Public Health

Social determinants of health inequalities

Michael Marmot

Lancet 2005; 365: 1099104

See Comment

The gross inequalities in health that we see within and between countries present a challenge to the world. That there
should be a spread of life expectancy of 48 years among countries and 20 years or more within countries is not
inevitable. A burgeoning volume of research identies social factors at the root of much of these inequalities in health.
Social determinants are relevant to communicable and non-communicable disease alike. Health status, therefore,
should be of concern to policy makers in every sector, not solely those involved in health policy. As a response to this
global challenge, WHO is launching a Commission on Social Determinants of Health, which will review the evidence,
raise societal debate, and recommend policies with the goal of improving health of the worlds most vulnerable
people. A major thrust of the Commission is turning public-health knowledge into political action.
There are gross inequalities in health between
countries. Life expectancy at birth, to take one
measure, ranges from 34 years in Sierra Leone to
819 years in Japan.1 Within countries, too, there are
large inequalitiesa 20-year gap in life expectancy
between the most and least advantaged populations in
the USA, for example.2 One welcome response to these
health inequalities is to put more effort into the control
of major diseases that kill and to improve health
systems.3,4
A second belated response is to deal with poverty.
This issue is the thrust of the Millennium
Development Goals.5,6 These goals challenge the world
community to tackle poverty in the worlds poorest
countries. Included in these goals is reduction of child
mortality, the health outcome most sensitive to the
effects of absolute material deprivation.
To reduce inequalities in health across the world there
is need for a third major thrust that is complementary to
development of health systems and relief of poverty: to
take action on the social determinants of health. Such
action will include relief of poverty but it will have the
broader aim of improving the circumstances in which
people live and work. It will, therefore, address not only
Panel 1: The Commission on Social Determinants of Health
The Commission will not only review existing knowledge but
also raise societal debate and promote uptake of policies that
will reduce inequalities in health within and between
countries.
The Commissions aim is, within 3 years, to set solid
foundations for its vision: the societal relations and factors
that inuence health and health systems will be visible,
understood, and recognised as important. On this basis, the
opportunities for policy and action and the costs of not
acting on these social dimensions will be widely known and
debated. Success will be achieved if institutions working in
health at local, national, and global level will be using this
knowledge to set and implement relevant public policy
affecting health. The Commission will contribute to a
long-term process of incorporating social determinants of
health into planning, policy and technical work at WHO.

www.thelancet.com Vol 365 March 19, 2005

International Centre for Health

and Society, University College
London, 119 Torrington Place,
London WC1E 6BT, UK
(Prof Sir M Marmot)
[email protected]

the major infectious diseases linked with poverty of

material conditions but also non-communicable
diseasesboth physical and mentaland violent
deaths that form the major burden of disease and death
in every region of the world outside Africa and add
substantially to the burden of communicable disease in
sub-Saharan Africa.
To understand the social determinants of health,
how they operate, and how they can be changed to
improve health and reduce health inequalities, WHO
is setting up an independent Commission on Social
Determinants of Health, with the mission to link
knowledge with action (panel 1). Public policyboth
national and globalshould change to take into
account the evidence on social determinants of health
and interventions and policies that will address them.
This introduction to the Commissions task lays out
the problems of inequalities in health that the
Commission will address and the approach that it will
take. This report will argue that health status should be
of concern to all policy makers, not merely those
within the health sector. If health of a population
suffers it is an indicator that the set of social
arrangements needs to change. Simply, the
Commission will seek to have public policy based on a
vision of the world where people matter and social
justice is paramount.

Inequalities in health between and within

countries: poverty and inequality
A catastrophe on the scale of the Indian Ocean
tsunami rightly focuses attention on the susceptibility
of poor and vulnerable populations to natural disasters.
It is no less important to keep on the agenda the more
enduring problem of inequalities in health among
countries.

Children
Under-5 mortality varies from 316 per 1000 livebirths
in Sierra Leone to 3 per 1000 livebirths in Iceland,
4 per 1000 livebirths in Finland, and 5 per 1000
livebirths in Japan.1 In 16 countries (12 in Africa), child
mortality rose in the 1990s,7 by 43% in Zimbabwe, 52%
in Botswana, and 75% in Iraq.8
1099

Public Health

160

Poorest fifth
2nd poorest fifth
Middle fifth
2nd richest fifth
Richest fifth

Under-5 mortality per 1000

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Indonesia

Brazil

India

Kenya

Country

Figure 1: Under-5 mortality rates per 1000 livebirths by socioeconomic

quintile of household
Reprinted from reference 9 with permission of Elsevier.

