Introduction

The United States is at a critical point in its history. Communities and societies are falling apart. Relationships across America are fraught at best and downright violent at worst. Poor education and infrastructure are impeding progress and hastening the nation’s economic backslide. Meanwhile, a deadly virus has put lives on hold and the looming specter of climate change has made its presence known across the globe. Vast systemic changes are not only important, they are necessary for survival. The Brookings Institution put forward the idea of “recoupling,” pointing out that the economic future of the nation is inextricably linked to its societal future. Both are important to the future of the U.S. as a great power. However, when implementing economic policies, the potential societal or environmental impacts of said policies are often ignored. The Brookings study, “How COVID-19 changed the world: G-7 evidence on a recalibrated relationship between market, state, and society,” points out that, in theory, the result of economic progress should be better quality of life for all citizens of a nation, but policymakers ignore social success in favor of purely economic gain. Using this Brookings study as a basis for analysis, this paper looks in depth at the challenges the U.S. faces with the inward and outward solidarity of its citizens, economic agency, and the environment, both as they have resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and from more ingrained, long-standing issues with United States policy. It then goes further, explicitly laying out the economic consequences for continued decline in these crucial factors of social prosperity. Having strong solidarity among a nation’s citizens, whether directed inwardly towards those in their own community or country or outwardly towards those outside of their nation is important for policy implementation. Providing agency, freedom of life choice, and opportunities for advancement to citizens allows for economic growth; failing to do this and to provide the necessary public goods for success can inhibit development and progress. Environmental deterioration not only harms future generations through the loss of land and culture, it will also be economically devastating. There is no easy way to solve the many problems the United States is encountering. This paper explores the challenges the U.S. faces and explains how continued inaction is damaging. These issues require innovative, manifold solutions which will involve valuing long-term benefit over individualistic short-term gains.

Inward Solidarity

Inward solidarity is defined by the Brookings Institution Recoupling Index as “the need for social belonging and embeddedness” as it is directed “to one’s national, religious, ethnic, racial, or class groups” (Miranda & Snower, 2021, p.4). Inward solidarity can undoubtedly be harnessed for good, but at the same time it can contribute to nationalism and tribalism. This is particularly dangerous in an event like a global pandemic, when cooperation among social groups and nations is exceedingly important. Inward solidarity can be estimated in a variety of ways using different metrics. The World Happiness Report’s metric of social support, which is based on citizens’ perceptions of the care they receive from their community, paints a picture of how inward solidarity has changed throughout the pandemic and may continue to change in the future. How does the United States shape up relative to its G7 peers according to this metric? The Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) reports that, in 2020, despite being a world leader in GDP per capita, the U.S. was exactly in the middle of the group for social support. 2021 was the same story, though, interestingly, the U.S. saw a moderate increase in the number. This seems to indicate that the pandemic was a centripetal force which brought social groups together on a relative basis.

Based solely upon the social support metric, one could conclude that the U.S. has fairly strong (though not excellent) inward solidarity. However, a brief glance at the daily headlines in the United States would seem to rebut this analysis. The January 6^th, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, for example, portrayed a deeply unsatisfied and distrustful mob attempting to overturn the result of an election decided by their fellow citizens (Barry et al., 2021). It revealed a fundamental division among Americans seemingly in direct contradiction to the feeling of “social belonging and embeddedness” which inward solidarity refers to. Thus, perhaps it is better to look at other indicators to measure inward solidarity. Inclusiveness is also a key factor in inward solidarity as it pertains to the nation as a whole, and the U.S. sees its numbers trail far behind all of its G7 counterparts in inclusiveness metrics. According to the Social Progress Imperative, an international data collection not-for-profit, the United States ranks 27^th globally in inclusiveness with its score of 65.04/100. This metric factors in equality in positions of political power with regards to gender, social group, and socioeconomic status, and discrimination and violence against minorities and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Shockingly, the United States, with its claims of “liberty and justice for all” ranks 103^th globally for its performance regarding violence and discrimination against minorities (Social Progress Imperative, 2021).

The inclusiveness metric shows a very different side to inward solidarity in the United States. So why is there such a disconnect between Americans’ opinions of the social support they receive and the reality of life in the U.S.? The nature of the way inward solidarity is measured may have something to do with it. Having unity among “religious, ethnic, racial, or class groups” doesn’t necessarily correspond to strong national unity. The question then becomes whether these two ideas are inherently incompatible in a massive multinational state like the U.S. It is true that many of the nations with the highest marks for social support (e.g., Finland and Denmark) have a high degree of ethnic and religious homogeneity (Nokkentved, n.d.; SDSN, 2021; World Population Review, 2021a). At the same time, Switzerland, ranked third in social support in 2021, is a multilingual state with a variety of regional dialects and distinct ethnicities that still manages to foster a strong national identity (Helbling & Stojanović, 2011). This indicates that while the diversity of the U.S. may make it more difficult to encourage national unity, it is still quite possible to have an inclusive and supportive national climate.

A lack of national identity can have a harmful impact from an economic perspective as well. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this has manifested itself in a high rate of vaccine hesitancy. An April 2020 study found that only 56.9% of U.S. adults planned to get vaccinated if a vaccine became available, compared to similar studies showing the same number at 79% in the United Kingdom, 77.3% in Italy, 76% in France, and 70% in Germany (Sallam, 2021). Americans reported much higher levels of mistrust of the vaccine itself, as well as general antivaccine beliefs (Bloomstone et al., 2020). In addition, the high levels of vaccine hesitancy again point to the lack of national solidarity in the United States. For young, low-risk individuals, getting vaccinated serves largely to help high-risk citizens by curbing the spread of the virus; it also boosts the nation’s economy as a whole as it allows businesses to reopen safely with fewer restrictions (Yan, 2021). A nation with higher inward solidarity among its citizens will be more likely to have high vaccination rates. The U.S., on the other hand, has the lowest vaccination rate of any G7 nation and one of the lowest among the G20, as of summer 2021, which could imperil its ability to recover and lead to yet another COVID surge (Oxford Martin Programme, 2021).

Nor will the end of the pandemic result in an end to the U.S.’ struggles with national unity. If Americans don’t feel a sense of connection with and responsibility toward their fellow citizens, they will be more resistant to making sacrifices for the greater good. Paying taxes provides a good example of this. While the United States ranks fourth-to-last in tax rates among OECD countries (almost 10 percentage points below OECD average), and taxes are used in large part for services which benefit Americans in their day-to-day lives, American citizens are disproportionately resistant to paying taxes (Mann, 2010; Tax Policy Center, 2020). Free enterprise and tax resistance have been a part of American history since the nation’s inception, but this cannot account for all of today’s anti-tax movements (Mercantini, 2015). The U.S.’ strong culture of individualism (the nation is often ranked the most individualistic country in the world) is a significant contributor to this and is harmful to the nation’s future cohesion and economic performance (Marsh, 2021). From 2011-2013, the IRS found that the federal tax gap (i.e., the disconnect between taxes owed versus taxes paid) was nearly $400 billion, accounting for about 2% of the nation’s GDP at the time (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 2021). However, the issue extends beyond just the collection of taxes. The U.S. also has one of the most unequal tax systems among the OECD nations, particularly after recent corporate tax cuts (Chatzky, 2019). A recent book found that the richest 400 U.S. households pay a total tax rate of only 23%, while the bottom half of households pay a rate of 24% (Picchi, 2019). This inequity results in the U.S. having the fourth highest wealth gap among OECD nations (Chatzky, 2019). From 1980-2013, the top 0.1% of earners saw their average real income increase by 236%, while the median U.S. household actually saw their income decline between 1989 and 2013 (Stiglitz, 2015). The U.S.’ Gini coefficient is significantly higher than any other G7 nation, indicating wealth is much more concentrated in the hands of the rich (World Population Review, 2021b). All of these factors serve to harm both the economy and inward solidarity among U.S. citizens.

