IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The black report and beyond what are the issues?

Listed author(s):
  • Macintyre, Sally
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

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

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 44 (1997)
    Issue (Month): 6 (March)
    Pages: 723-745

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:6:p:723-745
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    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: (Dana Niculescu)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.