Do Fossil Fuel Subsidies Crowd Out Health Expenditure? A Country‐Level Longitudinal Analysis

Annually, countries allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize fossil fuels, often at the expense of public health and environmental sustainability. This undermines progress toward Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and 13 (Climate Action). Despite this, the impact of fossil fuel subsidies (FFS) on social protection expenditure, including health, remains poorly quantified. This study aimed to determine whether FFS crowd out health expenditure globally, using panel data from 126 countries covering the period 2015-2019. An instrumental variable approach, relying on countries' exposure to international energy trade and fluctuations in crude oil price, was employed to capture exogenous variation in FFS and estimate a causal relationship. The analyses revealed that in 2019, 17 countries spent more than five percent of GDP on FFS, with FFS expenditure exceeding health expenditure in 15 of those countries. Specifically, a 1% increase in FFS per capita, driven by rising international oil prices and weighted by countries' exposure to international energy trade, led to a 0.05% (95% CI -0.08% to -0.02%) decrease in domestic health expenditure per capita. These findings underscore the detrimental impact of FFS on health expenditure, presenting another reason to eliminate FFS to achieve SDG3 in addition to avoiding further dangerous climate heating.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Economics
Published
2025-12-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.70074
Primary Topic
Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do Fossil Fuel Subsidies Crowd Out Health Expenditure? A Country‐Level Longitudinal Analysis

Anthony A Laverty, Christopher Millett, Thomas Hone, Judite Gonçalves et al.
Health Economics
Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
article

Do Fossil Fuel Subsidies Crowd Out Health Expenditure? A Country‐Level Longitudinal Analysis

Anthony A Laverty, Christopher Millett, Thomas Hone, Judite Gonçalves, Paula Carvalho Pereda, Eduardo Nemi Costa, Damini Singh
article en

Abstract

Annually, countries allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize fossil fuels, often at the expense of public health and environmental sustainability. This undermines progress toward Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and 13 (Climate Action). Despite this, the impact of fossil fuel subsidies (FFS) on social protection expenditure, including health, remains poorly quantified. This study aimed to determine whether FFS crowd out health expenditure globally, using panel data from 126 countries covering the period 2015-2019. An instrumental variable approach, relying on countries' exposure to international energy trade and fluctuations in crude oil price, was employed to capture exogenous variation in FFS and estimate a causal relationship. The analyses revealed that in 2019, 17 countries spent more than five percent of GDP on FFS, with FFS expenditure exceeding health expenditure in 15 of those countries. Specifically, a 1% increase in FFS per capita, driven by rising international oil prices and weighted by countries' exposure to international energy trade, led to a 0.05% (95% CI -0.08% to -0.02%) decrease in domestic health expenditure per capita. These findings underscore the detrimental impact of FFS on health expenditure, presenting another reason to eliminate FFS to achieve SDG3 in addition to avoiding further dangerous climate heating.

Health EconomicsVol. 35(4)
Universidade de São Paulo (BR), Instituto Superior de Gestão (PT), National School of Public Health (GR), Instituto de Saúde (BR), Indian Institute of Management Visakhapatnam (IN), Imperial College London (GB), American University of Beirut (LB)
Government of the United Kingdom, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, Imperial College London, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.