family in the changing world, november 28-29, moscow mortality in russia: evidence from micro data...

Family in the changing world, November 28-29, Moscow

Mortality in Russia: Evidence from Micro Data

Irina Denisova Center for Economic and Financial Research

at the New Economic School, Moscow


Motivation• Relatively high and only slightly declining

within the latest decade mortality rates • Mortality crisis in 1992-1994• High mortality rates among working age

population• Factors behind?

– Environmental – Behavioral


Life Expectancy at Birth

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

мужчины и женщины мужчины женщины


LiteratureTwo branches of literature• Aggregate data analysis (mortality

registration data, census data) • Micro data analysis (follow-up surveys,

large panel surveys)• Russia

– Aggregate data• Basic patterns of mortality crisis

– Male Cohort within US Lipid Research Clinics Program


Research questions

• What are the determinants of mortality rates (hazard and survival rates)?

• What is the role of different groups of factors? – hazardous behavior (negative investment into HC)– income – relative income (relative deprivation and unfairness)– stress factors – poor social capital, incl. family characteristics– job-related factors


Data• Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey• Waves 5 – 14 (1994 to 2005)

– Nationally representative, about 5,000 households and 10,000 individuals in each round

– Panel structure though attrition is a serious issue– If a household member is missing, reasons for being

not a hh member:• Moved out, another address• Separate hh now, same address• Death (cause of death since 2001)• Other reasons


Age distribution of mortality cases in RLMS by gender

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85andmore

Age groups

%

Males Females

Mortality risk (per 1000) Total Male FemaleRS 16 19 14RLMS 1.7 2.36 1.1


Methodology• Survival analysis

– Eliminates estimation bias due to non-normality of time to event and right-censoring

– Hazards are estimated for uncensored and survivals for censored

– Allows using an unbalanced panel• Proportional hazard model

• Parametric PH model, Gompertz specification λ0(t) = exp(γt) exp(β0)• Cox PH model specification (non-parametric baseline)

txxt 00 ,,,, ,


Methodology• Explanatory variables (X) include

– Gender– Education and qualification– Settlement type (urban vs rural)– Smoking, alcohol consumption vs physical exercises (hazardous vs

healthy behavior)– Characteristics of diet– Income decile– Relative income position (relative deprivation and unfairness)– Relative respect and power positions– Stress factors (years in unemployment, concern about getting

necessities, satisfaction with life)– Job characteristics (hazardous working conditions)– Social capital, incl. family characteristics (family size, marital status,

children)• Two samples: adults and adults 20-60 years


per subject

Category total mean min median max

no.of subjects 20419

no.of records 105742 5.178 2 4 10

exit time 43.58 15 41 103

failures 168 0.008 0 0 1


0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0 20 40 60 80 100analysis time

gender = female gender = male

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, by gender

Parametric, Gompertz, PH








Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard rate Hazard raterespondent's gender 1.538 1.193 0.918 1.105 1.019 0.927 0.921 1.072

[0.179]*** [0.207]*** [0.212]*** [0.228]*** [0.223]*** [0.221]*** [0.219]*** [0.235]***Married -0.785 -0.783 -0.245 -0.302 -0.283 -0.288 -0.262 -0.241

[0.174]*** [0.175]*** [0.198] [0.213] [0.208] [0.207] [0.204] [0.223]family size, number of people in family 0.1 0.107 0.098 0.12 0.131 0.124 0.131 0.104

[0.046]** [0.046]** [0.047]** [0.052]** [0.049]*** [0.050]** [0.048]*** [0.054]*Education: PTU or tekhnikum only -0.158 -0.192 -0.221 -0.049 -0.07 -0.136 -0.123 -0.066

[0.171] [0.172] [0.175] [0.189] [0.184] [0.183] [0.181] [0.197]Education: university degree or higher -1.155 -1.092 -1.171 -0.746 -0.756 -0.835 -0.918 -0.639

[0.356]*** [0.356]*** [0.362]*** [0.372]** [0.370]** [0.369]** [0.367]** [0.380]*smokes? 0.675 0.845 0.687 0.73 0.761 0.788 0.638

[0.204]*** [0.215]*** [0.215]*** [0.215]*** [0.215]*** [0.211]*** [0.222]***heavy drinker 0.727 1.11 0.955 0.876 0.962 0.941 0.883

[0.287]** [0.471]** [0.291]*** [0.299]*** [0.290]*** [0.290]*** [0.302]***Heavy drinker and smoker -0.409

[0.591]self-characterization exercise -0.311 -0.313 -0.316 -0.316 -0.322 -0.313

[0.039]*** [0.042]*** [0.040]*** [0.040]*** [0.040]*** [0.047]***urban settlement -0.358 -0.296 -0.392 -0.408 -0.384 -0.266

[0.162]** [0.182] [0.175]** [0.175]** [0.173]** [0.185]per capita income decile (within year) -0.08

[0.033]**get disability pension 0.739

[0.310]**r is underweight (13 < bmi > 18.5) 0.687

[0.468]yrs., unemployed -0.326

[0.244]

concern about getting necessities 0.046 0.065[0.063] [0.072]

power rank on 9-step ladder -0.087 0.054[0.056] [0.072]

economic rank on 9-step ladder -0.189 -0.188[0.059]*** [0.079]**

respect rank on 9-step ladder -0.108 -0.071[0.043]** [0.046]

Northern and North Western 0.607 0.658 0.657 0.706 0.71[0.292]** [0.275]** [0.275]** [0.270]*** [0.299]**

Volga-Vaytski and Volga Basin -1.136 -1.174 -1.092 -1.126 -1.101[0.332]*** [0.331]*** [0.321]*** [0.320]*** [0.336]***

North Caucasian -0.67 -0.728 -0.769 -0.814 -0.54[0.315]** [0.312]** [0.312]** [0.312]*** [0.319]*

Ural 0.687 0.715 0.694 0.731 0.722[0.223]*** [0.220]*** [0.221]*** [0.216]*** [0.228]***

Western Siberian -1.437 -1.095 -1.09 -1.109 -1.36[0.526]*** [0.439]** [0.439]** [0.439]** [0.529]**

Eastern Siberian and Far Eastern -1.731 -1.784 -1.781 -1.778 -1.636[0.601]*** [0.600]*** [0.600]*** [0.600]*** [0.603]***

Metropolitan areas: Moscow and St. Petersburg -1.337 -1.369 -1.365 -1.413 -1.222[0.485]*** [0.484]*** [0.484]*** [0.483]*** [0.488]**

Born before 1911 1.041[1.922]

Born between 1911 and 1920 0.503[1.749]

Born between 1921 and 1930 0.507[1.569]

Born between 1931 and 1940 0.326[1.440]

Born between 1941 and 1950 0.861[1.298]

Born between 1951 and 1960 0.537[1.196]

Born between 1961 and 1970 0.402[1.146]

Born between 1971 and 1980 -0.281[1.240]


Baseline survival function .9

995

.999

6.9

997

.999

8.9

999

1S

urvi

val

20 40 60 80analysis time

Gompertz regression


Results• Subjective perception of relative deprivation is an

important determinant• Higher income deciles are correlated with longer life

(could be health effect: good health brings higher income and longer life)

• Smoking survives all specifications as a detrimental factor

• Heavy alcohol consumption also matters • Better education is beneficial • Role family social capital is not very pronounced and

operates in opposite directions

family in the changing world, november 28-29, moscow mortality in russia: evidence from micro data...

Documents