Figure 1 shows under-5 mortality rates for four

countries with households classied according to
socioeconomic quintile. Child mortality varies among
countries.9 Within countries, not only is child mortality
highest among the poorest households but also there is
a social gradient: the higher the socioeconomic level of
the household the lower the mortality rate.

Adults
Differences in adult mortality among countries are
large and growing. Figure 2 shows probability of death
600

Women

Probability of death between 15 and 60 years of age per 1000 population

Africavery high adult mortality

400

Africahigh adult mortality

Southeast Asialow adult mortality

World
Europehigh adult mortality
Western Pacificlow adult mortality

200

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

Year
600

Men

Africavery high adult mortality

Africahigh adult mortality

Europehigh adult mortality

400

Southeast Asialow adult mortality

World
Western Pacificlow adult mortality

200

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Figure 2: Trends in adult mortality by sex in regions of the world, 19702002

The graphs show the probability of death between 15 and 60 years of age per 1000 population. Reprinted from
reference 7 with permission of the World Health Organization.

1100

between age 15 and 60 years by region of the world

between 1970 and 2002.7 Mortality rose in Africa and in
the countries of central and eastern Europe whereas it
declined in the world as a whole. By 2002, for example,
men in the high mortality countries of Europe had
more than 40% probability of death between age 15
and 60 years compared to a 25% probability in
southeast Asia. These data are for regions. Among
countries, the differences are even more dramatic. The
probability of a man dying between age 15 and 60 years
is 83% in Sweden, 821% in Zimbabwe, and 902%
in Lesotho.7
A particularly telling example of health inequalities
within countries is the 20-year gap in life expectancy
between Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peopleslife expectancy is 563 years for
men and 628 years for womenand the Australian
average.10 The men in this population would look
unhealthy in India (male life expectancy 601 years)
whereas Australian life expectancy is among the
highest in the world, marginally behind Iceland,
Sweden, and Japan. The poor health of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples is not the result of a high
rate of child deaths. Infant mortality is 127 per
1000 livebirths. This gure is high by Australian
standards, but on a scale from Iceland to Sierra Leone,
it is much closer to Iceland than to Sierra Leone. The
shortened life expectancy of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples results from mortality in adults
from non-communicable disease and injury. In this
sense, the population is typical of the world health
picture. Of the 45 million deaths among adults age
15 years and older in 2002, 32 million were due to noncommunicable disease and a further 45 million to
violent causes.7
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are a
socially excluded minority within their country. But
poor health is not conned to poor populations or
those who are socially excluded. As with child
mortality, there is a socioeconomic gradient in adult
mortality rates within countries. Figure 3 shows that in
Bangladesh, adult mortality rates vary inversely with
level of education.11 This gradient in mortality is quite
remarkable. Within rich countries, with strikingly
different material conditions from Bangladesh, there is
a social gradient in mortality prompting consideration
of the causal links between status and health.12
Whether the social gradient in poor countries can be
attributed to the same causal pathways is an urgent
task for review. It is especially important because, in
many countries, inequalities in health have been
increasing.1315 In Russia for example, where life
expectancy is low, social inequalities have grown
(gure 4).16
Mortality statistics are readily available. They should
not, however, lead to ignorance of the burden of nonfatal disease. In particular, mental illness causes much
www.thelancet.com Vol 365 March 19, 2005

Public Health

105

65

Primary
High school
University

100
50

090
085

Mortality per 1000

Mortality rate ratio

095

080
075
070
065
000

40
30
20
10

No education

Koranic
education

14 years
formal
education

5 years
formal
education

0
1980s

1990s
Period

Education

Figure 3: Mortality and education in men aged 4590 years in Matlab,

Bangladesh, 19829811

Figure 4: Increase in educational differentials in mortality between the

1980s and 1990s in St Petersburg men16

suffering but its effect is not clear by inspection of

mortality data. Worldwide, the second highest cause of
disease burden among adults age 1559 years is
unipolar depressive disorder.7

poor countries.19 Recognising the health effects of

poverty is one thing. Taking action to relieve its effects
entails a richer understanding of the health effects of
social and economic policies.
Dirty water, lack of calories, and poor antenatal care
cannot account for the 20-year decit in life expectancy
of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples. On a world scale, their infant mortality rate, at
127 per 1000 livebirths, is low. Their high rate of adult
mortality is from cardiovascular diseases, cancers,
endocrine nutritional and metabolic diseases
(including diabetes), external causes (violence),
respiratory disorders, and digestive diseases.10 This fact
is not to deny that poverty is important. But the form
that poverty takes and its health consequences are
quite different when considering chronic disease and
violent deaths in adults, compared to deaths from

It is convenient, but quite wrong, to think that the

greying of the worlds population is an issue only for
the rich countries. Figure 5 shows the projected
increase between 2000 and 2030 in the population
older than 65 years in selected countries.17 The fastest
rates of increase are in countries at an intermediate
level of human development, starting from a low base.
The social determinants of the health of older people
claim attention alongside those of health at younger
ages.

