Maria S. Kapitsa Irina V. Blinnikova Anna B. Leonova Moscow State Lomonosov University.
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow Mortality in Russia: Evidence from Micro Data...
-
Upload
edwin-brown -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow Mortality in Russia: Evidence from Micro Data...
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Mortality in Russia: Evidence from Micro Data
Irina Denisova Center for Economic and Financial Research
at the New Economic School, Moscow
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Motivation• Relatively high and only slightly declining
within the latest decade mortality rates • Mortality crisis in 1992-1994• High mortality rates among working age
population• Factors behind?
– Environmental – Behavioral
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Life Expectancy at Birth
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
мужчины и женщины мужчины женщины
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
LiteratureTwo branches of literature• Aggregate data analysis (mortality
registration data, census data) • Micro data analysis (follow-up surveys,
large panel surveys)• Russia
– Aggregate data• Basic patterns of mortality crisis
– Male Cohort within US Lipid Research Clinics Program
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Research questions
• What are the determinants of mortality rates (hazard and survival rates)?
• What is the role of different groups of factors? – hazardous behavior (negative investment into HC)– income – relative income (relative deprivation and unfairness)– stress factors – poor social capital, incl. family characteristics– job-related factors
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Data• Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey• Waves 5 – 14 (1994 to 2005)
– Nationally representative, about 5,000 households and 10,000 individuals in each round
– Panel structure though attrition is a serious issue– If a household member is missing, reasons for being
not a hh member:• Moved out, another address• Separate hh now, same address• Death (cause of death since 2001)• Other reasons
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Age distribution of mortality cases in RLMS by gender
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85andmore
Age groups
%
Males Females
Mortality risk (per 1000) Total Male FemaleRS 16 19 14RLMS 1.7 2.36 1.1
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Methodology• Survival analysis
– Eliminates estimation bias due to non-normality of time to event and right-censoring
– Hazards are estimated for uncensored and survivals for censored
– Allows using an unbalanced panel• Proportional hazard model
• Parametric PH model, Gompertz specification λ0(t) = exp(γt) exp(β0)• Cox PH model specification (non-parametric baseline)
txxt 00 ,,,, ,
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Methodology• Explanatory variables (X) include
– Gender– Education and qualification– Settlement type (urban vs rural)– Smoking, alcohol consumption vs physical exercises (hazardous vs
healthy behavior)– Characteristics of diet– Income decile– Relative income position (relative deprivation and unfairness)– Relative respect and power positions– Stress factors (years in unemployment, concern about getting
necessities, satisfaction with life)– Job characteristics (hazardous working conditions)– Social capital, incl. family characteristics (family size, marital status,
children)• Two samples: adults and adults 20-60 years
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
per subject
Category total mean min median max
no.of subjects 20419
no.of records 105742 5.178 2 4 10
exit time 43.58 15 41 103
failures 168 0.008 0 0 1
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 20 40 60 80 100analysis time
