EuHEA Seminar Series Fall 2022

The EuHEA seminar series brings together health economists all across its member associations, and beyond, to discuss cutting-edge research

Welcome

The EuHEA Seminar Series has been established as a key activity of EuHEA to foster exchange between health economists across different countries and institutions and present cutting-edge research in all areas of health economics. The series is organized as an online event and will take place on Tuesdays, 1:30-2:30pm, this fall, starting on September 27, 2022. A Scientific Committee chaired by Karine Lamiraud (ESSEC Paris) and Rossella Verzulli (University of Bologna) will coordinate the series in the academic year 2022/2023.

Registration

To register for the online seminar series, please click here.

 

Upcoming event

27 September 2022, 1:30-2:30pm (CET)

Liberal reward and healthy lifestyles: A questionnaire-experimental study

Objectives: In social choice theory, the liberal reward principle states that if informed individuals freely make choices from a fixed choice set, resulting inequalities reflect differences in preferences, and thus are legitimate. We argue that to the extent that the shape of the choice set is beyond the individuals' responsibility, where the menu of alternatives is more favourable to individuals with certain kinds of preferences than others, a reduction of inequalities across individuals could be justified. The paper seeks to examine to what extent the liberal reward principle and the alternative find support among members of the public, in the context of lifestyles and health.

Methods: The paper proposes a way to gauge how favourable a choice set is to different kinds of preference using a measure analogous to equivalent income ('equivalent health'). A questionnaire describes several hypothetical scenarios with a health inequality between two groups of individuals who have different preferences for health-related lifestyles (some find it easy or enjoy healthy lifestyles, while others favour unhealthy lifestyles). Therefore, conditional on the same health inequality, the magnitude of the inequality in terms of equivalent health differs in each scenario. Respondents were asked to choose between allocation strategies that translate different normative principles. We also control for the prior beliefs of respondents regarding the kinds of preferences of individuals who adopt healthy and unhealthy lifestyles. The questionnaire was completed online by a representative sample of 675 members of the general public in Chile.

Results: A majority of respondents did not support the allocation strategy compatible with the liberal reward principle, and appear more willing to reduce health inequality when the magnitude of the inequality in terms of equivalent health is high. The results also highlight the importance of respondents' prior beliefs regarding the relationship between preferences and health-related behaviours over what is specified in the scenarios, in explaining the responses.

Conclusion: The study found that the liberal reward principle has little support among members of the public and that there is room for an alternative notion of reward that favours the reduction of inequalities that arise from choices from a fixed menu where individuals have different preferences. The magnitude of the inequality in terms of equivalent income between two individuals depends on the kind of preferences involved and the reference categories used. Further research could explore the attitudes of members of the public towards health inequalities, controlling for their beliefs about the preferences of individuals who adopt healthy and unhealthy lifestyles, and their implicit reference categories.

Speaker: Nicolas Silva-Illanes, University of Chile
Discussant: Kristof Bosmans, Maastricht University
Chair: Karine Lamiraud, ESSEC Business School

 

Program

27 September 2022, 1:30-2:30pm (CET)

Liberal reward and healthy lifestyles: A questionnaire-experimental study

Objectives: In social choice theory, the liberal reward principle states that if informed individuals freely make choices from a fixed choice set, resulting inequalities reflect differences in preferences, and thus are legitimate. We argue that to the extent that the shape of the choice set is beyond the individuals' responsibility, where the menu of alternatives is more favourable to individuals with certain kinds of preferences than others, a reduction of inequalities across individuals could be justified. The paper seeks to examine to what extent the liberal reward principle and the alternative find support among members of the public, in the context of lifestyles and health.

Methods: The paper proposes a way to gauge how favourable a choice set is to different kinds of preference using a measure analogous to equivalent income ('equivalent health'). A questionnaire describes several hypothetical scenarios with a health inequality between two groups of individuals who have different preferences for health-related lifestyles (some find it easy or enjoy healthy lifestyles, while others favour unhealthy lifestyles). Therefore, conditional on the same health inequality, the magnitude of the inequality in terms of equivalent health differs in each scenario. Respondents were asked to choose between allocation strategies that translate different normative principles. We also control for the prior beliefs of respondents regarding the kinds of preferences of individuals who adopt healthy and unhealthy lifestyles. The questionnaire was completed online by a representative sample of 675 members of the general public in Chile.

