What explains the negative effect of unemployment on health? An analysis accounting for reverse causality
Introduction
It is well documented that the unemployed are in worse health than their employed counterparts (Kroll, Müters, & Lampert, 2016). There are three distinct but not mutually exclusive explanations for this difference: social causation, indirect selection and direct (or health) selection. The first and long-standing social causation explanation assumes that becoming unemployed is damaging to an individual‘s health (for overviews see Brand, 2015; Wanberg, 2012). Unemployment is considered a stressful life event (cf., Pearlin, 1989) that creates distress and leads to health problems. In support of this explanation, a variety of mechanisms − again, none of them mutually exclusive − have been put forward. One of the most comprehensive discussions of this issue is provided by Jahoda (1981), who distinguished between the manifest and latent functions of work. In this framework, becoming unemployed leads to a loss of these functions and consequently to a deterioration of health. First and foremost, the unemployed are deprived of the manifest function of work, i.e., to provide the necessary financial means so that they can support themselves and their families. In addition, work fulfills a variety of latent functions. Work not only enables individuals to contribute to a collective purpose and structures their daily activities but also provides status and societal recognition and widens individuals’ social networks beyond family. Despite a long research tradition, the literature is often criticized for not testing the pathways or mechanisms underlying the social causation thesis (Bartley, 1994; Janlert & Hammarström, 2009). This lack of testing is unfortunate because, as argued by Goldthorpe (2001), for example, a test of the hypothetical mechanism underlying a causal relationship can improve the ability of statistical analysis to provide us with convincing evidence of the existence or absence of this causal relationship.
Testing the underlying mechanisms of social causation is even more important, given that social causation is, by far, not the only explanation for the unemployment-health relationship. A second explanation refers to “indirect selection”, i.e., the assumption that the relationship between health and unemployment might be mainly due to common causes. For example, workers with lower education have a higher risk of becoming unemployed (Mincer, 1991; Wolbers, 2000). At the same time, education is positively related to health (Conti, Heckman, & Urzua, 2010; Grossman, 1972). As a consequence, the common cause creates compositional differences such that the unemployed tend to be in poorer health than their employed counterparts. Accounting for indirect selection in quantitative research is a matter of controlling for all common causes, including those unobserved in the data, by suitable statistical methods.
Third, other scholars argue that there is a direct selection of unhealthy workers into unemployment. Sometimes, the term “reverse causality” is used to indicate that, compared to the social causation thesis, the direct selection explanation reverses the causal order between unemployment and health. The theoretical argument behind direct selection is that those workers whose health deteriorates become less productive and are more likely to be laid off (Bartley, 1988; Cook, 1985; West, 1991). Whereas the main bulk of the literature focuses on social causation, several authors have also argued for the importance of direct selection (Andreeva, Magnusson Hanson, Westerlund, Theorell, & Brenner, 2015; Heggebø, 2015; Korpi, 2001; McDonough & Amick, 2001 Stewart, 2001; Strully, 2009; Virtanen et al., 2006). Empirically, the social causation and direct selection explanations are not mutually exclusive. However, most research designs do not effectively distinguish empirically between the two. As a consequence, empirical results in support of social causation are often criticized by referring to the possibility of direct selection as an alternative explanation.
In the analysis below, we attempt to go beyond the current literature by making the following contributions. First, we aim to identify the net effect of social causation by explicitly ruling out both indirect and direct selection as alternative explanations. We do this by applying a dynamic panel data regression based on the generalized method of moments (GMM). Distinguishing between social causation and selection is important because the two explanations have very different implications for policymakers. In cases of social causation, it would make sense to take measures to avoid (prolonged) unemployment. In case of (direct) health selection, such measures will only induce costs and will be ineffective. Here, measures to foster the health of employed individuals would be more efficient. Second, we aim to further investigate the social causation effect by testing several causal mechanisms, namely those based on the reduction in financial resources, social network resources and self-perceived social status. Identifying the relevant mechanisms will help policy makers better focus potential measures against the adverse health effects of unemployment.
The article proceeds as follows: In the next section, we review the literature on social causation and derive our hypotheses. We then describe our data − the German Panel Study “Labour Market and Social Security” (PASS) − and the dynamic panel data estimator based on the generalized method of moments as our method of choice. After presenting our results, we conclude with a discussion.
Section snippets
Unemployment and health: literature review and hypotheses
With regard to indicators of physical and psychological health, the unemployed are in poorer health than employed individuals. The largest part of the literature on health and unemployment is based on cross-sectional data analysis1
Data and measures
In our analysis, we use the German Panel Study “Labour Market and Social Security” (PASS) (Bethmann, Fuchs, & Wurdack, 2013; Trappmann, Beste, Bethmann, & Müller, 2013). PASS is a household survey with a response rate of approximately 70 percent that uses a dual frame for sampling. The first subsample is a probability sample of the German residential population and includes the short-term unemployed. The second subsample is drawn from registers of welfare benefit recipients, including the
Results
In this section, we will present results from our empirical analysis. We start with Model 1 in Table 1,11 where the pooled panel data regression controls for only the part of indirect selection
Conclusions and discussion of limitations
Indirect selection due to common causes, direct selection of unhealthy workers into unemployment, and social causation are often proposed as three alternative explanations for the high correlation of ill health and unemployment incidence, even if they are not mutually exclusive. In this paper, we focused on identifying the social causation effect net of the confounding influence of both direct and indirect selection. We consider the empirical evidence that we presented to strongly support the
Acknowledgement
For helpful comments we thank two anonymous referees, our colleagues at the IAB Research Department E2 “Joblessness and Social Inclusion”, participants of the RC 28 spring conference 2017 in Cologne, participants of the workshop “Analytical Sociology” in Venice 2017 and especially Josef Brüderl and Tobias Wolbring. Any remaining errors are our own.
