According to the study, pro-market policies for developing countries have long been based on the belief that increasing average income is key to improving public health and societal well-being.
But new research on India published in the journal 'Social Science and Medicine' shows that literacy - a non-income good - has a greater impact on public health in India.
While the researchers, based at Cambridge's Department of Sociology, accept it is broadly true that "wealthier is healthier" across the roughly 500 districts in India's major states, accounting for 95 per cent of the total population, they find that poverty and crucially, illiteracy, are much stronger predictors of poor public health than low average income.
Literacy acts as a base, enabling populations to understand medicine labeling, access healthcare, and engage with public health programmes.
Using data on income, education and mortality among infants and children under five, the researchers suggest that policymakers concerned with public health should focus on literacy levels rather than average income.
Models estimate that for the 'typical' Indian district in the early 2000s, the poverty gap would have had to be reduced by 25 per cent to save one child per thousand live births, whereas a mere 4 per cent increase in literacy rate would have had the same effect.
"Economic policies narrowly focused on growth are insufficient when it comes to public health in less developed countries," said Lawrence King, Professor of Sociology and Political Economy and co-author of the study with Cambridge colleagues Keertichandra Rajan and Jonathan Kennedy.
"Higher average income is a statistical red herring: it contributes to better public health mainly to the extent that it reflects high literacy and low poverty," King said.
"Since our models account for differences in individual income and district average income, this is tentative evidence for the psychological and social effects of inequality in a poor country," said Rajan.
Overall, researchers feel the study provides support for what its authors call the 'pro-poor position': while economic growth is certainly important, a focus on the most deprived in terms of income as well as other factors such as literacy, may be more effective than improving the average.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
