...
 By Raulin Cadet | Published Jan. 15, 2024 | Updated Jan. 15, 2024 | Topics: USA, GDP, GDP per capita, Life expectancy, Hong Kong
Economic theory links economic development to human capital, arguing that the latter can induce the former. In this post, GDP per capita, an indicator of economic development, is compared to life expectancy at birth, a health indicator. How are these indicators linked to each other?
Definition : The OECD defines human capital as 'the stock of knowledge, skills, and other personal characteristics embodied in people that help them to be productive.' Since education and health can help people be more productive, they are considered as characteristics of human capital. That's why health and education indicators are considered human capital indicators.
Considering life expectancy at birth, which is an average time people are expected to live, this indicator tend to be higher in countries where the GDP per capita is high, as revealed by the graph of the article. Both indicators are positively related, increasing together. Although, most economists, based on the endogenous growth theory, argue that investing in education and health contribute to increase productivity and growth, the inverse is also possible. While an economy is growing, it may tend to invest more in education and health. In this regard, human capital indicators may improve due to these investments resulting from high growth.
The graph shows that most Sub-Saharan countries have low GDP per capita and low life expectancy. The countries with the highest life expectancy at birth are from the East Asia and Pacific region, with Hong Kong at the top, despite not having the highest GDP per capita. I would like to underline that the United States has the lowest life expectancy at birth among North American countries. It is lower than that of many countries in Europe, Central Asia, and other regions with a lower GDP per capita. My comment is to ask if lifestyle is responsible for this difference.