Articles
An economic framework for understanding physical activity and eating behaviors

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.012Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper offers an economic framework of human behavior with respect to physical activity and nutrition. Economics offers useful insights into these behaviors because it is the study of how people allocate their scarce resources of time and money to maximize their lifetime happiness. This paper outlines the criteria for policy interventions from an economic perspective and also considers arguments for policy intervention that are not based on economic considerations. The implications of the economic framework are summarized and its limitations are described.

Introduction

Discretionary activities (e.g., diet, physical activity, smoking, and excessive alcohol consumption) can have a major impact on chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, asthma, and depression. However, exhorting individuals to exercise more, eat in a healthier fashion, lose weight, stop smoking, or drink responsibly seems to have little effect in isolation. Why are well-intentioned public health recommendations not embraced more enthusiastically? What does it take to change people's behavior—and is it a good idea to even try? Economic principles can help answer these questions and provide insight into why the prevalence of obesity rose recently and how this trend may be addressed.

Researchers increasingly recognize that changes in dietary patterns and physical activity are driven by changes in the incentives that people face, rather than by sudden changes in genetics or willpower.1, 2, 3 However, many explanations for the rise in obesity have been advanced, such as increased television viewing, higher consumption of fast food, the design of suburban housing developments, and rising portion sizes. Likewise, a variety of local, state, and federal policies have been proposed to counter the rise in obesity, such as more school-based physical education, restrictions on food advertising, and taxes on snack foods. Much of this discussion has occurred ad hoc, in the absence of a theoretical framework to help understand why obesity may have risen, what would justify a policy response, and what responses are likely to be most effective.

To fill this void, this paper offers an economic framework for understanding and addressing the recent rise in obesity. Economics is useful for this purpose because it is the study of how people allocate their scarce resources of time and money in order to maximize their lifetime happiness. Health is only one factor that contributes to people's happiness. Sometimes people are willing to sacrifice health in exchange for other things that they value.

Subsequent papers by Sturm4 and Drewnowski5 apply this economic framework to assess how economic changes related to diet and physical activity may have contributed to the rise in the prevalence of obesity. Ensuing papers by Pratt et al.6 and Finkelstein et al.7 assess the extent to which some interventions proposed to address obesity satisfy the economic criteria for intervening in markets. This paper is written from the economic perspective but economics, like all disciplines, has limitations, and obesity research and policy require input from all relevant fields.

Section snippets

The economic framework

Public health and economics differ in two important ways. The first regards the nature of the questions they ask. Public health focuses on optimizing health outcomes by asking the question: “What should individuals do to improve their health or lengthen their life span?” In contrast, economics asks how people allocate their scarce resources of money and time in order to maximize their lifetime happiness; in the argot of economists, people maximize the present discounted value of their lifetime

Utility maximization and SLOTH model of time allocation

The economic framework assumes that individuals seek to maximize their utility (i.e., happiness or welfare) subject to the constraints of time, budget, and biology. Specifically, people seek to maximize the following utility function: U(S,L,O,T,H,F,W(S,L,O,T,H,F),H·(S,L,O,T,H,F,W),Y) The arguments S, L, O, T, and H are vectors of variables that represent the number of hours spent in different pursuits; we call this decomposition of time the SLOTH model. S represents time spent sleeping, L time

Economic and non-economic rationales for interventions

If individuals were perfectly rational, if the production and consumption of goods imposed no costs on others in society, if information were perfectly accurate and readily available, and if all markets were perfectly competitive, then the operation of free markets would maximize social welfare. However, when these strong assumptions are violated, economists recommend policy interventions to reduce the efficiency loss caused by market failures. Importantly, without a market failure, there is no

Summary and conclusion

In light of the recent rise in the prevalence of obesity, there is a need to better understand both the economic contributors to the rise in obesity and the economic rationales for intervening in these markets for the purpose of increasing physical activity or decreasing weight. We present an economic framework illustrating the short- and long-term costs and benefits of calorie consumption, time allocation, and weight. We offer the SLOTH model of time allocation in order to categorize the ways

References (39)

  • B.J. Rolls et al.

    Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women

    Am J Clin Nutr

    (2002)
  • J.O. Hill et al.

    Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic

    Science

    (1998)
  • J.O. Hill et al.

    Obesity and the environment: where do we go from here?

    Science

    (2003)
  • S.A. French et al.

    Environmental influences on eating and physical activity

    Ann Rev Public Health

    (2001)
  • Sturm R. The economics of physical activity: societal trends and rationales for intervention. Am J Prev Med...
  • Drewnowski A. Obesity and the food environment: dietary energy density and diet costs. Am J Prev Med 2004;27(suppl...
  • Pratt M, Macera CA, Sallis JF, O'Donnell M, Frank L. Economic interventions to promote physical activity: applications...
  • Finkelstein E, French S, Variyam JN, Haines PS. Pros and cons of proposed interventions to promote healthy eating. Am J...
  • M. Grossman

    On the concept of health capital and the demand for health

    J Polit Econ

    (1972)
  • Cawley J. Rational addiction, the consumption of calories, and body weight. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago...
  • Lakdawalla D, Philipson T. The growth of obesity and technological change: a theoretical and empirical examination....
  • Chou S-Y, Saffer H, Grossman M. An economic analysis of adult obesity: results from the Behavioral Risk Factor...
  • Rashad I, Grossman M, Chou S-Y. A Structural estimation of caloric intake, exercise, smoking and obesity. Paper...
  • Cutler DM, Glaeser EL, Shapiro JM. Why have Americans become more obese? Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic...
  • P.N. Stearns

    Fat history: bodies and beauty in the modern West

    (1997)
  • S.A. French et al.

    Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: the CHIPS study

    Am J Public Health

    (2001)
  • C. Vanchieri

    Lessons from the tobacco wars edify nutrition war tactics

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (1998)
  • D.O. Farley et al.

    Effects of CAHPS health plan performance information on plan choices by New Jersey Medicaid beneficiaries

    Health Services Res

    (2002)
  • Iyengar SS, Jiang W, Huberman G. How much choice is too much? Determinants of individual contributions in 401(k)...
  • Cited by (207)

    • Behavioral analytics for myopic agents

      2023, European Journal of Operational Research
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text