Question

which diseases cause economically weak of African​

Answer 1

Answer:

Endemic Diseases and African Economic Growth: Challenges and Policy Responses

David N. Weil

Additional article information

1. The Scope of the Problem

There is no question that Africa bears a heavy burden of disease. Life expectancy at birth in the year 2006 was 50 years in sub Saharan Africa. In the second least healthy region, South Asia, it was 64 years, while in high income countries it was 79. Over the last five decades, most of the developing world made remarkable strides in catching up to rich-country standards of health. In Africa, progress in health was already slow before the advent of HIV/AIDS, and since that time the continent has become sicker as the rest of the world continued to become healthier.

Table 1 shows the broad outlines of mortality in Africa, using data from the WHO’s Global Burden of Disease project. In Africa, infectious and parasitic disease accounted for 43.1% of total deaths. In the next poorest region among the WHO’s broad classifications, South Asia, the fraction of deaths due to infectious and parasitic diseases was 17.5%, while in Europe, the figure was 2.3%.1

Table 1

Table 1

Morality Burden of Disease in WHO AFRO Region, 2004

In addition to being the least healthy part of the world, Africa is also the poorest. The question that naturally arises is how poverty and ill health interact. There is abundant evidence that being poor, either for a household or for a country, leads to worse health outcomes.2 Families that are poorer spend less on food and medical care; countries that are poor devote fewer resources to public health.

In this paper, my concern is with causality that runs in the other direction, that is, with the economic effects of disease.3 I will ignore completely the determinants of ill health, whether economic or non-economic. I will also not touch on the vital question of what policies that might be used to reduce the burden of disease. Instead, I will focus on the results of disease or its control. Throughout the paper, my emphasis will be on trying to estimate the quantitative effects of disease on different aspects of the economy. For economic analysis to be useful for policy making, this sort of quantification is crucial. There are many things that are “good for growth” or “good for welfare.” But resources are limited. If economists are to make a contribution to wise policy making, they must get into the business of saying how much good will result from some course of action, so that benefits of different possibilities can be compared.

Mark me as brainliest.