This money which is not collected from taxes is not being spent by governments on roads, security, infrastructure, education, and many other public goods crucial to a strong, developed economy. Among the OECD, the United States has the eighth lowest overall government spending as a percentage (38.1%), which is also the lowest number among G7 nations (OECD, 2020). In recent times, this unwillingness to spend taxpayer money for the greater good has led to long, drawn-out political battles over healthcare, education, and infrastructure bills. A 2021 study by the American Society for Civil Engineers rated U.S. infrastructure at a C-, well below its peers in the developed world. By 2040, the U.S. will most likely rank second to last in terms of spending on infrastructure among the G20 nations. Meanwhile, investments in infrastructure may increase GDP by as much as three times their value (McBride & Siriparapu, 2021). A U.S. House Committee on the Budget (2019) report found if infrastructure conditions are not improved by 2025, $3.9 trillion in GDP and 2.5 million jobs could be lost. Education is another key public resource that governments provide. The U.S. also ranks around the OECD average in terms of educational attainment and test scores (OECD Better Life Index, 2021). The boost in human capital provided by a strong education system has significant economic benefits that cannot be overlooked (Grant, 2017). If the United States wants to remain one of the world’s strongest economies, it must improve on these numbers, but it will be unable to do this if its citizens do not feel unity with their fellow Americans.

Outward Solidarity

The concept of outward solidarity (the feeling of connection with or responsibility toward those outside one’s own nation or social group) is similarly important. This is true not only in the time of COVID-19 when globally coordinated efforts are necessary, but also for the future of the world as nations must work together to tackle issues like climate change and international conflict. Miranda and Snower (2021) found that while Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K. saw significant declines in outward solidarity, and Italy and Japan saw increases, the U.S.’ outward solidarity score remained about the same from 2019 to 2020. Additionally, the U.S. had the second highest overall score among the G7 nations, after Canada. In this number, another disconnect is seen between public opinion and the actual realities of U.S. policy. Around two-thirds of the U.S. population is in favor of the U.S. being involved on a global scale and providing aid to developing nations, but as of 2019 the U.S. dedicated only 0.2% of its budget to foreign aid, one of the lowest numbers among wealthy nations (Ingram, 2019). According to the Recoupling Index, a relatively high “percentage of [Americans] believe that the city or area where they live is a good place for minority groups,” contradicting the U.S.’ poor rankings in inclusiveness shown in the previous section (Miranda & Snower, 2021). Meanwhile, anti-Asian hate crimes increased by 150% from 2019 to 2020 and police killings of Black Americans continued to shock the nation (Meier, 2020; Yam, 2021). So public opinion doesn’t really reflect reality. 

The U.S. struggles with inclusivity and minority rights, but what effect does this have on the nation’s ability to cooperate outwardly with other nations and be a part of the global community? During COVID, the U.S.’ outward solidarity changed in a variety of ways. One initial reaction seen in the United States was that of blaming and lashing out against other nations. For example, people began to refer to the pandemic as the “China Virus” as a way of placing the blame on another nation instead of putting aside differences and cooperating to curb the spread of the virus. Additionally, the arrival of the coronavirus coincided with an increase in anti-Asian violence (Vazquez, 2020). U.S.-China tensions defined the global response to the pandemic and put countries in a difficult position of trying to appease and not anger both nations. Around the globe, the U.S.’ failure to adequately combat the pandemic and coordinate its response with other nations are seen as a potential harbinger of the nation’s fall from global supremacy (Ba et al., 2020). Anti-China tensions were not the only indicator of a decline in outward solidarity in the United States. In the early months of 2021, the U.S. faced global criticism for not sharing its stockpile of vaccines with poorer nations, as the pandemic continued to rage. This failure threatened to fuel the development of more COVID variants in low-income nations with high population densities (González and Miller, 2021). Eventually, the U.S. did pledge to share its surplus doses, but only to try to counter similar programs of nations like China and Russia and improve its global relations (Keith, 2021). The U.S.’ response to the pandemic, while not all bad, may have greatly harmed its outward solidarity and global standing.

The future of outward solidarity in the United States is complex. Donald Trump’s election in 2016 was seen as a clear sign of anti-globalist sentiment in the U.S (Ip, 2020). Under the Trump administration, the United States took steps towards a more nationalistic identity, which most likely caused Americans to feel a decrease in outward solidarity. For example, the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords (ratified by 189 other nations) in 2017, undoing a global step to prevent climate change. This action by the U.S. represented a lack of trust in the agreement (McGrath, 2020). By pulling out of an agreement like this, the U.S., a global leader, gave other nations the green light to not take responsibility and not meet the outlined climate goals, and this will have a devastating impact for years to come (Leahy, 2021). Trump also jettisoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, signaling a more confrontational policy toward international trade and creating friction with its allies in the region (Mauldin, 2021). President Biden promised to reverse some of Trump’s policies, but he faces resistance from a nationalist movement of the American public (Ip, 2020). Biden has signaled the U.S. wants to improve its outward solidarity by re-entering the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, and around the world there is hope that Biden will revive U.S. leadership (Huiyao, 2021). It remains to be seen whether Joe Biden, described as the “last, best hope for globalists” will be able to save American solidarity with the rest of the globe, but it is clear that U.S. engagement and cooperation is needed for accomplishments to occur on a global scale (Babones, 2020). Maintaining high outward solidarity will remain crucially important for the United States in the coming years in order to face future challenges and maintain the nation’s global standing.

Agency and Institutions

Agency, or a person’s ability to achieve advancement in society, is vital to a growing economy. A society with strong agency has the capability to match more people with good, innovative jobs that will add value to the economy and facilitate progress. The Brookings Institution’s agency index factors in life expectancy, confidence in empowering institutions, freedom of life choice, and vulnerable employment. By that measure, the United States ranks 6^th out of the G7 countries, though it saw a 3.0% increase from 2019 to 2020. This indicates that the U.S. was rebounding, but the increase in agency is at least in part a result of the fact that the U.S.’ numbers were very low to begin with. So, Americans generally do not feel as though they can get ahead to the same extent that citizens in other G7 nations do (Miranda & Snower, 2021). How does the U.S. measure up to other nations across the globe in other agency metrics? One way of estimating agency is to look at employment data. Interestingly, 2020 employment data (in terms of the percentage of population aged 15-24 working) corresponds closely to the agency index itself among the G7. Italy is lowest, France and the U.S. are fairly close in second/third to last, and Canada, Germany, and the U.K. rank near the top (OECD, 2021). Employment data is clearly correlated to agency, because if fewer people are employed or have opportunities for employment, they will feel less empowered and less able take control of their lives. Further, the U.S. has been found to have particularly low opportunity for economic advancement. Stanford economist Raj Chetty finds that those born into households in the bottom fifth of the U.S. in terms of income have only a 7.5% chance to advance to the top fifth of the income distribution, compared to 9.0% in the United Kingdom and 13.5% in Canada. This number declines further for those born in neighborhoods with particularly high concentrations of low-income residents (Chetty, 2015).

