What do the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, Ramadan and Chernobyl have in common? (And Other Interesting Links)

The year is 1918. A massive pandemic of the influenza makes itself known worldwide. In the United States, the Northeast is greatly affected in the fall of that year, though the spike in flu cases (and deaths) spans only a few months. Wendy and Bob conceive a child just before the onset of the flu epidemic and Wendy is exposed to the disease while her son-to-be, Carl, is still in the womb. Linda and Chuck conceive a child (Freddie) around the same time (or just after the flu epidemic - the story works either way), but are not exposed to the flu. Wendy and Bob are exactly the same as Linda and Chuck in every dimension. What happens to their children?

It turns out that Freddie will likely live longer than Carl, in better health and in better socioeconomic circumstances. Columbia economist Douglas Almond finds that individuals exposed to the 1918 influenza pandemic while in the womb are/were worse off on a variety of dimensions. His research highlights the importance of early life conditions on long-term health, education and labor market outcomes.

The subject of early life conditions and subsequent life trajectories is now quite hot within the economics and medical professions. In particular, the economics literature in this area is growing quite quickly. Leading the charge is Douglas Almond (check out his website here), who is one of my favorite economists and always a good read given his combination of insights from biology and good econometrics. His latest research points out that prenatal exposure Chernobyl pollution and the Ramadan fast may have had negative effects on subsequent adult outcomes. The basic idea is simple: mothers have placentas, and maternal exposure to adverse or beneficial shocks has consequences for fetal nutrition and wellness, which go on to affect the child later in life. This process is called “fetal programming” in the medical literature.

The impact of fetal programming may reach across generations, as well. For example, Almond and his colleagues have shown the effects of hospital integration in 1965 (as part of the Civil Rights Act) may have had intergenerational effects. Prior to integration, hospitals were segregated by race, and black hospitals were often in very poor conditions relative to their white counterparts.

Using information from birth certificates (very rich and publicly available), women born just after integration are in better health during the pregnancy and are more likely to have children with higher birth weights than those born just before integration. These differences will likely widen as these children become adults: other research has shown how birth weight is a good predictor of future health and socioeconomic outcomes.

Other interesting links:

1) Check out this Slate article about the research on the beneficial effects of cable TV in Indian villages. I mentioned this research in an earlier post.

2) Another Slate article, this time on how physics can help inform us why some countries remain poor.

3) Check out Greg Mankiw’s blog (under links). I just started reading it and I’m loving it so far. It reminds me of my undergrad macroeconomics class, which inspired me to become and econ major. Our instructor, Professor Allen Kelley, put together something called the Macro News, which applied simple economic theory to every day macroeconomic events, for the benefit of his students. Good stuff, and Mankiw’s blog is in the same spirit.