NYT: 中國經濟發展迅速,人均預期壽命僅緩慢增長

來源: 26484915 2014-07-28 12:46:06 [] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (25406 bytes)
本文內容已被 [ 26484915 ] 在 2014-07-28 12:59:58 編輯過。如有問題,請報告版主或論壇管理刪除.
ECONOMIC SCENE

Life Expectancy in China Rising Slowly, Despite Economic Surge

A quick quiz: Which of the following countries has had the smallest increase in life expectancy since 1990 — Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, South Korea or Sudan?

David Gray/Reuters

Nearly every other big developing country had a bigger increase in life expectancy from 1990 to 2008 than China.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

The answer is not war-torn Sudan or tumultuous Pakistan. It isn’t South Korea, which started from a higher level than any of the others. And it isn’t abjectly poor Bangladesh.

It’s China, the great economic success story of the last two decades and the country that inspires fear and envy around the world. Yet when measured on one of most important yardsticks of all, China does not look so impressive.

From 1990 to 2008, life expectancy in China rose 5.1 years, to 73.1, according to a World Bank compilation of United Nations data. Nearly every other big developing country, be it Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia or Iran, had a bigger increase over that span, despite much slower economic growth. Since 2000, most of Western Europe, Australia and Israel, all of which started with higher life expectancy, have also outpaced China.

The moral? Economic growth makes almost any societal problem easier to solve, but growth doesn’t guarantee better lives — or better health — for everyone. That’s been true for centuries. The rate of growth and the kind of growth both matter.

If you scan the globe today, you may end up wondering whether any country has landed on the right mix. Europe offers a good life to many people, with generous vacations, parental leaves and health benefits, but its economies have been growing slowly, which is one reason its debts are so onerous.

The United States grew more quickly than Europe in recent decades, but many of the gains flowed to a small slice of the population. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, actually fell from 2000 to 2007 — and has fallen more since the financial crisis began in 2007.

China can sometimes look like the economy of the future, having grown stunningly fast for almost 30 years now, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But it, too, has real problems. Above all, its growth has been uneven. The coast has benefited much more than the interior. Almost everywhere, some aspects of life have improved much more than others.

Whether China can switch to a more balanced form of growth, as its leaders have vowed, will obviously have a big effect on the rest of the global economy. Yet it’s worth remembering that the biggest impact will be on the one-sixth of the world’s population who live in China. And arguably the best example is the fact that the country has grown vastly wealthier but only modestly healthier.

There is an intriguing parallel here to the Industrial Revolution. The eminent economist Richard Easterlin has noted that longevity and health did not improve much when economic growth took off in the early 19th century.

With rising incomes, people could afford better food, clothing and shelter. But they were also exposed to more disease because so many of them were moving to cities. The combined effect appears to have been “stagnation or, at best, mild improvement in life expectancy,” Mr. Easterlin has written.

The Mortality Revolution, as he calls it, did not occur for almost another a century. It depended on relatively cheap investments in public health, like sanitation, and on the spread of scientific methods.

Similarly, in today’s China, many more people have acquired indoor plumbing, heating, air-conditioning or other basics. Other aspects of the boom, however, have pushed in the opposite direction.

As in the Industrial Revolution, many people have left the countryside and poured into crowded cities. Accidents have become common, like the Shanghai fire last week or a series of workplace tragedies in recent months. Obesity is rising. Pollution is terrible.

I recently spent some time in China, and despite everything I’d heard in advance about the pollution, I was still taken aback. The tops of skyscrapers in Beijing can be hard to see from the street. Breathing the smog can feel like having a permanent low-grade sinus infection. For the Chinese, cancer has displaced strokes as the leading cause of death, partly because of pollution, notes Yang Lu of the Keck School of Medicine at theUniversity of Southern California.

Finally, there is the medical system itself. The dismantling of state-run industrial companies over the last two decades has ended the cradle-to-grave benefits system known as the iron rice bowl. In its place was a market-based medical system many Chinese could not afford. Even in emergencies, people sometimes had to bring cash to the hospital to get treatment.