Access to quality education, overall health of the population, and many other factors affect the potential citizens will be able to reach in their nation as well. Having strong human capital (the knowledge and experience that people gain over time from their job and education) is one of the key drivers of economic growth. Improving human capital not only makes the nation more efficient, it also makes citizens feel a stronger sense of agency and freedom of life choice, as more job pathways for advancement are available to them (World Bank, 2020). COVID-19 had a detrimental impact on human capital in a number of ways. First, children lost significant time in school, and the decline in quality of education due to the lockdown will have a lasting impact. More than one billion children were out of school for at least some time during the pandemic. This loss of learning could account for a $10 trillion decrease in future earnings. As COVID overwhelmed health care systems, particularly in developing nations, access to quality medical services decreased. People dealing with illnesses were unable to receive proper care, so they ended up losing valuable time. Overall life expectancy decreased as well. The pandemic also exacerbated domestic violence, particularly against women, a phenomenon which, in addition to causing significant trauma to those who experience it, continues to worsen inequalities in human capital. Generally, the time not spent working and gaining job skills due to lockdowns or lay-offs will take a lasting toll on human capital and agency in the United States and across the globe (World Bank, 2021). Pre-pandemic numbers help demonstrate how the U.S. stacks up in human capital. According to the Human Capital Index, the next generation of workers will attain only 71% of their potential future earnings in the United States in 2018 (World Bank, 2018). In 2020 (before the impacts of COVID-19 were accounted for), this number was down to 70% (World Bank, 2020). The U.S. ranked 35^th out of the 174 nations accounted for in the HCI, lower than any other G7 nation. This indicates that workers in the U.S. are less likely to reach their full potential relative to other highly developed democracies. 

The Human Development Index (HDI) is closely related to agency and the concept of human capital; here too the US fares poorly. The HDI measures health, knowledge, and standard of living to demonstrate a nation’s ability to achieve progress and advancement for its citizens (WHO, 2021). The overall HDI declined for the first time since data collection began during COVID-19. Pre-pandemic, however, in 2019, the U.S. fared much better in the HDI compared to the Human Capital Index. It ranks 17^th overall and 4^th out of the G7 nations. However, the U.S.’ position is 7 places lower than its global rank in GDP per capita. Further, the United States sees its position fall 11 places further down if inequality in income, life expectancy, and education are factored in. The top 10% controls 30.5% of wealth, placing the U.S. second to only Chile among nations in the top 50 in HDI. The U.S. also ranks 46^th in the Gender Inequality Index, closer to nations like Bahrain and Kazakhstan than its highly-developed peers (Conceição, 2020). Its progress towards gender equality has essentially stopped, with major issues arising from a lack of opportunities for economic and political participation, as well as a continuing wage and income gap (World Economic Forum, 2020). All of this inequity in human development is devastating to agency in the U.S. It means significant portions of the population are less likely to become well-educated, experienced, and healthy members of the labor force, and thus less able to contribute to the overall well-being of the economy and society.

Institutions are crucial to sustaining agency and freedom of life choice in a nation. The strength and equality of governments, justice systems, and laws have been shown to have significant effects on economic performance in nations. Institutions in a nation have the capability to establish, secure, and regulate industries to varying degrees, depending on their quality, efficacy, and power. A study by economists Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian (2003) found a clear, direct relationship between institutional quality and GDP per capita which was not seen with a variety of other indicators. They proposed the “primacy of institutions in economic development,” directly tying agency and empowerment as it is received from powerful institutions in a nation to that country’s economic performance. Americans specifically have shockingly low confidence in many of the nation’s most powerful institutions. As of 2021, only 12% of Americans have high confidence in Congress, compared to 51% who have very little or none. Only 32% of Americans have good confidence in public schools, and 38% feel a high degree of confidence in the presidency. Similarly low numbers have been seen over the past 5-10 years, showing a clear lack of faith in institutions in the nation (Gallup, 2021). 

The World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index (2021) finds that while compared to the world as a whole, the U.S.’ institutions are fairly strong, it lags behind its regional counterparts and other highly developed nations. It ranks 27^th out of 139 countries surveyed globally, 20^th out of the 31 nations in its EU, EFTA, and North American regional group, and 27^th out of 46 nations under the high-income designation. U.S. citizens feel low confidence in their government, and the nation struggles with Open Government and Absence of Corruption, both of which declined from 2020-2021. Furthermore, the justice system sees severe discrimination and bias. The U.S. civil justice system ranks 122/139 globally in absence of discrimination, and 126^th in access and affordability. The U.S. also has one of the least impartial criminal justice systems, well below the global average. Numerous studies show bias against Black Americans and other minorities in policing (Balko, 2020). For example, 1 in 23 Black adults are on parole or probation, compared to 1 in 55 adults in America as a whole, and Black males receive, on average, 19.1% longer sentences than white males who commit the same crime in similar situations (Horowitz & Utada, 2018; U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2017). When the justice system works only for some and denies many fair treatment, people lose confidence in the institution. This is dangerous because the strength of society depends on people trusting and buying into institutions. The justice system has the potential to increase agency, but when it works in a biased and discriminatory manner, it takes away agency from certain groups. Having empowering institutions which work to help people get jobs and have healthy and productive lives provides a boost to both agency and the economy as a whole. 

Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability is key to maintaining economic growth in the long run. As a major economy and a large center of population, the United States consistently ranks among the nations with the highest total greenhouse gas emissions (Social Progress Imperative, 2021). More telling, however, is the U.S.’ performance on more comprehensive environmental metrics relative to other highly developed nations. In 2019, the United States emitted 16.06 tons of CO₂ per capita, more than any other G7 nation, and third most among G20 nations (Ritchie & Roser, 2021). Yale’s Environmental Performance Index, which measures nations’ relative completion of their sustainability goals, places the United States second-to-last among the nations of the global west. Point-by-point, the U.S. ranks dead last in the western group in Environmental Health and Waste Management, third-to-last in Sanitation and Drinking Water, and in the bottom third for almost all other indicators (de Sherbinin et al., 2020). Past data demonstrates that this is not just a Trump-era trend, either. According to the 2014 EPI report, the U.S. would have ranked third-to-last in that same group (de Sherbinin et al., 2014).

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a variety of impacts on the environment across the globe. For example, lockdown orders significantly reduced the use of greenhouse gas emitting transportation, and outbreaks have forced supply-chain shutdowns that have put large, polluting factories out of commission either for a short time, or for good. In the United States, production of greenhouse gas nitrogen dioxide fell over 25%, while overall air pollution in New York City fell by 50% compared to the 2019 mark. Water and noise pollution have similarly fallen as major polluters have been limited by the pandemic. At the same time, the coronavirus pandemic has brought about negative environmental effects, particularly related to waste, from the increased production of medical equipment like masks and gloves to the shutdown of recycling programs that were crucial to helping reduce waste from trash deposited in landfills (Islam & Rume, 2020). 

It remains to be seen whether the trends initiated by the pandemic will have any lasting, long-term effect or if they simply reflect a short-term disruption. At first glance it may not seem as though the pandemic would cause long-term environmental change. However, a Global Workplace Analytics (2021) survey shows that, particularly as the pandemic continues to drag on, workers who have adapted to the remote work environment will be increasingly likely to continue this practice. They estimate that 25-30% of workers will still work digitally for at least half of the week by the end of 2021, up from approximately 3.6% pre-pandemic. The subsequent reduction in commuter traffic (and therefore pollution) could have an effect comparable to eliminating the entirety of commuter traffic from the state of New York. At the same time, however, COVID caused electricity use to increase across the entirety of the United States due to people working from home, anywhere from 12.7% in New York to 3.9% in Florida (Nikolewski, 2021). As 40% of energy production is used for electricity generation and a significant percentage of this energy production still uses non-renewable, fossil fuel-emitting resources, this has the potential to offset some of the pandemic’s positives (EPA, n.d.a). Also, fear of spreading the virus has led to a decline in the number of those riding public transit, with 75% of transit riders decreasing their usage of such services according to a study in Transport Policy (Bouzaghrane et al., 2021). Mass transit is an important way to reduce emissions, and the pandemic has disrupted its regular usage. A hybrid environment in which workers stay home for part of the time and go in to work for the other part of the time could be even worse, because it will maintain the higher energy usage at home while also increasing emissions from commuting and workplace energy consumption.

