Colleagues
I can't agree with Alex on this occasion -- why should
economists change their views en masse??
They probably have al different views anyway.
If there are some who wish to work with us from other
disciplines around health inequality, I welcome it
as I do if biologists, demographers, historians etc.
would like to do so (or even Public Health doctors).
The only thing that I find unconstructive is when
someone refuses to read the recent literature
and at least offer reasons why it should be rejected
(for example on the question of whether health
causes social and economic inequality rather
than the other way round).
Alex himself directed us all to Angus Deayton's
interesting paper on income inequality. I know that
this was the end result of a lot of careful thought
and discussion between Angus and Richard W.
I will settle for that kind of dialogue, let's have more like it.
regards
Mel B
Mel Bartley
Dept of Epidemiology and Public Health,
University College London.
[log in to unmask]
020 7679 1707
07740 438775
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Scott-Samuel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 09 June 2001 21:32
Subject: Toward a macroeconomics of health
>
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:14:04 +0100 "Oliver,AJ"<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> > Thanks Alex,
> >
> > I don't think health economists ignore Sen (who I've
> always thought of as a > welfare economist). There's
> certainly plenty of references to Sen in the > health
> economics literature. But I don't want to go on about what
> particular > disciplines do. The purpose of HEN was/is to
> bring scholars with different > disciplinary perspectives -
> and scholars, policy makers and practitioners - > together;
> not to push them apart. As an original member of HEN Alex,
> I think > it might be best if you kept this in mind.
> > > If you would like to organise a HEN seminar around the
> themes that you are > interested in, then we could provide
> you with the funds to do so (within > limits).
>
>
> 'Fraid I'd see this as a cop-out, Adam. It's for health
> economists to get their own act together (with the rest of
> us hopefully sprinting after them or at least cheering from
> the sidelines). Me telling them to refocus upstream would
> be as productive as has been the pressure from feminists to
> abolish patriarchy, blacks to reject racism, or health
> promoters and sociologists to replace the medical model.
> The revolution must start from within...
>
> Best wishes, Alex
>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alex Scott-Samuel
> [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Saturday,
> 02 June 2001 13:01 > > To: Oliver,AJ
> > > Cc: [log in to unmask] > >
> Subject: Re: Getting real - response to OHE Annual
> Lecture > >
> > > Thanks, Adam (for praising me with faint damn?) Of
> course > > I'm familiar with Sen and other development
> economists - > > the problem is your disciplinary
> colleagues' perception > > that so-called developed
> countries can ignore this > > perspective. I've appended
> the URL of the just-published > > report of the Global
> Health Equity Initiative 'Challenging > > Inequities In
> Health: From Ethics to Action' which states > > that: 'the
> overarching macroeconomic, cultural and > > environmental
> conditions prevailing in a country are of > > paramount
> importance in the pathways to inequities in > > health, and
> are therefore key policy entry points in the > > promotion
> of health equity.' > >
> > > I would welcome your proposals on mechanisms for
> engaging > > economists in interdisciplinary research which
> accesses > > these entry points in the UK macroeconomic
> context. > >
> > > Alex > >
> > > Global Health Equity Initiative: > >
> www.rockfound.org/display.asp?context=1&Collection=1&DocID=424
>
|