Peripherality, income inequality, and life expectancy: revisiting the income inequality hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent criticisms of the income inequality and health hypothesis have stressed the lack of consistent significant evidence for the stronger effects of income inequality among rich countries. Despite such criticisms, little attention has been devoted to the income-based criteria underlying the stratification of countries into rich/poor groups and whether trade patterns and world-system role provide an alternative means of stratifying groups. METHODS: To compare income-based and trade-based criteria, 107 countries were grouped into four typologies: (I) high/low income, (II) OECD membership/non-membership, (III) core/non-core, and (IV) non-periphery/periphery. Each typology was tested separately for significant differences in the effects of income inequality between groups. Separate group comparison tests and regression analyses were conducted for each typology using Rodgers (1979) specification of income, income inequality, and life expectancy. Interaction terms were introduced into Rodgers specification to test whether group classification moderated the effects of income inequality on health. RESULTS: Results show that the effects of income inequality are stronger in the periphery than non-periphery (IV) (-0.76 vs -0.23; P < 0.05). An incremental F-test confirmed significant differences in the coefficient subsets between the two groups (F(2,101) = 6.31; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Cross-national analyses of income inequality and population health have assumed (i) income differences between countries best capture global stratification and (ii) the negative effects of income inequality are stronger in high-income countries. However, present findings emphasize (i) the importance of measuring global stratification according to trading patterns and (ii) the strong, negative effects of income inequality on life expectancy among peripheral populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".