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

The impact of public spending on health: does money matter?

Listed author(s):
  • Filmer, Deon
  • Pritchett, Lant

We use cross-national data to examine the impact of both public spending on health and non-health factors (economic, educational, cultural) in determining child (under-5) and infant mortality. There are two striking findings. First, the impact of public spending on health is quite small, with a coefficient that is typically both numerically small and statistically insignificant at conventional levels. Independent variation in public spending explains less than one-seventh of 1% of the observed differences in mortality across countries. The estimates imply that for a developing country at average income levels the actual public spending per child death averted is $50,000-100,000. This stands in marked contrast to the typical range of estimates of the cost effectiveness of medical interventions to avert the largest causes of child mortality in developing countries, which is $10-4000. We outline three possible explanations for this divergence of the actual and apparent potential of public spending. Second, whereas health spending is not a powerful determinant of mortality, 95% of cross-national variation in mortality can be explained by a country's income per capita, inequality of income distribution, extent of female education, level of ethnic fragmentation, and predominant religion.

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): 49 (1999)
Issue (Month): 10 (November)
Pages: 1309-1323

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:10:p:1309-1323
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:49:y:1999:i:10:p:1309-1323. 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.