Why do some societies fare well, and others poorly, at reducing the risk of early death? Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America finds that the public provision of basic health care and other inexpensive social services has reduced mortality rapidly even in tough economic circumstances, and that political democracy has contributed to the provision and utilization of such social services, in a wider range of ways than is sometimes recognized. These conclusions are based on case studies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as on cross-national comparisons involving these cases and others.

Why do some societies fare well, and others poorly, at reducing the risk of early death? Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America finds that the public provision of basic health care and other inexpensive social services has reduced mortality rapidly even in tough economic circumstances, and that political democracy has contributed to the provision and utilization of such social services, in a wider range of ways than is sometimes recognized. These conclusions are based on case studies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as on cross-national comparisons involving these cases and others.

This Element explores the association between political democracy and population health. It reviews the rise of scholarly interest in the association, evaluates alternative indicators of democracy and population health, assesses how particular dimensions of democracy have affected population health, and explores how population health has affected democracy. It finds that democracy - optimally defined as free, fair, inclusive, and decisive elections plus basic rights - is usually, but not invariably, beneficial for population health, even after good governance is taken into account. It argues that research on democracy and population health should take measurement challenges seriously; recognize that many aspects of democracy, not just competitive elections, can affect population health; acknowledge that democracy's impact on population health will be large or small, and beneficial or harmful, depending on circumstances; and identify the relevant circumstances by combining the quantitative analysis of many cases with the qualitative study of a few cases.

Why do some societies fare well, and others poorly, at reducing the risk of early death? Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America finds that the public provision of basic health care and other inexpensive social services has reduced mortality rapidly even in tough economic circumstances, and that political democracy has contributed to the provision and utilization of such social services, in a wider range of ways than is sometimes recognized. These conclusions are based on case studies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as on cross-national comparisons involving these cases and others.

Why do some societies fare well, and others poorly, at reducing the risk of early death? Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America finds that the public provision of basic health care and other inexpensive social services has reduced mortality rapidly even in tough economic circumstances, and that political democracy has contributed to the provision and utilization of such social services, in a wider range of ways than is sometimes recognized. These conclusions are based on case studies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as on cross-national comparisons involving these cases and others.

This Element explores the association between political democracy and population health. It reviews the rise of scholarly interest in the association, evaluates alternative indicators of democracy and population health, assesses how particular dimensions of democracy have affected population health, and explores how population health has affected democracy. It finds that democracy - optimally defined as free, fair, inclusive, and decisive elections plus basic rights - is usually, but not invariably, beneficial for population health, even after good governance is taken into account. It argues that research on democracy and population health should take measurement challenges seriously; recognize that many aspects of democracy, not just competitive elections, can affect population health; acknowledge that democracy's impact on population health will be large or small, and beneficial or harmful, depending on circumstances; and identify the relevant circumstances by combining the quantitative analysis of many cases with the qualitative study of a few cases.