Connect with us

Economics

The data hinted at racism among white doctors. Then scholars looked again

Published

on

BLACK BABIES in America are more than twice as likely to die before their first birthday than white babies. This shocking statistic has barely changed for many decades, and even after controlling for socioeconomic differences a wide mortality gap persists. Yet in 2020 researchers discovered a factor that appeared to reduce substantially a black baby’s risks. In their study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they wrote that “when Black newborns are cared for by Black physicians, the mortality penalty they suffer, as compared with White infants, is halved.”

This striking finding quickly captured national and international headlines, and generated nearly 700 Google Scholar citations. The study was widely interpreted–incorrectly, say the authors–as evidence that newborns should be matched to doctors of the same race, or that white doctors harboured racial animus against black babies. It even made it into the Supreme Court’s records as an argument in favour of affirmative action, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (mis)citing the findings. A supporting brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges and 45 other organisations mentioned the study as evidence that “For high-risk black newborns, having a black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug.”

Now a new study seems to have debunked the finding, to much less fanfare. A paper by George Borjas and Robert VerBruggen, published last month in PNAS, looked at the same data set from 1.8m births in Florida between 1992 and 2015 and concluded that it was not the doctor’s skin colour that best explained the mortality gap between races, but rather the baby’s birth weight. Although the authors of the original 2020 study had controlled for various factors, they had not included very low birth weight (ie, babies born weighing less than 1,500 grams, who account for about half of infant mortality). Once this was also taken into consideration, there was no measurable difference in outcomes.

The new study is striking for three reasons. First, and most important, it suggests that the primary focus to save young (black) lives should be on preventing premature deliveries and underweight babies. Second, it raises questions about why this issue of controlling for birth weight was not picked up during the peer-review process. And third, the failure of its findings to attract much notice, at least so far, suggests that scholars, medical institutions and members of the media are applying double standards to such studies. Both studies show correlation rather than causation, meaning the implications of the findings should be treated with caution. Yet, whereas the first study was quickly accepted as “fact”, the new evidence has been largely ignored.

The reason why white doctors at first looked like such a “lethal” combination with black babies, say the authors of the recent paper, was that a disproportionately high share of underweight black babies were treated by white doctors, while a disproportionately high share of healthy-weight black babies were treated by black doctors. Being born severely underweight is one of the greatest predictors of infant death. Just over 1% of babies in America are born weighing less than 1,500 grams, but among black babies the rate is nearly 3%.

The fact that the original authors shared their data and workings with their challengers should be commended, as should PNAS’s decision to publish this second paper and a guest commentary. In it Theodore Joyce, from City University of New York, offers several reasons why the authors and their reviewers might have missed this critical factor, including that it was technically hard to tease out of the data. Yet as a final possible reason, he notes that the original article was published two months after the murder of George Floyd. “Reviewers are only human, and these events may have affected how the results were interpreted,” he concludes.

That a flawed social-science finding which fitted neatly within the zeitgeist was widely accepted is understandable. Less understandable is that few people now seem eager to correct the record. The new study has had just one Google Scholar citation and no mainstream news coverage. This suggests that opinion-makers have, at best, not noticed the new article (it was published a month ago; The Economist only spotted it when the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, last week put out an explanatory note). At worst, they have deliberately ignored it.

None of this means that a physician’s race–or their sex–is never relevant. Several studies have shown that shared identity between doctor and patient can improve communication, trust, patient experience and compliance with doctors’ orders. A study in 2018 of black men in Oakland found that those treated by a black doctor were more likely to bring up specific health concerns and undergo invasive screening than those treated by a white doctor. It would be particularly valuable to look at whether the race of a woman’s obstetrician has any impact on her baby’s outcomes.

Mr Borjas and Mr VerBruggen end on an optimistic note, observing that science has “the capacity for self-correction, and scientists can facilitate this by being open with their methods and data”. Science journalists can help, too.

Economics

Job openings showed surprising increase to 7.4 million in April

Published

on

JOLTS beats estimates, posts best number since February

Employers increased job openings more than expected in April while hiring and layoffs also both rose, according to a report Tuesday that showed a relatively steady labor market.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey showed available jobs totaled nearly 7.4 million, an increase of 191,000 from March and higher than the 7.1 million consensus forecast by economists surveyed by FactSet. On an annual basis, the level was off 228,000, or about 3%.

The ratio of available jobs to unemployed workers was down close to 1.03 to 1 for the month, close to the March level.

Hiring also increased for the month, rising by 169,000 to 5.6 million, while layoffs fell by 196,000 to 1.79 million.

Quits, an indicator of worker confidence in their ability to find another job, edged lower, falling by 150,000 to 3.2 million.

“The labor market is returning to more normal levels despite the uncertainty within the macro outlook,” wrote Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Research. “Underlying patterns in hirings and firings suggest the labor market is holding steady.”

