What works to push budget makers to invest in sinking road deaths rapidly?

Road traffic crashes (RTCs) account for 3% of GDP per year for Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Viet Nam, and 2.6% and 1.5% for the Philippines and Malaysia respectively.[1] Another study by a top economic research institute in Thailand (TDRI) places this number at 6% per year.[2]

The question is, do the numbers of the GDP loss really bother the macro-economists? Why have the government’s budgetary decision-makers never shown their eagerness to invest in sinking these preventable deaths rapidly?[3] We also do not see central bankers or ministries of finance taking any action to sink RTCs.

The World Bank has conducted a study[4] showing that the reduction of road traffic deaths and injuries by 50% over a period of 24 years can generate an additional flow of income per capita: 7.2% of 2014 GDP in the Philippines, 14% in India, and 22.2% in Thailand. Thailand is the country with the largest scope for reducing RTCs. However, in Thailand, there has been NO response from economic policymakers—the macro-economists. This is perhaps due to the fact that the study covers a period of 24 years, which means that the growth is less than 1% per year.

Usually, macroeconomists explain about economic growth and slowdown by citing household debt, business debt, international trade/politics, and internal politics, etc. The GDP loss by RTCs is, unfortunately, not a big proportion of the country’s GDP. In addition, the spending due to RTCs, injuries, and fatalities, even disabilities, is usually at the expense of families. Unfortunately, these families’ costs (and the state’s welfare cost) are money that circulates in the economy, which may not be a bad macro-economic situation.

The road safety champions are still seeking ways to effectively encourage government budgetary decision-makers to invest in road safety. But what really attracts macro-economists to push for the spending of money for safer roads? Is it a really big expense?

We should not forget that we are talking about sinking road deaths rapidly. Thailand has the same rate of road deaths (30 deaths per 100,000 people) as low-income countries in Africa, despite Thailand being a higher-middle-income country. There are about twenty-thousand road deaths in Thailand per year over the past 6 years, based on available data. More than 70% of road deaths are deaths by motorcycles (MCs). However, it should be noted that the deaths by MCs (level 150cc and above) are one thousand a year, according to the data from Accident Prevention Network in Thailand[5] under the Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health. Thus, if  the overall number of deaths by MCs that is 14,000 a year (70% of 20,000 road deaths a year), deaths caused by MCs level 150cc and above are only 1 in 14.

This raises the issue of inequality: the higher the ‘cc’ of MCs, the higher the selling price.

Now, it is not really necessary to address the loss to the macroeconomy because the macroeconomists don’t respond, as I stated above. (If we want to enhance the safety engineering of roads, public constructions can directly create jobs and stimulate the supply chain economy, such as the production of materials. In terms of stimulating the economy, it depends on the executives of the projects.)

In terms of inequality, there are several examples that show how socioeconomic status is a significant factor of accident injuries. The World Health Organization (WHO)[6] has stated that socioeconomic status matters according to their data, as more than 90% of road traffic deaths occur in low-and middle-income countries. Road traffic injury death rates are the highest in the African region. However, not many people know about the WHO’s findings that even within high-income countries, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be involved in RTCs.

In the middle-income country, Iran, there is a study published in 2019 on socioeconomic inequality in deaths from RTCs.[7] The study evaluated the data of the 50,755 people who died or were injured from RTCs (Mar 2015 - Feb 2016). The study found that people from low socioeconomic levels were more at risk of fatal accidents and injuries. The researchers suggested that specific interventions on road safety should be delivered to drivers using vehicles that were less safe.

Another study on socioeconomic status and RTCs was conducted in Tehran, the capital city of Iran.[8] It explains that (in 2012) population-based estimates of RTCs are not readily available for developing countries. This study examined the contribution of socioeconomic status to the risk of crashes among Iranian adults. A total of 64,200 people aged 18 years and above were identified. 22,128 households were interviewed to estimate the overall annual crash, severity, and socioeconomic determinants of RTCs for males and females in the Iranian capital. Wealth index and house value index were constructed for economic measurement. The result is that RTCs occur more in lower socioeconomic layers of society.

Coming back to high-income countries: there was a follow-up study on 2.7 million Canadians using the 1991–2001 data. This study investigated the association between the socioeconomic status of individuals and the areas they lived in, and the leading causes of unintentional injury death in Canadian adults.[9] The result showed that the associations were generally stronger for individuals with low income and no occupation than for low education and area deprivation. Motor vehicle and fall deaths were more strongly associated with socioeconomic status for males than females.

The findings by the WHO; the studies conducted in Iran, Tehran, and Canada; and the MC deaths in Thailand by the cc of MCs show that we have to adjust our road safety policy based on socioeconomic status. Having targeted improvement of attitudes could be faster, without needing to increase spending by replacing the ineffective and unmeasurable programs.

At the same time, this period is the global economic slowdown. If public construction is one of the options to boost the economy, we should not forget road safety engineering. Data from the International Road Assessment Programme[10] has stated that in Southeast Asia, 73% of roads are UNSAFE for motorcyclists, which are rated 1 and 2 stars for road safety. MC deaths in Thailand are, at least, more than ten thousand a year and more than four thousand a year in Malaysia.[11]

[1] Strengthening regional efforts to improve road safety. UNESCAP. 2018  

[2] Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). 2017

[3] See historical chart for each countries: Global status report on road safety 2018. WHO

[4] World Bank. 2017. The High Toll of Traffic Injuries : Unacceptable and Preventable. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29129 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO

[5] https://mgronline.com/qol/detail/9620000072395

[6] Road traffic injuries. Key facts. WHO. 2018

[7] Socioeconomic Inequality in Mortality from Road Traffic Accident in Iran. Shahbazi F, Hashemi Nazari SS, Soori H, Khodakarim S. 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31133631

[8] Socioeconomic Status and Incidence of Traffic Accidents in Metropolitan Tehran: A Population-based Study. M Sehat, K H Naieni, M Asadi-Lari, A Rahimi Foroushani, and H Malek-Afzali. 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309632/

[9] Individual and area socioeconomic inequalities in cause-specific unintentional injury mortality: 11-Year follow-up study of 2.7 million Canadians. S Burrows, N Auger, P Gamache, D Hamel. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.11.010

[10] https://www.vaccinesforroads.org/irap-big-data-tool/

[11] https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/01/30/police-total-road-accidents-up-but-fatalities-down-6.3pc-in-2018/1718052

Presentation: MIROS & ITS ROLE IN ASEAN - TOWARDS ACHIEVING FATALITY REDUCTION IN 2020. MIROS

ที่มาภาพจาก: Pizel-mixer (CC0 Public Domain)