The pandemic will leave a complex environmental future, but regardless of the outcome it is clear that we cannot delay taking strong action to prevent climate change. Overwhelming evidence shows that continued inaction will soon have devastating consequences (Stern & Oreskes, 2019). Thus the question remains, why does the United States continue to lag behind its counterparts in its pursuit of environmental sustainability and what does this mean from an economic perspective? Why do we sacrifice future gain for short-lived happiness? Economist Paul Krugman (2020) refers to a “cult of selfishness” in American society which is endangering our future economic well-being. This is rooted in the widespread belief that the effects of climate change are far off in the future, so sacrifices do not have to be made in the present. So far, most Americans have not had to grapple with severe consequences of the climate crisis, though climate change-induced disasters are ever on the rise (Kluger, 2018). 

Another impediment to U.S. environmental sustainability efforts is that policymakers are uninformed of the wide-ranging potential economic costs of climate change. A London School of Economics (2019) study points out that due to the unprecedented nature of this event in human history, potential impacts are often understated or not fully understood. Economic changes are often referred to in GDP or dollar value, which makes it difficult to quantify effects like ecosystem destruction, habitat loss, and loss of human lives. It is impossible to know what the exact magnitude of the damage will be, but statistics paint an increasingly clear picture of where the world is headed. 

For example, conservative estimates place the number of coastal inhabitants who may be affected by flooding at anywhere from 35 to 125 million, and one billion people may live at elevations less than 10 meters above sea level by 2050. Given current warming patterns, the sea level will most likely rise 2 meters by 2100, making massive infrastructure investments critical (deFries et al., 2019). In the Netherlands, for example, where more than half of the population lives below sea level, $5 billion worth of flood prevention infrastructure has already been built out of necessity, and even more will have to be built in the future. American cities like New Orleans, Louisiana, and Charleston, South Carolina have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure as well in response to damaging floods and storms (Morrison, 2019). As major hubs of transportation and trade are often located in coastal locations, damage from flooding or major weather incidents will be incredibly disruptive to economies. One-third of the world’s population will most likely experience severe heat waves with some regularity if temperatures rise by 2°C, according to the most conservative estimates. Some effects are already here: the United States has seen the number of heatwaves triple nationally in recent decades, and from 1996-2016, they accounted for 10,000 U.S. deaths (Gawthrop et al., 2020). A heat wave in Europe in 2003 accounted for 30,000 deaths, loss of crops and livestock, and the shutdown of nuclear power plants providing key electricity (Britannica, n.d.). More frequent and severe future heat waves will cause food scarcity and widespread economic disruption.

 The United States needs to take immediate action on climate change in order to avoid significant economic consequences. The U.S. continues to trail the rest of the world in its environmental sustainability goals. While the COVID-19 pandemic may have had a moderate impact on the environment globally, it will not be significant enough to stem the tide of climate change. It is important for policymakers and citizens to realize the economic issues that will arise if no action is taken to prepare for the coming problems.

Conclusions

The United States’ social and economic troubles are far from over. There is no easy solution to the variety of issues that the U.S. faces. How can the U.S. foster national unity and bring its citizens together, while avoiding nationalism and restoring citizens’ feelings of solidarity with the rest of the world? What is the best way to empower all Americans and deal with entrenched institutional problems? Is it too late to reverse the trends of climate change and stave off the economic disaster that could arise? The U.S. must now confront these crucial questions and work to reverse the global decline it has faced in recent years. It remains to be seen whether Americans will be willing to make necessary sacrifices and change their mindsets for the greater good. In the meantime, fundamental changes must be made on the national level, whether in education, public service, or environmental policy.

There is no silver bullet, but strong evidence suggests changes to the education system are a key component of building a better future. The impacts of improving education are wide-ranging. First, providing programs that would allow for stronger and more equitable schools would undoubtedly improve agency, particularly the human capital aspect of it. Better, more equal, education makes many more life paths available to each individual (Vilorio, 2016). A 2017 report by Mark Dynarski of Brookings finds that the U.S.’ education system continues to hold back economic growth and future potential, and limits opportunities for advancement for lower-income Americans. Ramping up investment in education would boost the economy from the most fundamental level, and help the U.S. become a center for innovation and growth once again. While short-term educational investment (e.g., one-time loans to struggling schools) tends to only replace the spending that would have otherwise been undertaken, long-term investment (e.g., changes to a state’s education finance system) tends to increase years of schooling and lead to more successful adults. Effecting these long-term changes will require considerable spending, but this spending can yield substantial economic benefit (Dynarski, 2017). An increase in spending of $3,400 total from kindergarten through 8^th was shown to translate into an additional $5,350 in increased earnings. Not even factoring in any other non-earnings-based gains, the benefit-cost ratio of educational spending exceeds 1.5; this demonstrates the potential for a huge economic impact if spending is more widely distributed (Lafortune et al., 2018). Ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities can help build national connectedness. As people branch out and interact with new people through school, inward solidarity could improve. Education and solidarity have been linked, as better educated individuals are more willing to make contributions to society, such as paying taxes to support less-fortunate Americans (“Educated voters’ leftward shift is surprisingly old and international,” 2021).

On a deeper level, the U.S. should invest in education which helps students learn how to think critically. In an education system that still emphasizes the memorization and test scores, the importance of critical thinking can easily be overlooked. However, having upcoming generations learn how to be aware of the world around them and make educated, pragmatic decisions could positively influence the future of United States economically and societally. The agency benefits are clear. People will be able to analyze their lives and careers to maximize both their own satisfaction and their contribution to the United States as a whole (Towler, 2014). It also has significant potential to reinvigorate the spirit of national unity and counter the current divisions in the United States. Instead of believing and propagating all of the divisive, reactionary rhetoric and unverified information circling the internet, Americans who are taught to think critically may reject the first narrative presented to them and look at both sides of an issue. It will promote positive dialogue and be a first step towards a more united America. A study for the World Inequality Database points out those with lower levels of education tend toward the far right of the political spectrum, while those who are able to attain a college degree are more centrist. Education, and the critical thinking skills that come with it, would lead to a population less likely to blindly follow the agenda of one major party, and more likely to form their own opinions and find common ground with other Americans (Gethin et al., 2021). At the same time, education can boost outward solidarity by teaching people about how their lives relate to and depend upon others around the world. More people might even become leaders and innovators thinking about solutions to the world’s biggest problems, such as climate change.

While education has the potential to alleviate many of the recent struggles the United States has endured, it is a long-term solution that only affects the youngest cohort of Americans. One of the U.S.’ most imminent challenges is bringing together Americans from all walks of life to re-establish national solidarity. This requires something that binds all Americans and encourages them to meet new people outside of their social group. One way to do this would be to inspire Americans to participate in public service in some capacity during their lifetimes. Mandating this would be highly controversial and likely generate backlash. However, incentivizing service in some way (e.g., through student loan forgiveness, payment/cash incentives, tax benefits, or school/work related programs) could be highly effective, given that for private sector workers incentives provide a significant boost to performance (Stolovich, 2010). This would have wide-ranging impacts on the national level. First, it provides more workers who can complete infrastructure projects, serve as educators, perform government-sponsored healthcare services, and fill many other jobs which are vital to the economy but often critically understaffed. During the coronavirus pandemic, when many have lost their jobs and are feeling disconnected from society, this could be a crucial opportunity. It also sets up workers for future success, possibly through offering them education benefits, or at the very least by giving them valuable work experience. From an economic perspective, money spent on national service companies like AmeriCorps may be as much as doubled in terms of societal benefit. Given the multitudinous advantages, increasing spending for public service programs and incentivizing participation in those programs would be highly advisable. Such a program has the potential to provide unity and opportunity to American citizens and a valuable workforce for a nation struggling with infrastructure, environmental, and educational issues (Bateman & Ross, 2020).

