Malaria: a cause or result of poverty?

Malaria is a wide-spread disease that (according to the World Health Organisation) has affected over 231 million people globally just in 2018, with a huge percentage of this figure passing away, and other sources believing that malaria has affected and resultantly killed half of the 107 billion people ever lived. However, is this deadly malady attracted to poorer regions or do they leave the infected areas less wealthy?

Cause:

When malaria enters the bloodstream, said human will feel unwell and may pass away without medical attention, malaria cases reduce capacity in hospitals and clinics meaning more pressure on the government providing the

Lucas 9J1

financial resources for these medical edifices for a larger patient capacity for other or the same illness. This will inevitably enhance the strain on the governments distribution of funds and may (if demands from different necessary development and maintenance factors of a country, e.g. transport, housing are too high) result in a backpedalling economy, increasing poverty throughout the nation.

In addition, it is evident that when a person is infected with malaria, they feel “under the weather” and incapable of completing everyday activities such as going for a walk and potentially making themselves meals. This also includes going to work. This will reduce productivity in the corresponding professions and therefore foreign companies may stop investing in these now under-performing businesses and the country’s development and economy factors will slow down. From a prevention perspective, we see major financial tension on (for example) the eradication of “mosquito breeding grounds” as this requires an eco-friendly method of draining stagnant bodies of water or investment in filtration and/or water systems (e.g. the London sewage system) as mosquitos will not be able to reproduce on relatively clean, moving water. There are also other factors to nation-spread prevention on malaria – this includes the mass production of nets, clothing (skin exposure reduced) and the “repellent” price lowered for more accessibility meaning larger governmental investment in “repellent” on top of all the

necessary funds to maintain a country’s status on the development indicator. This will inescapably increase taxation on citizens (to fill in the new economic gap) meaning less disposable income available to them. This could prompt reduced prices on goods - they will now have to receive their stock from cheaper suppliers - in order for the public to favour them over others, however this could mean lower quality products and therefore a less wealthy environment. in tropical rainforests, however, Brazil is only “low” in infection rates whereas said African regions are “high”. This is because Brazil (along with the majority of South America) is much more developed that African countries; it is an MIC (emerging economy) whilst Africa is predominantly lower income.

The difference of how infected a nation is (depending on whether they are HIC or LIC), is their response to outbreaks through their economical capacity. economic power. Once they are produced in vast numbers there is the issue of distribution to all vulnerable citizens, this does not just mean spreading them across the country, it also means making sure everyone in need gets a necessary amount and that wealthier individuals do not purchase more than their fair/rationed amount. Doing this for all areas within a nation requires a huge effort and may never be accomplished. If this is the outcome, malaria will continue to spread through the

Result:

Between these two sources we can see a direct correlation between the wealth of a country and its respective rate of infection; the wealthier the country, the less malaria cases.

A good example of this is Brazil and how it is on the same latitude as central African countries. We know that Brazil has humid/ hot regions (Amazonia) and that mid-Africa is richly dense This essentially means that if a higher income country were to attempt to halt the spread through prevention means, they would have a greater chance than a lower income country as they have more money to spend on resources and methods to achieve this goal. Insecticide treated nets demonstrate well how a wealthier country would respond in contrast to a LIC; they are cheap and relatively easy to make (depending on the efficiency/production rate of that government) however, the manufacturing might prove problematic to a country with less of an economy to invest into factories and workplaces for produce – whilst this will no doubt be simpler for a larger LIC in result of a lack of nets.

Overall:

Malaria has the potential to burden the economy of any country and leave them in a less financially strong position than when the malady found them by requiring a larger percentage of the economic division of funds than affordable. However, it is far more likely that an LIC will have a higher infection rate as they are already ill-prepared to handle and control Malaria; this will surely mean a greater struggle to distribute prevention resources (e.g. nets, “repellent”) and wide spread protection for the nation in general.