IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The black report and beyond what are the issues?


  • Macintyre, Sally


This paper provides an overview of the Black Report, published in Britain in 1980. It outlines its place in the history of British concern about socio-economic differentials in death rates since the mid-19th century, and suggests continuities in suggested explanations for these, a particularly persistent thread being debates between environmentalists, hereditarians, and those emphasising personal ignorance or irresponsibility. It introduces a distinction between "hard" and "soft" versions of the Black Report's four explanatory models for inequalities in health (artefact, selection, behavioural and materialist), points out that the working group rejected the "hard" rather than the "soft" versions of the first three and espoused the "soft" version of the last, and suggests that the rather polarised debate about these explanations that followed can be understood in the light of the contemporary political context and a tendency to confuse the "hard" and "soft" versions. Methodological and empirical developments since the report are summarised, attention being drawn to seven themes which raise important issues for future research: the ubiquity of socio-economic differentials across industrialised countries, continuing or increasing differentials, stepwise gradients, interest in psychosocial mechanisms, the hypothesis of biological programming in utero or infancy, controls for behaviour, and evaluations of interventions. The overall conclusion is that we need more detailed studies of the mechanisms which generate and maintain social inequalities in health, and of interventions to reduce such inequalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Macintyre, Sally, 1997. "The black report and beyond what are the issues?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 723-745, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:6:p:723-745

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:6:p:723-745. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.