Both education and public service can be used for the benefit of the environment as well. Education will generate more people aware of the issue of climate change and the magnitude of the response needed to change its course, as well as more people qualified to innovate and engineer environmentally friendly solutions. Public service can be used to build more green and efficient infrastructure. There are many other solutions to help combat the effects of climate change that require only minor sacrifices, but they will require an open mindset from Americans who can take such proposed changes as affronts on their personal freedom. The ideal situation would see Americans making these life choices themselves without any inducement. However, as the crisis continues to escalate, it may become necessary for lawmakers to make the tough choice of legislating various aspects of life that are contributing to climate change, such as energy consumption. Hopefully, this will be eased by the widening availability of alternative sources of energy and fuel. At the same time, however, the EPA has proposed economic incentives for environmentally friendly companies, as well as limits on pollution across industries (EPA, n.d.b). 

This study has used the Brookings Institution Recoupling index to analyze and understand America’s current position. If the U.S. hopes to continue in its role as a global superpower, it must address both its societal and economic struggles. If the nation’s solidarity continues to plummet, it will see its populace unwilling to come together to tackle the issues of the future, and it will be unable to unite the rest of the world to solve issues like the coronavirus or climate change. If the U.S. does not empower its citizens and provide them with agency and opportunities for advancement, it will continue to fall behind and not make economic progress. Ignoring problems such as climate change has already placed the country in an unfortunate position where environmental degradation will harm future generations. Failure to make serious gains in education are also at the root of problems in advancement. The U.S. has the distinct potential to make extensive changes for the better right now. Delaying, however, will cause both America and Americans to suffer.

References

Ba, A., Jack, K., Medina, R. F. C., Schneider, C., Solingen, E. (2020, October 05). Global Cooperation in the Time of COVID-19. Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. https://igcc.ucsd.edu/news-events/news/global-cooperation-in-the-time-of-covid-19.html

Babones, S. (2020, November 18). Note to Biden: Forget Trade, the Real War With China Is Over Tech. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/18/biden-china-huawei-technology-manufacturing/

Balko, R. (2020, June 10). There’s overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system is racist. Here’s the proof. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics /2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/

Barry, M.; McIntire, M., & Rosenberg, M. (2021, January 09). ‘Our president wants us here’: The mob that stormed the capitol. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com /2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html

Bateman, N., & Ross, M. (2020, December 09). National service can connect America’s young people to opportunity and community—and promote work of real social value. 

Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/national-service-can-connect-americas-young-people-to-opportunity-and-community-and-promote-work-of-real-social-value/

Bloomstone, J. S., Crawford, S., Fisher, K. A., Fouayzi, H., Mayzor, K. M., Walder J. (2020, September 04). Attitudes Toward a Potential SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Survey of U.S. Adults. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505019/

Bouzaghrane, M. A., Chatman, D. G., Frick, K. T., Hayes, D., Li, M., Obeid, H., Parker, M. E. G., Rodríguez, D. A., Sengupta, R., Walker, J. (2021, September). Public transit use in the United States in the era of COVID-19: Transit riders’ travel behavior in the COVID-19 impact and recovery period. Transport Policy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science /article/pii/S0967070X21002067

Britannica (n.d.) European heat wave of 2003. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 8 December 2021 from https://www.britannica.com/event/European-heat-wave-of-2003

Chatzky, A. (2019, March 12). Inequality and tax rates: A global comparison. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/inequality-and-tax-rates-global-comparison

Chetty, R. (2015). Improving Opportunities for Economic Mobility: New Evidence and Policy Lessons. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://www.stlouisfed.org/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/files/pdfs/community-development /econmobilitypapers/section1/econmobility_1-1chetty_508.pdf

Conceição, P. (2020). Human Development Report. United Nations Development Programme. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020.pdf

DeFries, R., Edenhofer, O., Halliday, A., Heal, G., Lenton, T., Puma, M., Rising, J., Rockström, J., Ruane, A. C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Stainforth, D., Stern, N., Tedesco, M., Ward, B. (2019, September). The missing economic risks in assessments of climate change impacts. London School of Economics. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-missing-economic-risks-in-assessments-of-climate-change-impacts-2.pdf

de Sherbinin, A., Emerson, J., Esty, D. C., Wendling, Z. A., et al. (2020). 2020 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/epi2020report20210112.pdf

de Sherbinin, A., Emerson, J., Hsu, A., Johnson, L., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M., Malik, O., Schwartz, J.(2014). 2014 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. http://www.ciesin.org/documents/2014_epi_report.pdf

Dynarski, M. (2017, March 02). It’s not nothing: The role of money in improving education. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/its-not-nothing-the-role-of-money-in-improving-education/

Educated voters’ leftward shift is surprisingly old and international. (2021, May 29). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/29/educated-voters-leftward-shift-is-surprisingly-old-and-international

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.a). Learn about energy and its impact on the environment. Retrieved 12 December 2021 from https://www.epa.gov/energy/learn-about-energy-and-its-impact-environment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.b). Economic Incentives. Retrieved 9 December 2021 from https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economic-incentives

Gallup. (2021). Confidence in Institutions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

Gawthrop, E., Hickey, B., Penney, V., Raj, A., & Russell, D. (2020, June 16). Deadly heat is killing Americans: A decade of inaction on climate puts lives at risk. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/16/climate-deaths-heat-cdc

Gethin, A., Martínez-Toledano, C., & Piketty, T. (2021, May 11). Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies. World Inequality Database. https://wid.world/news-article/changing-political-cleavages-in-21-western-democracies/

Global Workplace Analytics. (2021). Work-at-Home After Covid-19 – Our Forecast. https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/work-at-home-after-covid-19-our-forecast

González, M. & Miller, Z. (2021, April 24). From scarcity to abundance: US faces calls to share vaccines. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/health-business-government-and-politics-immigration-europe-f6875e3094b1a51e9e8fc8ee84529ef0

Grant, C. (2017, March 03). The contribution of education to economic growth. Institute of Development Studies. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b9b87f340f0b 67896977bae/K4D_HDR
_The_Contribution_of_Education_to_Economic_Growth_Final.pdf

Helbling, M. & Stojanović, N. (2011). Switzerland: Challenging the big theories of nationalism. Nations and Nationalism, 17(4), 712–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2011.00516.x

Horowitz, J. & Utada, C. (2018, December 6). Community Supervision Marked by Racial and Gender Disparities. Pew. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles /2018/12/06/community-supervision-marked-by-racial-and-gender-disparities

Huiyao, W. (2021, February 05). Biden era a positive signal for revival of globalization. China Daily. https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202102/05/WS601c9e03a31024ad0baa768e.html

Ingram, G. (2019, October 15). What every American should know about US foreign aid. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-every-american-should-know-about-us-foreign-aid/

Ip, G. (2020, November 11). Biden, beware: The nationalist moment hasn’t passed. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-beware-the-nationalist-moment-hasnt-passed-11605112395

Islam, S. M. D., Rume, T. (2020, September 06). Environmental effects of COVID-19 pandemic and potential strategies of sustainability. Heliyon. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pmc/articles/PMC7498239/

Keith, T. (2021, June 03). The White House Says It Has Started Shipping Surplus COVID-19 Vaccines Abroad. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/03/1002888711/the-u-s-is-sending-at-least-80-million-surplus-covid-19-vaccines-abroad

Kluger, J. (2018, October 8). Why We Keep Ignoring Even the Most Dire Climate Change Warnings. Time. https://time.com/5418690/why-ignore-climate-change-warnings-un-report/