References (83)
- et al.
Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models
Journal of Econometrics
(1995) - et al.
Income and health: The time dimension
Social Science and Medicine
(2001) - et al.
From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium
Social Science & Medicine
(2000) - et al.
Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models
Journal of Econometrics
(1998) - et al.
Socioeconomic status and health: The role of subjective social status
Social Science & Medicine
(2008) - et al.
Socioeconomic inequality in health in the british household panel: Tests of the social causation, health selection and the indirect selection hypothesis using dynamic fixed effects panel models
Social Science & Medicine
(2016) - et al.
The causal effect of income on health: Evidence from german reunification
Journal of Health Economics
(2005) - et al.
The impact of employment transitions on health in Germany: A difference-in-differences propensity score matching approach
Social Science & Medicine
(2014) Unemployment in scandinavia during an economic crisis: Cross-national differences in health selection
Social Science & Medicine
(2015)- et al.
The social context of health selection: A longitudinal study of health and employment
Social Science & Medicine
(2001)
Exploring the health-Wealth nexus
Journal of Health Economics
The measurement of SES in health research: Current practice and steps toward a new approach
Social Science & Medicine
Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-Analyses
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Sliding down the U-shape? A dynamic panel investigation of the age-well-being relationship
Focusing on Young Adults. Social Science & Medicine
Why are the unemployed in worse health? The causal effect of unemployment on health
Labour Economics
The impact of health status on the duration of unemployment spells and the implications for studies of the impact of unemployment on health status
Journal of Health Economics
Unemployment transitions and self-Rated health in Europe: A longitudinal analysis of EU-SILC from 2008 to 2011
Social Science & Medicine
Rethinking the health selection explanation for health inequalities
Social Science & Medicine
Compared to whom? Subjective social status, self-rated health, and referent group sensitivity in a diverse US sample
Social Science & Medicine
Fixed effects regression models
Applied panel data analysis for economic and social surveys
Depressive symptoms as a cause and effect of job loss in men and women: Evidence in the context of organisational downsizing from the swedish longitudinal occupational survey of health
BMC Public Health
Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations
The Review of Economic Studies
Friends with health benefits: Does individual-level social capital improve health?
Eastern Economic Journal
Unemployment and self-Assessed health: Evidence from panel data
Health Economics
Unemployment and health: Selection or causation −a false antithesis?
Sociology of Health & Illness
Unemployment and ill health: Understanding the relationship
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing
STATA Journal
Losing heart? The effect of job displacement on health
ILR Review
Fixed-effects panel regression
The far-reaching impact of job loss and unemployment
Annual Review of Sociology
Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold
Health Psychology
The education-health gradient
The American Economic Review
The dynamics of health in the british household panel survey
Journal of Applied Econometrics
A critical view of the unemployment and health debate
The Statistician
Bounding the causal effect of unemployment on mental health: Nonparametric evidence from four countries
Health Economics
The importance of different forms of social capital for health
Acta Sociologica
Health effects of anticipation of job change and non-Employment: Longitudinal data from the whitehall II study
BMJ
Causation, statistics, and sociology
European Sociological Review
The strength of weak ties
American Journal of Sociology
Cited by (48)
Social Executives’ emotions and firm value: An empirical study enhanced by cognitive analytics
2024, Journal of Business ResearchDoes informatization alleviate energy poverty? A global perspective
2023, Energy EconomicsNexus between institutional quality and corporate sustainable performance: European evidence
2023, Journal of Cleaner ProductionDo changes in network structure explain why unemployment damages health? Evidence from German panel data
2022, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :As a stressful life event (Pearlin, 1989), unemployment has severe negative consequences on individuals’ health and health behavior. Studies have documented effects on self-rated health (Tøge and Blekesaune, 2015), health satisfaction (Krug and Eberl, 2018), mental health and/or physical health (Gebel and Voβemer, 2014; Stauder, 2019), and health behaviors such as smoking (Marcus, 2014) and physician contacts (Åhs and Westerling, 2006); however, some authors have also reported null effects for one or more of these health measures (e.g., Böckerman and Ilmakunnas, 2009; Salm, 2009; Schmitz, 2011). Such expertly performed studies offer what Shadish et al. (2002) call causal description.
Care and careers: Gender (in)equality in unpaid care, housework and employment
2022, Research in Social Stratification and MobilityThe when and the how of the emergence of social inequality in mental health: Exploring social causation and health selection through employment transitions
2021, Research in Social Stratification and MobilityCitation Excerpt :This appears to reflect a tacit assumption that economic status only affects mental health through income. On the contrary, a large literature attests psychosocial and social pathways too: the loss of purpose, social networks, status, time structure, and sense of control (Brand, 2015; Krug & Eberl, 2018; Newman, 1988). A more plausible causal model includes economic status as a direct and synchronous determinant of both income and mental health; indeed this is a central assumption of the current paper.