4.6 Article

WEALTH, HEALTH, AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT: EVIDENCE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DATA ON SWEDISH LOTTERY PLAYERS

Journal

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
Volume 131, Issue 2, Pages 687-738

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/qje/qjw001

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [B0213903]
  2. Hedelius Wallander Foundation [P2011:0032:1]
  3. Russell Sage Foundation [83-14-14]
  4. NSF [1326635]
  5. Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research [2011-1437]
  6. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  7. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [1326635] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We use administrative data on Swedish lottery players to estimate the causal impact of substantial wealth shocks on players' own health and their children's health and developmental outcomes. Our estimation sample is large, virtually free of attrition, and allows us to control for the factors conditional on which the prizes were randomly assigned. In adults, we find no evidence that wealth impacts mortality or health care utilization, with the possible exception of a small reduction in the consumption of mental health drugs. Our estimates allow us to rule out effects on 10-year mortality one sixth as large as the cross-sectional wealth-mortality gradient. In our intergenerational analyses, we find that wealth increases children's health care utilization in the years following the lottery and may also reduce obesity risk. The effects on most other child outcomes, including drug consumption, scholastic performance, and skills, can usually be bounded to a tight interval around zero. Overall, our findings suggest that in affluent countries with extensive social safety nets, causal effects of wealth are not a major source of the wealth-mortality gradients, nor of the observed relationships between child developmental outcomes and household income.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available