Krugman, P. (2020, July 27). The Cult of Selfishness Is Killing America. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/opinion/us-republicans-coronavirus.html

Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., Schanzenbach, D. W. (2018, October). School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement. American Economic Journal. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/app.20160567

Leahy, S. (2019, November 05). Most countries aren’t hitting 2030 climate goals, and everyone will pay the price. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science /article/nations-miss-paris-targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions

Mann, J. (2010, December 17). Why Americans Hate Paying Taxes. CNN http://www.cnn.com /2010/US/12/17/jonathan.mann.us.taxes/index.html

Marsh, A. (2021, May 26). Everyone Thinks Americans Are Selfish. They’re Wrong. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/opinion/individualism-united-states-altruism.html

Mauldin, W. (2017, January 23). Donald Trump Withdraws U.S. From Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-withdraws-u-s-from-trans-pacific-partnership-1485191020?mod=article_inline

McBride, J. & Siriparapu A. (2021, November 8). The State of U.S. Infrastructure. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-infrastructure

McGrath, M. (2020, November 04). Climate change: US formally withdraws from Paris agreement. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54797743

Meier, A. (2020, June 07). ‘Say their names’: Stories of Black Americans killed by police. ABC. https://abc7chicago.com/breonna-taylor-death-say-her-name-his-black-man-killed/6236298/

Mercantini, J. (2015, March 22). On the origins of America’s culture of tax resistance: The Stamp Act crisis. National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-the-origins-of-americas-culture-of-tax-resistance-the-stamp-act-crisis

Miranda, K. L. and Snower, D. J. (2021, April). How COVID-19 changed the world: G-7 evidence on a recalibrated relationship between market, state, and society. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/How-COVID-changed-the-world.pdf

Morrison, J. (2019, December 05). Cities Around the Globe Are Eagerly Importing a Dutch Speciality—Flood Prevention. Smithsonian. https://www.smithsonianmag.com /innovation/cities-around-globe-eagerly-importing-dutch-speciality-flood-prevention-180973679/

Nikolewski, R. (2021, January 25). The price (in electricity) of working from home. San Diego Union Tribune. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2021-01-25/the -price-in-electricity-of-working-from-home

Nokkentved, C. (n.d.). Denmark. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Denmark

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Better Life Index. (2021). Education. https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). General Government Spending. https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm#indicator-chart

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). OECD Employment Outlook 2021. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5a700c4b-en/1/4/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/5a700c4b-en&_csp_=d31326 a7706c58707d6aad05ad9dc5ab&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#tablegrp-d1e58023

Oreskes, N. & Stern, N. (2019, October 23). Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/opinion/climate-change-costs.html

Oxford Martin Programme. (2021, July 15). Daily Share of the Population Receiving a First COVID-19 Vaccine Dose. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers /coronavirus-Data-explorer?facet=none&Interval=7day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks
=false&country=ITA~CAN~DEU~GBR~FRA~JPN~USA~AUS~BRA~SAU~RUS~CHN~European+Union~ARG~IND~IDN~KOR~MEX~ZAF~TUR&Metric=People+vaccinated

Picchi, A. (2019, October 16). The U.S. tax system is “a new engine of inequality.”  CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-tax-system-a-new-engine-of-inequality-economist-gabriel-zucman-says/

Ritchie, Hannah and Roser, Max. (2021b). United States: CO2 Country Profile. Oxford Martin Programme. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states

Rodrik, D. & Subramanian, A. (2003, June). The Primacy of Institutions. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2003/06/pdf/rodrik.pdf

Sallam, M. (2021). Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: A concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines, 9(2), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160

Social Progress Initiative. (2021). Social Progress Index, https://www.socialprogress.org/ ?code=USA

Stiglitz, J. (2015). Inequality and Economic Growth. Columbia. https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/sites/jstiglitz/files/Inequality and Economic Growth.pdf

Stolovich, H. (2010, January 20). Incentives, Motivation and Workplace Performance: Research and Best Practices. Incentive Research Foundation. https://theirf.org/research/ incentives-motivation-and-workplace-performance-research-and-best-practices/147/

Sustainable Development Solutions Network. (2021). World Happiness Report,  https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2021/

Tax Policy Center. (2020, May). How do US taxes compare internationally? https: //www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

Towler, L. (2014, November 25). Deeper Learning: Moving Students Beyond Memorization. Stanford Graduate School of Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/news/articles/ 1284

U.S. House Committee on the Budget. (2019, October 22). Strong Infrastructure and a Healthy Economy Require Federal Investment. https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/ strong-infrastructure-and-healthy-economy-require-federal-investment

U.S. Internal Revenue Service. (2021, November 2). The Tax Gap. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/the-tax-gap

U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2017, November). Demographic Differences in Sentencing:An Update to the 2012 Booker Report. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf /research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf

Vazquez, M. (2020, March 12). Calling COVID-19 the “Wuhan Virus” or “China Virus” is inaccurate and xenophobic. Yale School of Medicine. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/calling-covid-19-the-wuhan-virus-or-china-virus-is-inaccurate-and-xenophobic/

Vilorio, D. (2016, March). Education Matters. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2016/data-on-display/education-matters.htm

World Health Organization. (2021). Human Development Index. https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/nlis/info/human-development-index

World Bank (2020). The Human Capital Index. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org /handle/10986/34432?cid=GGH_e_hcpexternal_en_ext

World Bank. (2018). The Human Capital Project. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org /bitstream/handle/10986/30498/33252.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

World Bank. (2021). The Human Capital Project: Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/human-capital/brief/the-human-capital-project-frequently-asked-questions#4

World Economic Forum. (2020). Global Gender Gap Report. https://www3.weforum.org /docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf

World Justice Project. (2021). Rule of Law Index. https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global/2021

World Population Review. (2021a). Finland, https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/  finland-population

World Population Review. (2021b). Gini Coefficient by Country. https://worldpopulationreview .com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country

Yam, K. (2021, March 09). Anti-Asian hate crimes increased by nearly 150% in 2020, mostly in N.Y. and L.A., new report says. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264

Yan, H. (2021, May 19). 10 reasons why young, healthy people should get vaccinated against Covid-19. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/05/health/young-people-covid-vaccine/ index 

About the author

Jaden Welch-Jani

Jaden is a junior at Glenbrook South High School, located near Chicago. He is particularly interested in the intersection between economics and international relations. Outside of school, Jaden is a club leader for Model United Nations, Academic Bowl, and Science Olympiad, and he enjoys Congressional Debate, Math Team, volunteer tutoring, and playing basketball.

The post A New Perspective: The Economics of Recent Social and Environmental Concerns in the United States appeared first on Exploratio Journal.

1. Introduction

Curious about what affects the death rates of respiratory diseases, especially for young children, I use statistics to discover the factors related to the death of respiratory diseases, such as region, income group, and the trend in recent 20 years. Wondering whether there may be a link between air pollution and respiratory diseases death rate, I also explore some data on PM2.5, the suspended particles in the air with a diameter less than 2.5 microns. RStudio is used to process, visualize and analyze data.

2. Explanation of Data Sources

Generally, three data sources are used, one about the deaths of lower respiratory diseases, one on populations, and the other on PM2.5 – the links are attached in the end, in the reference list. 

The first source is on the deaths of lower respiratory diseases from World Health Organization. This source contains the data on the number of children’s death from different diseases in different countries from 2000-2017, with the purpose of finding the causes of children deaths to increase children survival. According to World Health Organization (n.d.), while it has data from “civil registration with complete coverage (80% or over) and medical certification of cause of death, or nationally representative epidemiological studies of causes of child death”, it also has some kinds of estimations from WHO and the Maternal Child Epidemiology Estimation group (MCEE), using the original data and computing it with regard to the proportion of population of young children. Also, for low-mortality countries without adequate data, a multinomial model is applied; for high-mortality countries without adequate data, “a multinomial model applied to (largely) verbal autopsy (VA) data from research studies” is used. Useful data can be extracted from this, as the number of children deaths on lower respiratory diseases can be attained through filtering, and the age group is filtered to be 0-4 years. In this case, the data of the deaths of lower respiratory diseases can be attained. 