gender = female gender = male
Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, by gender
Parametric, Gompertz, PH
Parametric, Gompertz, PH
Parametric, Gompertz, PH
Parametric, Gompertz, PH
Parametric, Gompertz, PH
Parametric, Gompertz, PH
Parametric, Gompertz, PH
Parametric, Gompertz, PH
Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard raterespondent's gender 1.538 1.193 0.918 1.105 1.019 0.927 0.921 1.072
[0.179]*** [0.207]*** [0.212]*** [0.228]*** [0.223]*** [0.221]*** [0.219]*** [0.235]***Married -0.785 -0.783 -0.245 -0.302 -0.283 -0.288 -0.262 -0.241
[0.174]*** [0.175]*** [0.198] [0.213] [0.208] [0.207] [0.204] [0.223]family size, number of people in family 0.1 0.107 0.098 0.12 0.131 0.124 0.131 0.104
[0.046]** [0.046]** [0.047]** [0.052]** [0.049]*** [0.050]** [0.048]*** [0.054]*Education: PTU or tekhnikum only -0.158 -0.192 -0.221 -0.049 -0.07 -0.136 -0.123 -0.066
[0.171] [0.172] [0.175] [0.189] [0.184] [0.183] [0.181] [0.197]Education: university degree or higher -1.155 -1.092 -1.171 -0.746 -0.756 -0.835 -0.918 -0.639
[0.356]*** [0.356]*** [0.362]*** [0.372]** [0.370]** [0.369]** [0.367]** [0.380]*smokes? 0.675 0.845 0.687 0.73 0.761 0.788 0.638
[0.204]*** [0.215]*** [0.215]*** [0.215]*** [0.215]*** [0.211]*** [0.222]***heavy drinker 0.727 1.11 0.955 0.876 0.962 0.941 0.883
[0.287]** [0.471]** [0.291]*** [0.299]*** [0.290]*** [0.290]*** [0.302]***Heavy drinker and smoker -0.409
[0.591]self-characterization exercise -0.311 -0.313 -0.316 -0.316 -0.322 -0.313
[0.039]*** [0.042]*** [0.040]*** [0.040]*** [0.040]*** [0.047]***urban settlement -0.358 -0.296 -0.392 -0.408 -0.384 -0.266
[0.162]** [0.182] [0.175]** [0.175]** [0.173]** [0.185]per capita income decile (within year) -0.08
[0.033]**get disability pension 0.739
[0.310]**r is underweight (13 < bmi > 18.5) 0.687
[0.468]yrs., unemployed -0.326
[0.244]
concern about getting necessities 0.046 0.065[0.063] [0.072]
power rank on 9-step ladder -0.087 0.054[0.056] [0.072]
economic rank on 9-step ladder -0.189 -0.188[0.059]*** [0.079]**
respect rank on 9-step ladder -0.108 -0.071[0.043]** [0.046]
Northern and North Western 0.607 0.658 0.657 0.706 0.71[0.292]** [0.275]** [0.275]** [0.270]*** [0.299]**
Volga-Vaytski and Volga Basin -1.136 -1.174 -1.092 -1.126 -1.101[0.332]*** [0.331]*** [0.321]*** [0.320]*** [0.336]***
North Caucasian -0.67 -0.728 -0.769 -0.814 -0.54[0.315]** [0.312]** [0.312]** [0.312]*** [0.319]*
Ural 0.687 0.715 0.694 0.731 0.722[0.223]*** [0.220]*** [0.221]*** [0.216]*** [0.228]***
Western Siberian -1.437 -1.095 -1.09 -1.109 -1.36[0.526]*** [0.439]** [0.439]** [0.439]** [0.529]**
Eastern Siberian and Far Eastern -1.731 -1.784 -1.781 -1.778 -1.636[0.601]*** [0.600]*** [0.600]*** [0.600]*** [0.603]***
Metropolitan areas: Moscow and St. Petersburg -1.337 -1.369 -1.365 -1.413 -1.222[0.485]*** [0.484]*** [0.484]*** [0.483]*** [0.488]**
Born before 1911 1.041[1.922]
Born between 1911 and 1920 0.503[1.749]
Born between 1921 and 1930 0.507[1.569]
Born between 1931 and 1940 0.326[1.440]
Born between 1941 and 1950 0.861[1.298]
Born between 1951 and 1960 0.537[1.196]
Born between 1961 and 1970 0.402[1.146]
Born between 1971 and 1980 -0.281[1.240]
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Baseline survival function .9
995
.999
6.9
997
.999
8.9
999
1S
urvi
val
20 40 60 80analysis time
Gompertz regression
Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow
Results• Subjective perception of relative deprivation is an
important determinant• Higher income deciles are correlated with longer life
(could be health effect: good health brings higher income and longer life)
• Smoking survives all specifications as a detrimental factor
• Heavy alcohol consumption also matters • Better education is beneficial • Role family social capital is not very pronounced and
operates in opposite directions