In other economic news Tuesday, the Commerce Department reported that new orders for manufactured goods fell more than expected in April. Orders fell 3.7% on the month, more than the 3.3% Dow Jones forecast and indicative of declining demand after swelling 3.4% in March as businesses sought to get ahead of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Economics

Euro zone inflation, May 2025

Published

on

Shoppers buy fresh vegetables, fruit, and herbs at an outdoor produce market under green-striped canopies in Regensburg, Upper Palatinate, Bavaria, Germany, on April 19, 2025.

Michael Nguyen/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Euro zone inflation fell below the European Central Bank’s 2% target in May, hitting a cooler-than-expected 1.9% as the services print eased sharply, flash data from statistics agency Eurostat showed Tuesday.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected the May reading to come in at 2%, compared to the previous month’s 2.2% figure.

The closely watched services inflation print cooled sharply, amounting to 3.2% last month, compared to the previous 4% reading. So-called core inflation, which excludes energy, food, tobacco and alcohol prices, also eased, falling from 2.7% in April to 2.3% in May.

“May’s steep decline in services inflation, to its lowest level in more than three years, confirms that the previous month’s jump was just an Easter-related blip and that the downward trend in services inflation remains on track,” Jack Allen-Reynolds, deputy chief euro zone economist at Capital Economics said in a note.

Inflation has been moving back towards the 2% mark throughout 2025 amid uncertainty for the euro zone economy.

The latest figures will be considered by the European Central Bank as it prepares to make its next interest rate decision later this week. Markets were last pricing in an around 95% chance of interest rates being cut by a further 25-basis-points on Thursday.

Back in April, the central bank took its key rate, the deposit facility rate, to 2.25% — nearly half of the high of 4% notched in the middle of 2023.

But the global economic outlook remains muddied. U.S. President Donald Trump’s protectionist tariff plans have been casting shadows over the global economic outlook, with his so-called “reciprocal” duties — which are also set to affect the European Union — widely seen as harmful to economic growth. Their immediate potential impact on inflation is less clear, with central bank policymakers and analysts noting that it could depend on any potential countermeasures.

Despite the transatlantic tumult, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its latest Economic Outlook report out on Tuesday said it was expecting the euro area to expand by 1% in 2025, unchanged from its previous forecast. Euro area inflation is meanwhile projected to come in at 2.2% this year, also in line with the March report.

Euro country bond yields were last lower after the fresh inflation data, with the German 10-year bond yield falling by over two basis points to 2.499%, while the yield on the French 10-year bond was last down by more than one basis point to 3.169%.

The euro was meanwhile last around 0.3% lower against the dollar.

Continue Reading

Economics

U.S. growth forecast cut further by OECD as Trump tariffs sour outlook

Published

on

Old Navy and Gap retail stores are seen as people walk through Times Square in New York City on April 9, 2025.

Angela Weiss | Afp | Getty Images

Economic growth forecasts for the U.S. and globally were cut further by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as President Donald Trump’s tariff turmoil weighs on expectations.

The U.S. growth outlook was downwardly revised to just 1.6% this year and 1.5% in 2026. In March, the OECD was still expecting a 2.2% expansion in 2025.

The fallout from Trump’s tariff policy, elevated economic policy uncertainty, a slowdown of net immigration and a smaller federal workforce were cited as reasons for the latest downgrade.

Global growth, meanwhile, is also expected to be lower than previously forecast, with the OECD saying that “the slowdown is concentrated in the United States, Canada and Mexico,” while other economies are projected to see smaller downward revisions.

“Global GDP growth is projected to slow from 3.3% in 2024 to 2.9% this year and in 2026 … on the technical assumption that tariff rates as of mid-May are sustained despite ongoing legal challenges,” the OECD said.

It had previously forecast global growth of 3.1% this year and 3% in 2026.

“The global outlook is becoming increasingly challenging,” the report said. “Substantial increases in barriers to trade, tighter financial conditions, weaker business and consumer confidence and heightened policy uncertainty will all have marked adverse effects on growth prospects if they persist.”

Frequent changes regarding tariffs have continued in recent weeks, leading to uncertainty in global markets and economies. Some of the most recent developments include Trump’s reciprocal, country-specific levies being struck down by the U.S. Court of International Trade, before then being reinstated by an appeals court, as well as Trump saying he would double steel duties to 50%.

The OECD adjusted its inflation forecast, saying “higher trade costs, especially in countries raising tariffs, will also push up inflation, although their impact will be offset partially by weaker commodity prices.”

The impact of tariffs on inflation has been hotly debated, with many central bank policymakers and global analysts suggesting it remains unclear how the levies will impact prices, and that much depends on factors like potential countermeasures.

The OECD’s inflation outlook shows a notable difference between the U.S. and some of the world’s other major economies. For instance, while G20 countries are now expected to record 3.6% inflation in 2025 — down from 3.8% in March’s estimate — the projection for the U.S. has risen to 3.2%, up from a previous 2.8%.

U.S. inflation could even be closing in on 4% toward the end of 2025, the OECD said.

Continue Reading

Trending