Social determinants: poverty, inequality, and

the causes of the causes

www.thelancet.com Vol 365 March 19, 2005

300

250

200
Increase (%)

In consulting widely in developing the plan for the

Commission on Social Determinants of Health, a
common question was: Whats new? We know that
poverty is bad for health. Does that need a
Commission?
It is not difcult to understand how poverty in the
form of material deprivationdirty water, poor
nutritionallied to lack of quality medical care can
account for the tragically foreshortened lives of people
in Sierra Leone. Such understanding is insufcient in
two important ways. First, it fails properly to take into
account that relief of such material deprivation is not
simply a technical matter of providing clean water or
better medical care. Who gets these resources is
socially
determined.18
Second,
and
related,
international policies have not been pursued as if they
had peoples basic needs in mind. The critics of the
policies pursued by the International Monetary Fund
in the global South have argued eloquently that the
economic policies pursued under structural
adjustment have not beneted disadvantaged people in

150

100

50

Malaysia
Mexico
Chile
India
China
USA
UK
Japan
Italy

The ageing of the worlds population

Country

Figure 5: Projected percentage increase in the elderly population (older than

65 years) from 2000 to 2030 in selected countries
Adapted from reference 17 with permission of the US Census Bureau.

1101

Public Health

Panel 2: The Solid Facts

Because the causes of the causes are not obvious, the WHO
Regional Ofce for Europe asked a group at University
College London to summarise the evidence on the social
determinants of health, published as The Solid Facts.22 It had
ten messages on the social determinants of health based on:
the social gradient
stress
early life
social exclusion
work
unemployment
social support
addiction
food
transport
As an indication that there was a ready audience for these
messages, in the rst 12 months after publication of the
second edition it was downloaded from the internet 218 000
times.
The Solid Facts reviewed evidence from Europe, aimed mainly
at reducing inequalities in health within countries. The task of
the Commission will be to review evidence on the social
determinants of health that are relevant to global health:
inequalities among countries and within.

infectious disease in children. It entails a richer

understanding of the social determinants of health.
The health experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples has relevance for the health of
disadvantaged people worldwide. While in Africa the
major contributor to premature mortality is
communicable disease, in every other region of the
world it is non-communicable disease.1 Careful
analysis of the global burden of disease has pointed to
the importance of risk factors, such as being
overweight, smoking, alcohol, and poor diet.20 These
are indeed potent causes. But would it be helpful to go
into a deprived Australian Aboriginal population and
point out that they should really take better care of
themselvesthat their smoking and obesity were
killing them; and if they must drink, please do so in
moderation? Unlikely. To borrow Geoffrey Roses
term, we need to examine the causes of the causes:21
the social conditions that give rise to high risk of noncommunicable disease whether acting through
unhealthy behaviours or through the effects of
impossibly stressful lives12 (panel 2).
A further answer to the whats new question:
although it might be obvious that poverty is at the root
of much of the problem of infectious disease, and
needs to be solved, it is less obvious how to break the
link between poverty and disease. Income poverty
provides, at best, an incomplete explanation of
differences in mortality among countries or among
1102

subgroups within countries. It is well known that

among rich countries, there is little correlation
between gross national product (GNP) per person and
life expectancy. Greece for example, with a GNP at
purchasing power parities of just more than
US$17 000, has a life expectancy of 781 years; the
USA, with a GNP of more than $34 000, has a life
expectancy of 769 years. Costa Rica and Cuba stand
out as countries with GNPs less than $10 000 and yet
life expectancies of 779 years and 765 years.23
There are many examples of relatively poor
populations with similar incomes but strikingly
different health records.8 Kerala and China, famously,
have good health, despite low incomes.24 The social
processes that lead to this benecial state of health
need not wait for the world order to be changed to
relieve poverty in the worst-off countries. A social
determinants perspective is crucial. It is also important
to enquire whether the action that is taking place to
relieve poverty is having the desired effect not only on
average incomes but also on income distribution and
hence on the poorest people.
The social gradient in health is a particular challenge.
Where material deprivation is severe, a social gradient
in mortality could arise from degrees of absolute
deprivation. In rich countries with low levels of material
deprivation the gradient changes the focus from
absolute to relative deprivation.25 Relative deprivation
relates to a broader approach to social functioning and
meeting of human needs12capabilities in the words of
Amartya Sen,26 spiritual resources to use Robert Fogels
term.27 It is likely that both material or physical needs
and capability, spiritual, or psychosocial needs are
important to the gradient in health, which will,
therefore, be an important focus.
A focus on material conditions and control of
infectious disease must not be to the exclusion of social
determinants. The circumstances in which people live
and work are as important for communicable as they
are for non-communicable disease. Social conditions
powerfully inuence both the onset and response to
treatment of the major infectious diseases that kill.28,29
The Commission on Social Determinants of Health
will need to have in its sights poverty of the subSaharan African sort and the social determinants that
account for Bolivia having 14 fewer years of life
expectancy than Costa Rica or Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples having 20 years fewer than
other Australians. As these examples illustrate, it will
examine inequalities in health between countries and
inequalities within.