Results: A majority of respondents did not support the allocation strategy compatible with the liberal reward principle, and appear more willing to reduce health inequality when the magnitude of the inequality in terms of equivalent health is high. The results also highlight the importance of respondents' prior beliefs regarding the relationship between preferences and health-related behaviours over what is specified in the scenarios, in explaining the responses.

Conclusion: The study found that the liberal reward principle has little support among members of the public and that there is room for an alternative notion of reward that favours the reduction of inequalities that arise from choices from a fixed menu where individuals have different preferences. The magnitude of the inequality in terms of equivalent income between two individuals depends on the kind of preferences involved and the reference categories used. Further research could explore the attitudes of members of the public towards health inequalities, controlling for their beliefs about the preferences of individuals who adopt healthy and unhealthy lifestyles, and their implicit reference categories.

Speaker: Nicolas Silva-Illanes, University of Chile
Discussant: Kristof Bosmans, Maastricht University
Chair: Karine Lamiraud, ESSEC Business School

4 October 2022, 1:30-2:30pm (CET)

The Impact of Community Water Supply Program on Access to Safe Drinking Water

Investing in public water infrastructure can improve people’s well-being and health outcomes. In this paper, I study the effects of the Indonesia’s largest community-based water supply and sanitation initiative (Pamsimas) on households’ access to safe drinking water, inside house wa- ter provision and water-fetching distance. The program is a pro-poor project which targeted rural and peri-urban under-served communities in a broad geographic focus to receive water connections. To investigate the effects of the program, I employ a difference in difference (DID) combined with nearest neighbour matching (NNM) using the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS) panel households from 2007 and 2014 waves. The results show that the share of house- holds access to safe drinking water among those who lived in the program communities increased between 3-5 percentage points. The share of households with improved inside-house water sup- ply also increased 9 percentage points seven years after implementation of the program which is in line with the third impact in reducing the journey to collect water by nearly 4 kilometres less in distance.

Speaker: Daim Syukriyah, University of London
Discussant: Mylene Lagarde, London School of Economics
Chair: Noemi Kreif, University of York

11 October 2022, 1:30-2:30pm (CET)

Eating Habits and Patience: The Role of Early Life Experiences

This study explores the long-run effects of a temporary scarcity of a consumption good on preferences towards that good once the shock is over. Specifically, we focus on individuals who were children during World War II and assess the consequences of the temporary drop in meat availability they experienced early in life. To this end, we combine hand-collected historical data on the number of livestock at the local level with microdata on eating habits and patience. By exploiting cohort and regional variation in a difference-in-differences estimation, we show that individuals who as children were more exposed to meat scarcity tend to consume more meat during late adulthood and are relatively more patient. Consistent with medical studies on the side effects of meat overconsumption, we also find that these individuals have a higher probability of being overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Our results point towards a behavioral channel, where early-life shocks shape eating habits, patience, and adult health.

Speaker: Effrosyni Adamopoulou, University of Mannheim
Discussant: Jonathan James, University of Bath
Chair: Joanna Kopinska, Sapienza University of Rome

 

Scientific Committee

The EuHEA Seminar Series in the academic year 2022/2023 is coordinated by:

  • Karine Lamiraud, ESSEC Business School (Chair)
  • Rossella Verzulli, University of Bologna (Co-Chair)
  • Francesca Barigozzi, University of Bologna
  • Stefan Boes, University of Lucerne
  • Fabrice Etile, Paris School of Economics
  • Geir Godager, University of Oslo
  • Mathias Kifmann, University of Hamburg
  • Shiko Maruyama, Jinan University
  • Nuria Mas, IESE Business School
  • Helen Mason, Glasgow Caledonian University
  • Paolo Pertile, University of Verona
  • Pedro Pita Barros, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
  • Katrin Zocher, University of Linz