The second source is on population, from The World Bank. As it’s reasonable for countries with greater population to have more deaths from lower respiratory diseases, it’s necessary to attain the data on population. In this data set, we have population from different countries in 1960-2019. The population here is about all residents, either citizens or legal status, and it’s a midyear estimate. Also, what’s important here is the metadata of this data set, which categorizes countries by region and income group (Worldbank, n.d.). The categorization of income group is based on its GNI per capita (Serajuddin and Hamadeh 2020). 

Last but not least, data on PM2.5 can also be attained from The World Bank. It’s about the exposure of PM2.5 air pollution in micrograms per cubic meter. The exposure is calculated from mean annual concentrations of PM2.5 and the population in the region (Brauer et al, 2017).

3. Data Analysis

3.1 Preparation Work

To begin with, some preparation work was necessary. The tidyverse package was loaded, and also a RData file, named “AllData”, for the prepared data that has been cleaned and processed orderly was loaded. Also, the income group was reordered from high income group to low income group, instead of mere alphabetical order. Meanwhile, a list of years has been created for later usage.

3.2 What Affects Death Rate in a Given Year

3.21 Death VS Population Plot

For this first plot, this is about Deaths VS Population. It appears that the direct plot of 2017 is hard to analyze since many dots are extremely near each other (and same for other years).

Therefore, both deaths and population have been taken log in order to make the plots more wide-spread for better analysis, which is gg1. The plot appears to be related to region. In the plot of 2017, it can be discovered that most dots at the top of every vertical line are in pink, which indicates that with the same population, regions of Sub-Saharan Africa tend to have more deaths of lower respiratory diseases. For those at the bottom, they are likely in yellow, which shows that they are in Central Asia or Europe. Also, there are some correlations with income groups as well. Dots at the top are likely to be in either circle or triangle, indicating that they are in either lower or lower-middle income. Also, for almost all the dots that are at the bottom, they are in plus sign, which shows that countries in high income usually have less deaths. This pattern appears the same throughout the years, and its correlation with income group is even stronger in earlier years. Therefore, its relationship with regions and income groups can really be further explored.

 Regression lines for different regions in 2017 are drawn here. Since some death values are 0 and can’t be logged, all death values are added by 0.01, so that those values can be shown on the graph while the graph aren’t being affected too much. It appears that the linear regression here works well, as most points fall near the line, so the lines fit the regions well. The regression lines of most regions follow the pattern of the same slope, meaning they have the similar death rates, especially the red line, about East Asia & Pacific. Also, some distinctions between regions can be observed, such as Sub-Saharan Africa is often at the top, indicating a higher death rate while North America, Europe & Central Asia are always at the bottom, with a relatively lower death rate. Also, the variation can be observed, as pink dots of Sub-Saharan Africa are closer to the line, indicating higher death rates are consistent across those countries, while the yellow dots of Europe & Central Asia are more wide-spread, so that variation occurs – there are even several dots at the very bottom of the graph.

 Next, the regression lines for different income groups in 2017 are drawn using the similar method, and the difference is even more distinct – there are no crosses and intercepts of any two lines. At any population level, the deaths from lower respiratory diseases are always higher at lower income countries and decreases as the income group goes from low to high. Also, it appears that each income group has a fixed death rate and there is smaller spread or outliers, besides the five higher-income countries with an extremely low death rate.

 After that, in order to see how important the factor of income group is, the death per population in a specific region is plotted by income group. In general, the distinctions between lines in each region are clear, with lower income at top and higher income at the very bottom. However, we do have some lines tangling together, and one possible reason is that there are few data available here. For example, there are only two red plots (lower income) in “Middle East & North Africa”, so its regression line is definitely highly inaccurate, affected by one outlier. However, in a more general perspective, the death per population is still highly related to the income level, which shows that economic factors still play an important role in this process.

 Similarly, the death rate in a specific income group by region can be plotted. In all the four graphs below, there are lots of tangles between the lines, and the differences between the lines aren’t very significant, while the differences between income groups are rather more significant, as the slope become steeper from higher income groups to lower income groups (besides the several outliers in high income groups in Europe & Central Asia). However, there are some subtle distinctions here that the pink line, about Sub-Saharan Africa, is usually slightly higher than other regions, even in the same income group; meanwhile, the yellow line, about Europe & Central Asia is slightly lower than others in the same income group. Perhaps these interesting facts are due to something besides economic factors, and related to some environmental and geographical factors. Besides, there may be some inaccuracy here due to lack of data, as there are only two pink dots (Sub-Saharan Africa) in high income countries, one light green dot (Latin America & Caribbean) in low-income group. 

3.22 Display Death Rate Directly

Then in order to evaluate the ratio of deaths and population directly, a new variable of “Death / Population” (dividing deaths by population) is created, which is literally the death rate.

Firstly, the histograms of the logs of death rates by different income groups are plotted. It’s necessary to mention here that since some countries have 0 deaths, the death rate value can be 0 – so all values are added by 0.0000000001 ( ) to make those value appear on the graphs (same process is done for all plots below related to the new variable of “Death / Population”, which won’t be repeated later). As shown in the plot of 2017, the difference between different income groups is vast. Lower income countries have a significantly higher death rate than higher income groups. The low income has almost all countries greater than the median death rate (except one outlier, which is Syrian Arab Republic). Lower-middle income has majority of countries’ death rate higher than median value while higher-middle income has majority to be lower than median value. For high income countries, they are almost all below median death rate (except one outlier, Nauru). This shows the direct link between income groups and death rates. Also, for low-income groups, the data appears to be more concentrated, mostly between -9 to -7 on the histogram. However, for upper middle income countries and high income countries, their data are pretty wide-spread. Therefore, this reveal that the variations of death rates between different richer countries are greater than in poorer countries. Perhaps this is due to some environmental factors, or people’s attitudes towards the lower respiratory diseases in developed countries, since economic factor is no longer significant when the comparison occurs inside one income group and all countries are rich. 

Similar situations can be observed throughout the years from 2000 to 2017 – the general pattern is rather static. However, such distinction between income groups does become clearer throughout the years. In earlier years, the difference of the pattern between lower middle income and low income isn’t as significant as it is today while for upper middle income, the death rate is half greater than median, half smaller than median. At that time, the advantage of high income countries is massive. Perhaps this is a good thing that through the recent decades, middle income countries become better and better at health care so that they have a relatively lower death rate in those years. However, problem still remains for lower income countries.

3.3 Trend of Death Rates Throughout the Years

3.31 In a Given Country

To begin with, the trend of death rates in several countries are explored – US, China, India and Haiti are selected, representing different income groups and different regions. It’s exciting to discover that all four countries experience a significant decrease in the death rate in 2000-2017. Also, it appears that countries in relatively lower income groups (such as India and Haiti) have a much sharper decreasing trend, almost linear. For China, as upper middle income, its death rate decreases intensively and the curve is growing flatter over time, just as a parabola. For US, the high income, the decreasing trend is much flatter and there are more twists and turns in the 18 years.

3.32 By Income Group

After that, a boxplot of different income groups’ death rate trend by year has been made. Obviously, throughout the years, the death rate of lower income countries is always higher than higher income countries and all of them are decreasing over time. The death rate of lower-middle income and upper-middle countries are decreasing steadily and most intensively among all income groups. 