Action is possible and necessary

A review of policies in European countries identied
several that took action on the social determinants of
health.30 Although the reason for the policies was not
necessarily to improve health they were nevertheless
www.thelancet.com Vol 365 March 19, 2005

Public Health

relevant to health: taxation and tax credits, old-age

pensions, sickness or rehabilitation benets, maternity
or child benets, unemployment benets, housing
policies, labour markets, communities, and care
facilities.
In Sweden, the new strategy for public health is to
create social conditions that will ensure good health for
the entire population.31 Of 11 policy domains, ve
relate to social determinants: participation in society,
economic and social security, conditions in childhood
and adolescence, healthier working life, and environment and products. These are in addition to health
promoting medical care and the usual health
behaviours. The UK set reduction of health inequalities
as a key aim of health policy. It assembled evidence
and expert judgments on areas suitable for policy
development.32 These then formed the basis of a plan
of action to reduce health inequalities.33
These are examples from rich countries. There are
further encouraging examples. Familias en Accion in
Colombia transfers cash to poor families. To qualify,
families must ensure their children receive preventive
health care, enrol in school, and attend classes. The
results are encouraging: favourable growth of children
and fewer episodes of diarrhoea.34 The Oportunidades
programme in Mexico had somewhat similar aims
with similarly encouraging results.35

Meeting human needs

Two linked themes provide the rationale for the
Commission on Social Determinants of Health. First,
there is no choice. If the major determinants of health
are social, so must be the remedies. Treating existing
disease is urgent and will always receive high priority
but should not be to the exclusion of taking action on
the underlying social determinants of health. Disease
control, properly planned and directed, has a good
history, but so too does social and economic
development in combating major disease and
improving population health. Wider social policy will
be crucial to reduction of inequalities in health.
There is a second theme that relates to the question
of how one can tell if a population is thriving. One
standard answer is to measure economic wellbeing
with measures such as GNP, average income, or
consumption patterns. A better answer is to measure
health status.36 There is no difculty in convincing
medical and health personnel that health is
importantthat is what we do. It is more challenging,
but necessary, to convince policy makers and others
that the health of the population is important precisely
because it is a measure of whether, in the end, a
population is beneting as a result of a set of social
arrangements.
In other words, action on the social determinants of
health is necessary not only to improve health but also
because such improvement will indicate that society
www.thelancet.com Vol 365 March 19, 2005

