects in the most vulnerable groups (with the exception of a large effect for scheduled tribes). JEL Classification:I18, I38, O15, O12

Public Health Spending and Infant and Child Mortality in India: A State-Year Panel Analysis

“…While Makela et al (2013) found negative association between social sector spending and child mortality, 18 Deolalikar (2005) found a weak relationship. 16 Bhalotra (2007) found the negative association between public health spending and infant mortality only in rural areas. 17 The findings of these studies might have got affected by choice of the analysis and the sample size.…”

“…16 Bhalotra (2007) found the negative association between public health spending and infant mortality only in rural areas. 17 The findings of these studies might have got affected by choice of the analysis and the sample size.…”

“…Taking cognizance of the vital role that public health spending can play in improving child survival, a few studies have empirically examined the association between public health spending and infant and child mortality. [15][16][17][18][19][20] The findings of these studies are mixed.…”

“…16 The study by Bhalotra (2007) might have got affected by the small sample sizes in certain states like Kerala, Assam, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Haryana and West Bengal. 17 Makela et al (2013) examined the association between social sector expenditure and child mortality. Social sector expenditure, among others, also included expenditure on education.…”

Three Decades of the Integrated Child Development Services Program in India: Progress and Problems

“…Government health expenditure in India is relatively low compared to other countries in the region and has actually declined over the last two decades. According to Bhalotra (2007), while government health expenditure constituted 1.3% of the GDP in 1990, this had declined to 0.9% in 1999. Relative to other countries in the region, India devotes a smaller share of its income to health spending than, for example, Bangladesh (1.4%) or Sri Lanka (1.8%) (Deolalikar 2005), and it spends a disproportionate part of its health budget on (curative) hospital services which are less pro-poor than (preventive) public health expenditures (Peters et al 2002).…”