 For low-income countries, they do decrease constantly in the 18 years, but the scale is relatively small, so their death rates still stay high over the years. However, we have an outlier here among low-income countries, always lower than usual low income boxplots, which is Syrian Arab Republic (Syria).

For high income countries, the decrease over the 18 years isn’t significant though, and there are a lot of twists and turns throughout the decreasing process. However, what’s impressive is that there are several countries that have death rate to be 0 for years (revealing here:  , which is the set of dots at the very bottom). For the dot that decreases intensively from 2009-2011, it’s Andorra – the country decreases intensively and steadily in those years and the death rate becomes 0 since 2012. Besides, countries such as Iceland, Cyprus also have multiple years of death rate being 0. 

 Besides the boxplot, geom_smooth is also used to regress the lines for different income groups. The first graph is what I plot at first, without log. While all income groups are drawn in one graph, the low income countries appear to decrease dramatically, and the slope is flatter for middle incomes and almost totally flat for high incomes. Also, the gray confidence interval for mean death rate appears wide-spread for low income countries while tiny for high income countries.

  This is confusing, since from all my exploration above, high income countries’ death rates are often widespread and differ from each other a lot. Perhaps it’s because we didn’t take log at this graph. So the second graph is plotted by taking the log of the death rate. This time, as predicted, the gray confidence interval is extremely big for high income countries; this gray confidence interval is relatively small for low income countries. Also, the decreasing trend is most intensive in middle income countries, which is consistent with what we’ve observed in the boxplots. The reason behind is possibly related to the percentage of the decrease: for middle income countries, they experience a dramatic decrease in their percentage of death rates in log scale, while lower income countries, although decreasing a lot in number, don’t have a significant decrease in the percentage. Besides, it appears that in any cases, the gray confidence interval is always constant throughout the years, revealing that the changing rate of the death rate is often constant throughout the years.

3.33 By Region

  Using the same method, the boxplot for different regions throughout the years can be drawn as well. For all regions, the decreasing trend isn’t as significant as income groups, but still exists. Europe & Central Asia and North America typically have low death rates, and Europe & Central Asia contains some countries with death rate of 0. In contrast, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa countries usually have higher death rates. However, they often have several outliers with death rate lower than usual. Probably this result is also somehow related to the economic situation, as Europe & Central Asia or North America has countries typically of high income or upper middle income while South Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa are typically of lower income groups.

Also, the smooth plot for different regions is here. Still, without log scale, regions with higher death rates (Sub-Saharan Africa & South Asia) decreases more intensively. 

Things become uncertain after it’s logged. South Asia appears to decrease the most greatly this time and Sub-Saharan Africa is flat this time. East Asia & Pacific decreases slightly but steadily over time. For other regions, it’s no longer linear, as the line goes up and down and even the decreasing trend is unclear, showing that on a general level, the change in percentage doesn’t vary much by regions.

 3.4 About PM2.5

As respiratory diseases are related to respiratory system, and the health of respiratory system is easily affected by air pollution, an assumption is made initially that there may be some links between the death rate of lower respiratory diseases and PM2.5 exposure. This is explored with the PM2.5 data.

3.41 By Income Group

 Firstly, the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and income groups is analyzed, as shown in the histogram below. For lower income groups, they are more likely to have a higher PM2.5 exposure than the median value. This is consistent with the initial assumption and observation of death rate, as lower income groups have a higher death rate. However, when it comes to higher income groups, for countries in upper middle income and high incomes, their PM2.5 exposure spreads almost evenly on the two sides of the median value. Meanwhile, for death rate of respiratory diseases, both two income groups are always on the smaller side compared to the median value. So this makes people question whether there is really a link between PM2.5 exposure and death rates.

 3.42 By Region

For the histogram of PM2.5 by regions, similar situation occurs. For Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, countries are likely to have a higher PM2.5 exposure than median and they are the regions with higher death rates. However, for Europe & Central Asia, it’s evenly spread on both sides of the median value. For North America, it’s even greater than the median value. At the same time, the two regions have the least death rates among all, which is out of the original expectation.

3.43 Trend of PM2.5 through Time

The following two graphs are about PM2.5 and income groups, not logged and logged. In either case, the lower income group increases greatly while all other income groups mostly remain constant and may increase a little bit. This reveals that the original assumption may not be correct, since PM2.5 generally increases while the lower respiratory diseases death rates decrease dramatically over time, among all income groups.

The same process has been done for different regions. As shown, the gray confidence interval is extremely wide separated, revealing how different countries vary even though they are in the same region. Meanwhile, the general trend is still increasing for almost all regions, inconsistent with the decrease within death rates. Also, what’s worth noticing here is that for North America, its increase is massive throughout the years, but it usually has relatively low death rates constantly. Throughout such observations, it can be concluded that perhaps there isn’t much correlation between PM2.5 and death rates of lower respiratory diseases.

4. Conclusion

After this data analysis, it finally comes to some conclusions about what influences the death rate of lower respiratory diseases. 

Firstly, the death rate is strongly related to the economical situations of countries. In general, higher income countries usually have a lower death rate, while lower income countries have a higher death rate. Perhaps this is related to the level of health care in the countries. Obviously, for richer countries, they are able to provide better health care service to children, so that for children who have lower respiratory diseases, they can attain enough caring and get cured as soon as possible. For poorer countries, they don’t have enough money to provide such health care. In this pattern, the death rates can also represent how health care grows in 2000-2017. Throughout the years, even though all income groups have their death rate decreasing, lower income countries experience a more intensive decrease in death rate while higher income countries remain stagnant. Also, the decrease in middle income countries is significant under log scale. All of these reflect the link between income groups and death rates. 

There are also some factors besides mere economical factors. As can be seen, under same category of income groups, still regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia still experience a higher death rate. Therefore, perhaps there are some other factors besides income groups, such as cultural factors, or environmental factors. This still needs further exploration to decide what makes some regions have a higher or lower death rate under the same economical level. 

Meanwhile, regarding to the assumption of the link between death rate and PM2.5 exposure, it appears that perhaps there aren’t much correlation between the two. While the PM2.5 exposure increases generally in 2000-2018, the death rates decrease intensively in any cases in those years. For the only consistence that low income countries have high PM2.5 exposure and high death rates, possibly it’s just a coincidence since the two matters can be explained in the perspective of income group separately. PM2.5 exposure is high because the country doesn’t have money to spend on clearing the air pollution. Death rates of lower respiratory diseases are high because the country doesn’t have enough money to provide children with good health care. Thus, PM2.5 and lower respiratory diseases death rates aren’t correlated. 

But anyway, children health is often an essential topic in our society. As more countries become richer and our levels of health care improve, there will definitely be less children dying from lower respiratory diseases. The trend is pretty good in 2000-2017, and hopes the death rate will continue to decrease in the future, so more children can live more happily throughout their childhood without the pain of diseases and death.

5. Reference List

Mentor: Dr. Peter Kempthorne, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Brauer, M., et al. “PM2.5 Air Pollution, Mean Annual Exposure (Micrograms per Cubic Meter).” Data. The World Bank, 2017. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.PM25.MC.M3.
• “Number of Deaths in Children Aged <5, by Cause.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Accessed April 5, 2021. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/number-of-deaths.
• “Population, Total.” Data. The World Bank. Accessed April 5, 2021. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.
• Serajuddin, Umar, and Nada Hamadeh. “New World Bank Country Classifications by Income Level: 2020-2021.” World Bank Blogs, July 1, 2020. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2020-2021#:~:text=The%20World%20Bank%20assigns%20the,i.e.%202019%20in%20this%20case.

About the author

Yi Zou

Yi is a rising junior at the Starriver Bilingual School in Shanghai, China.

The post Factors behind the Death Rate of Lower Respiratory Diseases appeared first on Exploratio Journal.