has moved in a direction of meeting human needs.37

There is a great deal of dogmatic dispute about the
rights and wrongs of economic and social policies.
People use labelsglobalisation, neoliberal economic
policiesas badges of allegiance and terms of abuse.
The Commission will have one basic dogma: policies
that harm human health need to be identied and,
where possible, changed. From this perspective,
globalisation and markets are good or bad in so far as
the way they are operated affects health.
Inequalities in health between and within countries
are avoidable.38 There is no necessary biological reason
why life expectancy should be 48 years longer in Japan
than in Sierra Leone or 20 years shorter in Australian
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples than in
other Australians. Reducing these social inequalities in
health, and thus meeting human needs, is an issue of
social justice.
Conict of interest statement
Michael Marmot is chairman of the Commission on Social
Determinants of Health.
Acknowledgments
Grateful thanks to Ruth Bell, Hilary Brown, Tim Evans, Alec Irwin,
Rene Loewenson, Nicole Valentine, Jeanette Vega, and members of
the WHO Equity team who have worked to develop the Commission
and the ideas in this report.
References
1
WHO. The World Health Report 2004: changing history. Geneva:
World Health Organization, 2004.
2
Murray CJL, Michaud CM, McKenna MT, Marks JS. US
patterns of mortality by county and race: 196594. Cambridge:
Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies,
1998.
3
WHO. Treating 3 million by 2005: making it happen: the WHO
strategythe WHO and UNAIDS global initiative to provide
retroviral therapy to 3 million people with HIV/AIDS in
developing countries by the end of 2005. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 2003.
4
The Global Fund to ght AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
http://www.theglobalfund.org.
5
United Nations Development Group. Millennium Development
Goals, http://www.developmentgoals.org.
6
Sachs JD, McArthur JW. The Millennium Project: a plan for
meeting the Millennium Development Goals. Lancet 2005; 365:
34753.
7
WHO. World Health Report 2003: shaping the future. Geneva:
World Health Organization, 2003.
8
United Nations. Human Development Report 2004. New York:
United Nations Development Programme, 2004.
9
Victora CG, Wagstaff A, Schellenberg JA, Gwatkin D, Claeson M,
Habicht JP. Applying an equity lens to child health and mortality:
more of the same is not enough. Lancet 2003; 362: 23341.
10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Commissioner, Statistics Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. A statistical
overview of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in
Australia. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/
statistics/index.html (accessed Oct 28, 2004).
11 Hurt LS, Ronsmans C, Saha S. Effects of education and other
socioeconomic factors on middle age mortality in rural
Bangladesh. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58: 31520.
12 Marmot M. Status syndrome. London: Bloomsbury, 2004.
13 Donkin A, Goldblatt P, Lynch K. Inequalities in life expectancy
by social class 19721999. Health Stat Q 2002; 15: 515.
14 Mackenbach JP, Bos V, Andersen O, et al. Widening
socioeconomic inequalities in mortality in six Western European
countries. Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32: 83037.

1103

Public Health

15

16

17

18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1104

Crimmins EM, Saito Y. Trends in healthy life expectancy in the

United States, 19701990: gender, racial, and educational
differences. Soc Sci Med 2001; 52: 162941.
Plavinski SL, Plavinskaya SI, Klimov AN. Social factors and
increase in mortality in Russia in the 1990s: prospective cohort
study. BMJ 2003; 326: 124042.
Kinsella K, Velkoff VA, US Census Bureau. An aging world:
2001series P95/01-1. Washington: US Government Printing
Ofce, 2001.
Kim JY, Millen JV, Irwin A, Gershman J. Dying for growth:
global inequality and the health of the poor. Monroe: Common
Courage Press, 2000.
Stiglitz JE. Globalization and its discontents. London: Allen Lane,
2002.
WHO. Reducing risks, promoting healthy life: World Health
Report 2002. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.
Rose G. Strategy of preventive medicine. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1992.
Wilkinson R, Marmot M. The Solid Facts. Copenhagen: World
Health Organization, 2003.
United Nations Development Programme. Human development
report. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Sen A. Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A Knopf,
1999.
Wilkinson RG. The impact of inequality: how to make sick
societies healthier. London: Routledge, 2005.
Sen A. Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992.
Fogel RW. The fourth great awakening and the future of
egalitarianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

28
29

30

31

32
33
34

35

36

37
38

Farmer P. Infections and inequalities. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1999.
Farmer P. Pathologies of power: health, human rights, and the
new war on the poor. Berkeley: University of California Press,
2003.
Crombie IK, Irvine L, Elliott L, Wallace H. Closing the health
inequalities gap: an international perspective. Dundee: NHS
Health Scotland and University of Dundee, 2004.
Hogstedt H, Lundgren B, Moberg H, Pettersson B, Agren G. The
Swedish public health policy and the National Institute of Public
Health. Scan J Public Health 2004; 32 (suppl 64): 164.
Acheson D. Inequalities in health: report of an independent
inquiry. London; HMSO, 1998.
Department of Health. Tackling health inequalities: a
programme for action. London, Department of Health, 2003.
Attanasio O, Vera-Hernandez M. Medium and long run effects of
nutrition and child care: evaluation of a community nursery
programme in rural ColombiaIFS working papers EWP04/06.
London: Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2004.
World Bank. Mexicos Oportunidades program.
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/reducingpoverty/case-MexicoOPORTUNIDADES.html (accessed Feb 9, 2005).
Sen A. Mortality as an indicator of success and failure: Innocenti
Inaugural Lecture 1995. Instituto degli Innocenti, Florence, Italy;
March 3, 1995.
Doyal L, Gough I. A theory of human need. London: Macmillan,
1991.
Whitehead M. The concepts and principles of equity and health.
Copenhagen: World Health Organization, 1990.

www.thelancet.com Vol 365 March 19, 2005