Anushiya Vijayasivajie, Pundarik Mukhopadhaya, Chris Heaton
{"title":"体重的机会不平等:来自澳大利亚的证据。","authors":"Anushiya Vijayasivajie, Pundarik Mukhopadhaya, Chris Heaton","doi":"10.1002/hec.4966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper extends current knowledge about inequality of opportunity in body mass in Australia. Drawing on 2013 and 2017 Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey data, our empirical strategy comprises of mean-based and unconditional quantile regression techniques. We find that inequality of opportunity accounts for a non-trivial share of body mass inequality. Our results based on waist-to-height ratio reveal estimates of 10%–14%, which are much larger than previously published estimates based on body mass index (BMI). Our estimates are lower-bound values based on 13 observable circumstance variables. Relaxing the homogeneity assumption, for instance, increases estimates by 1.7–3 percentage points. Applying the Shapley–Shorrocks decomposition procedure, age and parents' socio-economic status are identified as leading circumstance factors. This finding is refined when quantiles of the body mass distribution are evaluated. Age's role is diminished at the clinically risky upper quantiles. By contrast, parents' socio-economic status is the single most important circumstance factor at the upper quantiles. Investigating by gender groups, inequality of opportunity is greater among women than men, with parents' socio-economic status playing a critical role in this disparity. Taking a life course perspective, circumstances' influence shows weakening over time, while effort is more impactful at later life stages. Overall, our findings underscore that anti-obesity campaigns should tackle early life social inequality, in addition to empowering personal responsibility later in life.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"34 7","pages":"1365-1381"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.4966","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inequality of Opportunity in Body Mass: Evidence From Australia\",\"authors\":\"Anushiya Vijayasivajie, Pundarik Mukhopadhaya, Chris Heaton\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hec.4966\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper extends current knowledge about inequality of opportunity in body mass in Australia. Drawing on 2013 and 2017 Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey data, our empirical strategy comprises of mean-based and unconditional quantile regression techniques. We find that inequality of opportunity accounts for a non-trivial share of body mass inequality. Our results based on waist-to-height ratio reveal estimates of 10%–14%, which are much larger than previously published estimates based on body mass index (BMI). Our estimates are lower-bound values based on 13 observable circumstance variables. Relaxing the homogeneity assumption, for instance, increases estimates by 1.7–3 percentage points. Applying the Shapley–Shorrocks decomposition procedure, age and parents' socio-economic status are identified as leading circumstance factors. This finding is refined when quantiles of the body mass distribution are evaluated. Age's role is diminished at the clinically risky upper quantiles. By contrast, parents' socio-economic status is the single most important circumstance factor at the upper quantiles. Investigating by gender groups, inequality of opportunity is greater among women than men, with parents' socio-economic status playing a critical role in this disparity. Taking a life course perspective, circumstances' influence shows weakening over time, while effort is more impactful at later life stages. Overall, our findings underscore that anti-obesity campaigns should tackle early life social inequality, in addition to empowering personal responsibility later in life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health economics\",\"volume\":\"34 7\",\"pages\":\"1365-1381\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.4966\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.4966\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.4966","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Inequality of Opportunity in Body Mass: Evidence From Australia
This paper extends current knowledge about inequality of opportunity in body mass in Australia. Drawing on 2013 and 2017 Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey data, our empirical strategy comprises of mean-based and unconditional quantile regression techniques. We find that inequality of opportunity accounts for a non-trivial share of body mass inequality. Our results based on waist-to-height ratio reveal estimates of 10%–14%, which are much larger than previously published estimates based on body mass index (BMI). Our estimates are lower-bound values based on 13 observable circumstance variables. Relaxing the homogeneity assumption, for instance, increases estimates by 1.7–3 percentage points. Applying the Shapley–Shorrocks decomposition procedure, age and parents' socio-economic status are identified as leading circumstance factors. This finding is refined when quantiles of the body mass distribution are evaluated. Age's role is diminished at the clinically risky upper quantiles. By contrast, parents' socio-economic status is the single most important circumstance factor at the upper quantiles. Investigating by gender groups, inequality of opportunity is greater among women than men, with parents' socio-economic status playing a critical role in this disparity. Taking a life course perspective, circumstances' influence shows weakening over time, while effort is more impactful at later life stages. Overall, our findings underscore that anti-obesity campaigns should tackle early life social inequality, in addition to empowering personal responsibility later in life.
期刊介绍:
This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems.
Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses.
Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.