Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: anthropometric history

Olympic Medal...olympics_000019262071XSmall

How to predict Olympic medal winners?

Economics.

It takes money to train a world class athlete. The most economically fit countries can afford to train their athletes. Also, the “host bounce” helps. In the past, host countries have enjoyed a 3 medal boost for the Winter Games and 25 medals for the Summer Games.

Predicting the big medal winners at the 2012 Olympics, a Colorado College economist focuses on per capita income, population, the “home court” advantage and any “nation specific” effects. For London 2012, he says the U.S. will win 34 gold medals,  China will leave with 33, and Russia, 25.  Dr. Johnson has averaged 93% accuracy.

Here, econlife looks at the GDP/Olympic connection to Greece’s economic woes.

The Economic Lesson

Called anthropometric history, the history of human height has become an economic field of study. Economists use height data to form hypotheses about GDP, national affluence, food consumption, real family income, wages and prices.

Making Olympic predictions, economists are flipping the approach. Instead of using height data to predict GDP, GDP data is used to make predictions about the capability of human capital. For example, might growth in U.S. GDP between 1939 and 1999 relate to the 7 inch increase, from 6’1″ to 6’8″, for an average forward on the University of Wisconsin’s basketball team?

An Economic Question: Knowing that certain Communist countries have targeted resources toward supporting Olympic athletes, what GDP connection might you hypothesize?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16018_4.2_000010186118XSmall

Explaining why no N.B.A. team drafted Jeremy Lin and the Knicks only picked him as a backup, New Yorker financial writer James Surowiecki focuses on height. But not how you might expect.

Surowiecki talks about height and good looks to illustrate how stereotypes affect our success. If you are tall or attractive, it is more likely that people will expect you to have more adept social skills, to be smarter and “more effective.” Because Jeremy Lin, an Asian-American, did not fit the point guard stereotype, initially, his talents were ignored.

Being tall, though, should help him. A 2004 New Yorker article quoted one study that indicated that an average six-footer will earn close to $165,000 more than someone who is 5’5″ during a 30 year period. That six-footer is also more likely to get a promotion, and yes, become a U.S. President. Of the 43 different people who have been President, only 5 were below average in height.

Here are some height stats:

  • Nicholas Sarkozy (France): 5’5″
  • Barack Obama (U.S.): 6’1 1/2″
  • Michelle Obama (U.S. first lady): 5’11″
  • Angela Merkel (Germany): 5’8″
  • Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron (U.K.): approximately 6’0″
  • Stephen Harper (Canada) 6’2″
  • Carla Bruni Sarkozy (French first lady): 5’10″
  • Napoleon Bonaparte: 5’6″

 

And, the Republican presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, is 6’2″.

The Economic Lesson

Called anthropometric history, the history of human height has become an economic field of study. Economists use height data to form hypotheses about GDP, national affluence, food consumption, real family income, wages and prices.

Connecting height and economic growth, this New Yorker article tells us that Americans grew taller more than 50 years ago. Based on military records, a typical male was 67 inches during the mid-1800s, close to 70 inches in 1955, and since then, stayed there. In 1939, an average forward on the University of Wisconsin’s basketball team was 6’1″. In 1999, he was 7 inches taller.

An Economic Question: Why might height and GDP be related?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16336_4.2_000010186118XSmall

We are taller, healthier, heavier, and living longer. In 1790, a typical Frenchman weighed 110 pounds. Now, the scale says 170. That 60-pound difference relates to a lot more than food.

According to a new book from Nobel prize winning economist Robert Fogel and several colleagues, since 1700, as one generation became healthier and stronger, so too were their children. As the authors explain in their first chapter, “…increased health and longevity enable the members of that next generation to work harder and longer and to create the resources which can then, in their turn, be used to assist the next, and succeeding, generations to prosper.” (p. 2 in an Amazon preview)

Connecting what we look like to what we have achieved is a fascinating thesis. Simple and yet complex, the book talks about height and weight and food and productivity, economics, biology, and technology. The NY Times tells us that it presents a wealth of data, potentially controversial conclusions, and implications for foreign aid. The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition, and Human Development in the Western World Since 1700 will be available during May. 

The Economic Lesson

Called anthropometric history, the history of human height has become an economic field of study. Economists use height data to form hypotheses about GDP.

An Economic Question: During the 1930s, a typical life span was close to 60 years. Now, many of us will approach 80 and beyond. A result and a cause of increasing longevity, GDP positively interacted with better health. Now though, with baby boomers living longer, will our GDP growth diminish?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16018_4.2_000010186118XSmall

Height is about more than how tall you are. When affluence grows, so too do people. Why? Height seems to correspond to economic growth. 

Connecting height and economic growth, a wonderful New Yorker article from 2004 tells us that Americans grew taller more than 50 years ago. Based on military records, a typical male was 67 inches during the mid-1800s, close to 70 inches in 1955, and since then, stayed there. In 1939, an average forward on the University of Wisconsin’s basketball team was 6’1″. In 1999, he was 7 inches taller. 

I started thinking about height after reading a recent NY Times column by David Leonhardt on economic growth. At first, when he discusses cutting spending and raising taxes, the column appears to be a traditional attack on the deficit. Soon, though, reminding us that economic growth is the best way to diminish the deficit, he urges us to evaluate deficit cutting strategies in terms of their ability to stimulate growth. 

If we follow Leonhardt’s wisdom, maybe then we will surpass the Dutch who are now among the tallest in the world with men averaging 6’1″ and women, 5’8″.

The Economic Lesson

Called anthropometric history, the history of human height has become an economic field of study. Economists use height data to form hypotheses about GDP.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (1) Add a Comment

15560_4.2_000010186118XSmall

A recent Daily Mail article about President Sarkozy’s height sensitivity reminded me of studies that relate height to success.  

But first, some height stats:

  • Nicholas Sarkozy (France): 5’5″
  • Barack Obama (U.S.): 6’2″
  • Angela Merkel (Germany): 5’8″
  • Gordon Brown (U.K.): 5’11″
  • Stephen Harper (Canada) 6’2″
  • Carla Bruni Sarkozy (French first lady): 5’10″
  • Napoleon Bonaparte: 5’6″
  • 39 U.S. presidents were taller than average while 5 were shorter

A 2004 New Yorker article has wonderful facts about the economic implications of height: 

  • The tallest in Europe, the average male in the Netherlands is 6’1″ and the average female is 5’8″. Consequently, homes, cars, ambulances and clothing need to be redesigned.  Ceilings need to be higher and ambulances need to be longer.
  • Taller men earn more.  One study indicated that an average six footer will earn close to $165,000 more than someone who is 5’5″ during a 30 year period.
  • Historically, as cities grew larger, humans became shorter. Economists theorize that deficient nutrition was the cause.
  • Height corresponds to economic growth. When affluence grows, so too do people.

The Economic Lesson

Called anthropometric history, the history of human height has become an economic field of study. Economists use height data to form hypotheses about GDP, national affluence, food consumption, real family income, wages and prices.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment