How has neoliberalism influenced political and social development in the US as compared to Canada? The article by Siddiqi et al.1 more than describing the influence of neoliberalism as a social phenomena in US and Canada provides information on how both societies reacted differently to that. Neoliberalism prompted “similar” policies and socioeconomic inequalities in US and Canada with the same potential to harm social bonds and health. However, Canada showed a different reaction to that stimulus, being more resilient and able to mitigate the societal influence of neoliberalism on the distribution of socioeconomic resources and its consequences for health status by preserving social cohesiveness while maintaining equality in the provision
…show more content…
Kawachi et al.3 try to explore others pathways that links income inequality to poor health outcomes in order to justify the differences in health observed in Japan and US: 1. The difference on one’s actual income and his believe on the desire or felling of deserving income (relative deprivation), which can damage health by frustration and stress caused by social comparisons. High levels of relative deprivation are associated with worse health habits (smoking, not exercising and overweight) and poor mental health (depression and anxiety disorder); 2. The erosion of social cohesion and solidarity, which tends to happen in societies with greater income inequality as decreases the motivation to provide for public goods (welfare spending) and promotes a selfish behavior. The argument is that egalitarian countries like Scandinavian ones, New Zealand and Japan allow possibilities for individualism and some variance in income regarding hierarchy and merit, but prevents selfishness behaviors consenting more investment in public goods and better health outcomes for the nation in the long …show more content…
However, there is a common ground among these nations regarding the importance of government’s role in guiding and promoting public health strategies that improves peoples’ living condition and modify/impose healthier behaviors. This position is based on the notion that a nation’s well-being and prosperity depends on the equal availability/access of common goods and on individuals’ good health4. Moreover, it seems there is a turning point when society gets close to the edge, as did the Swedish society at the 30’s great depression and Japan after WWII. When facing disruption or destruction they decided to rebuild society in a different way, still preserving the core of the
Kawachi et al.3 try to explore others pathways that links income inequality to poor health outcomes in order to justify the differences in health observed in Japan and US: 1. The difference on one’s actual income and his believe on the desire or felling of deserving income (relative deprivation), which can damage health by frustration and stress caused by social comparisons. High levels of relative deprivation are associated with worse health habits (smoking, not exercising and overweight) and poor mental health (depression and anxiety disorder); 2. The erosion of social cohesion and solidarity, which tends to happen in societies with greater income inequality as decreases the motivation to provide for public goods (welfare spending) and promotes a selfish behavior. The argument is that egalitarian countries like Scandinavian ones, New Zealand and Japan allow possibilities for individualism and some variance in income regarding hierarchy and merit, but prevents selfishness behaviors consenting more investment in public goods and better health outcomes for the nation in the long …show more content…
However, there is a common ground among these nations regarding the importance of government’s role in guiding and promoting public health strategies that improves peoples’ living condition and modify/impose healthier behaviors. This position is based on the notion that a nation’s well-being and prosperity depends on the equal availability/access of common goods and on individuals’ good health4. Moreover, it seems there is a turning point when society gets close to the edge, as did the Swedish society at the 30’s great depression and Japan after WWII. When facing disruption or destruction they decided to rebuild society in a different way, still preserving the core of the