Why Infant Mortality Numbers for Most Countries Are Unreliable
This is from Bill Easterly via Megan McArdle:
Of the 193 countries covered in the study, the researchers were able to use actual, reported data for only 33. To produce the estimates for the other 160 countries, and to project the figures backwards to 1995, the researchers created a sophisticated statistical model….
Without enough usable data on stillbirths, the researchers look for indicators with a close logical and causal relationship with stillbirths. In this case they chose neonatal mortality as the main predictive indicator. Uh oh. The numbers for neonatal mortality are also based on a model (where the main predictor is mortality of children under the age of 5) rather than actual data.
So that makes the stillbirth estimates numbers based on a model…which is in turn…based on a model.
I’m not surprised at this.
It wouldn’t matter except that infant mortality statistics are so often used to bash the US health care system.
Nicholas Eberstadt (AEI) wrote about this in his book, The Tyranny of Numbers: Mismeasurement and Misrule.
It is controversial but some experts argue there are variations in miscarriage and low-birth weight babies by ethnicity, even when you control for income and prenatal care.
Unfortunately, Congress relies on “data” like this to make major policy decisions. Garbage in, garbage out.
Sounds like one long round of the game of guesstimation!