FICRY

Chad, Africa.

Can the recession save children’s lives? According to economist Michael Greenstone, a decrease in global production due to the current crisis has spared the lives of “…between 257 and 451 British, between 1.104 and 1,933 American, and probably between 58,088 and 101,655 Chinese babies” through the reduction of global emissions (Economist June 2009 issue).  He asserts that from December 1st forward, the recession has reduced infant-mortality rates in and around major cities and “saved” lives all over the world.

He bases this assertion on a study conducted in 1970 with Kenneth Chay, where they attempted to calculate the number of infants’ lives that were saved by the Clean Air Act. They estimated 1,300 more one-year-old Americans survived because they were exposed to less pollution than they would have been if the act had never passed congress.

Greenstone in turn took samples of atmospheric conditions from urban areas in London and Chicago and China, and compared the atmospheric conditions from these regions with their respective infant mortality rates. His findings show that air pollution rates dropped when the economic situation worsened. Similarly, pollution rates rose as the economy grew in the years leading up to the crisis. A decrease in the number of manufacturing jobs translated into a decrease in the number of hazardous “suspended particulates” in the atmosphere, which contributed to greater infant health. He uses this information to assert that a causal relationship exists between the relative success of the economy and air pollution.

Greenstone claims that air quality is the predominant factor effecting infant mortality rates. Then he reduces the complex problems of poverty, globalization and industrial production to a single cause and a single effect and by suggesting that if the child survives infancy then it has been saved. He only acknowledges, as a caveat, that despite these numbers one should be careful not to view the recession as a life-giving force.

Unfortunately, pollution is just one of a myriad of complicated factors that negatively impact the lives of children. Furthermore, the shutting down of industrial facilities, a decrease in the number of cars on their morning commute in cities across the country, does not “save” but threatens the livelihood of millions of families world wide. A decrease in production creates unemployment which will raise infant-mortality rates by straining public resources like access to medical care. Undoubtably, air contamination can cause infant death, but financial instability, poverty and malnutrition can have detrimental effects on child development (click here for more information).

By Cora Weiss, Editor-in-Chief, FICRY.com

Click here for source article.