Early last year, the Chinese government began expanding health insurance coverage, with the goal of making it universal by 2020. The initial signs look pretty good. The World Bank does not have data past 2008, but numbers published by the C.I.A. suggest that life expectancy has risen in the last two years. In my travels, I visited a simple, clean clinic in rural northern China that seemed to be providing the kind of basic care that could make a huge difference.

Of course, whatever the problems with China’s boom, it still has significantly improved the lives of its citizens. Many fewer of them live in grinding poverty, and the population is living longer, even if the gains have not been as large as in many other countries.

Over any extended period, economic growth is probably necessary for higher living standards. It’s just not enough. As Tsung-Mei Cheng, a health policy expert at Princeton, argues, “Economists and the media tend to pay too much attention to the growth of G.D.P. over all, and not enough to its distribution.”

There is, after all, another large country with unimpressive recent gains in life expectancy, even smaller than China’s. That’s right: the United States. Since 1990, we have been passed by Chile, Denmark, Slovenia and South Korea, among others. China is still five years behind us, but it’s gaining.

 

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com

所有跟帖: 

問問紐約時報,美國同期壽命增長多少? -薛成- 給 薛成 發送悄悄話 薛成 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 13:15:21

美國經濟增長很緩慢。 -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 13:22:12

這麽簡單的道理:1增加1 就是一倍,和99增加1變成100是不能同日而語的。中國從49年的人均壽命和現在的人均壽命幾乎增長一倍, -薛成- 給 薛成 發送悄悄話 薛成 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 13:52:37

中國40年代的預期壽命就有40多歲。49年是內戰時期。60年大饑荒隻有36歲。 -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (19825 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:26:24

從40歲到75,6歲是不是巨大的飛躍? -薛成- 給 薛成 發送悄悄話 薛成 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:27:33

請看下麵的文章。 -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:30:20

老薛,跟這種東西討論是浪費精力 -滿地找牙- 給 滿地找牙 發送悄悄話 滿地找牙 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 17:01:29

什麽東西! -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 17:24:59

當心扯到蛋~~ -滿地找牙- 給 滿地找牙 發送悄悄話 滿地找牙 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 16:59:26

我真不敢相信你是搞科學的,相信統計數據的,怎麽會被這麽明顯的錯誤給忽悠了。 -薛成- 給 薛成 發送悄悄話 薛成 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 13:55:31

這個問題比你想象的複雜。以前寫過一篇文章你可以看看。 -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (22645 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:27:48

中國的嬰幼兒死亡率和產婦死亡率大大降低,而導致平均壽命增長,而且是在沒有花費巨大的費用的前提下。這是WHO都提到過的成功。 -薛成- 給 薛成 發送悄悄話 薛成 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:32:52

看這裏。 -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (92 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:35:01

你可以看到中國的曲線角度與歐美相差無幾。 -薛成- 給 薛成 發送悄悄話 薛成 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:36:58

回到NYT的文章:中國的經濟增長率是美國的幾倍。 -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:39:37

幾倍還是不及美國的總量。發展是看得到的,快速是因為基數低。歐美由於基數已經高了在提高就困難了。 -薛成- 給 薛成 發送悄悄話 薛成 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 15:00:54

您這個曲線角度也不怎麽樣啊。 -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (34 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:41:32

我不是搞研究的,我是搞臨床的。咱們重點不一樣。我就不管什麽統計,而把更多的精力放在邏輯分析上。 -薛成- 給 薛成 發送悄悄話 薛成 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:45:37

跟米國就差4歲了,很不錯了。米國醫療開銷是中國多少倍?再說中國環境問題擺在那呢,一些地方已經不適合人類居住了。 -viewfinder- 給 viewfinder 發送悄悄話 viewfinder 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 14:40:01

沒下降就是巨大成功! 經濟增長是犧牲環境為代價的,空氣水食品全有毒,壽命沒下降,奇跡啊! -kai2002- 給 kai2002 發送悄悄話 kai2002 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 15:05:46

人其實是很皮實的。 -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 07/28/2014 postreply 16:17:27

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”