Prentice Institute for Global Population and Economy, University of Lethbridge, 4401, University Dr W, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1K3M4.
Health Place. 2017 Sep;47:90-99. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.07.003. Epub 2017 Aug 7.
Much literature depicts a worldwide democratic advantage in population health. However, less research compares health outcomes in the different kinds of democracy or autocracy. In an examination of 179 countries as they existed between 1975 and 2012, advantages in life expectancy and infant health appear most reliably for democracies that include the principle of proportional representation in their electoral rules. Compared to closed autocracies, they had up to 12 or more years of life expectancy on average, 75% less infant mortality, and double the savings in overall mortality for most other age groups. Majoritarian democracies, in contrast, did not experience longitudinal improvements in health relative to closed autocracies. Instead their population health appeared to be on par with or even superseded by competitive autocracies in most models. Findings suggest that the principle of proportional representation may be good for health at the national level. Implications and limitations are discussed.
大量文献描绘了全球民主在人口健康方面的优势。然而，较少有研究比较不同类型的民主或专制国家的健康结果。在对 1975 年至 2012 年间存在的 179 个国家的研究中，在选举规则中包含比例代表制原则的民主国家在预期寿命和婴儿健康方面的优势最为可靠。与封闭的专制国家相比，它们的平均预期寿命延长了 12 年或更长时间，婴儿死亡率降低了 75%，而其他大多数年龄段的总死亡率则降低了一倍。相比之下，多数派民主国家的健康状况相对于封闭的专制国家并没有得到纵向改善。相反，在大多数模型中，他们的人口健康状况似乎与竞争型专制国家相当，甚至超过了竞争型专制国家。研究结果表明，比例代表制原则可能对国家层面的健康有益。讨论了研究的意义和局限性。
