Eric Schneider

1/ Workshop CFP Resilient Societies: Shocks, Adaptation and the Persistence of Inequality in Historical Perspective. How have societies responded to historical shocks, and why have some individuals or societies proved more resilient than others? LSE, 20–21 May 2027

8/ Full details and submission link here: www.lse.ac.uk/economic-his...

1/ Workshop CFP Resilient Societies: Shocks, Adaptation and the Persistence of Inequality in Historical Perspective. How have societies responded to historical shocks, and why have some individuals or societies proved more resilient than others? LSE, 20–21 May 2027

6/ Keynotes: Trevon Logan (Ohio State University) Edson Severnini (Boston College)

1/ Workshop CFP Resilient Societies: Shocks, Adaptation and the Persistence of Inequality in Historical Perspective. How have societies responded to historical shocks, and why have some individuals or societies proved more resilient than others? LSE, 20–21 May 2027

4/ In addition, we are keen to understand how inequalities by class, race and gender shaped vulnerability to shocks and recovery afterwards.

1/ Workshop CFP Resilient Societies: Shocks, Adaptation and the Persistence of Inequality in Historical Perspective. How have societies responded to historical shocks, and why have some individuals or societies proved more resilient than others? LSE, 20–21 May 2027

2/ We welcome papers from across the social sciences examining historical environmental, epidemiological, economic, political and household-level shocks. Think epidemics, droughts, floods, war, displacement, income loss, bereavement and more.

Really pleased to see @hggaddy.bsky.social’s work recognised with this prize. It’s an important and extremely well-executed paper. Congratulations!

1/ Why do many WASH interventions have limited effects on child stunting? Our historical data suggest something surprising: Sanitation infrastructure alone often wasn’t enough, even in the past. New BMJ Global Health paper 👇 doi.org/10.1136/bmjg...

12/ Child stunting is not as salient as mortality as a health indicator because it is difficult for individuals to understand. Stunted children look normal relative to their peers in LMICs. They are only short compared to healthy children, which people cannot observe.

1/ Why do many WASH interventions have limited effects on child stunting? Our historical data suggest something surprising: Sanitation infrastructure alone often wasn’t enough, even in the past. New BMJ Global Health paper 👇 doi.org/10.1136/bmjg...

10/ The cases of Britain and Jamaica emphasise how important behaviour change is to making WASH interventions effective. Infrastructure and technology are not enough. People have to use the infrastructure and adopt the technology.

1/ Why do many WASH interventions have limited effects on child stunting? Our historical data suggest something surprising: Sanitation infrastructure alone often wasn’t enough, even in the past. New BMJ Global Health paper 👇 doi.org/10.1136/bmjg...

8/ Now compare to early-20th-century Jamaica. A Rockefeller Foundation hookworm campaign combined: • treatment • improved latrines • intensive hygiene education Campaign workers even brought microscopes into villages so people could see hookworm parasites.

1/ Why do many WASH interventions have limited effects on child stunting? Our historical data suggest something surprising: Sanitation infrastructure alone often wasn’t enough, even in the past. New BMJ Global Health paper 👇 doi.org/10.1136/bmjg...

6/ In Britain, diarrhoeal disease remained widespread and only declined decades after the introduction of clean water and sanitation. Declining diarrhoeal disease caused by: • improved hygiene behaviour • safer infant feeding • environmental changes (fewer horses in cities)

1/ Why do many WASH interventions have limited effects on child stunting? Our historical data suggest something surprising: Sanitation infrastructure alone often wasn’t enough, even in the past. New BMJ Global Health paper 👇 doi.org/10.1136/bmjg...

4/ Take 19th-century England. Cities invested massively in sanitation and clean water. The results were dramatic: • cholera epidemics were eliminated • under-5 typhoid mortality fell by ~88% Yet child stunting remained above 40% in the 1890s.

1/ Why do many WASH interventions have limited effects on child stunting? Our historical data suggest something surprising: Sanitation infrastructure alone often wasn’t enough, even in the past. New BMJ Global Health paper 👇 doi.org/10.1136/bmjg...

2/ Poor water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) are widely seen as drivers of child stunting. Repeated exposure to faecal pathogens → diarrhoeal disease → impaired nutrient absorption → slower growth. So improving sanitation should reduce stunting. But the evidence is mixed.

What is child stunting — and how has it changed over the last 200 years? Stunting means being too short for one’s age due to chronic undernutrition and disease in early life. It’s one of the clearest markers of cumulative deprivation in childhood. 1)

However, our main takeaway figure (figure 5) highlights countries where we are confident in the underlying trends. I could also re-compute country trends based on high-quality data only: we graded the certainty of evidence for all studies.

What is child stunting — and how has it changed over the last 200 years? Stunting means being too short for one’s age due to chronic undernutrition and disease in early life. It’s one of the clearest markers of cumulative deprivation in childhood. 1)

@ourworldindata.org @maxroser.bsky.social @hannahritchie.bsky.social Not sure if it is easier to reach you all here or on email, but I wondered if Our World In Data would be interested in incorporating our new data into its articles on child stunting, malnutrition and adult stature.

What is child stunting — and how has it changed over the last 200 years? Stunting means being too short for one’s age due to chronic undernutrition and disease in early life. It’s one of the clearest markers of cumulative deprivation in childhood. 1)

The big lesson: Stunting is not fixed by geography or culture. It is historically contingent — and reversible. Countries that eliminated widespread stunting did so over decades of sustained change. 9)

What is child stunting — and how has it changed over the last 200 years? Stunting means being too short for one’s age due to chronic undernutrition and disease in early life. It’s one of the clearest markers of cumulative deprivation in childhood. 1)

There was strong regional variation: • Lower early stunting in Scandinavia and some settler economies • Higher rates in parts of Western Europe • Exceptionally high levels in Japan and Korea But the long-run trend almost everywhere was downward. 7)

What is child stunting — and how has it changed over the last 200 years? Stunting means being too short for one’s age due to chronic undernutrition and disease in early life. It’s one of the clearest markers of cumulative deprivation in childhood. 1)

In our new paper (BMJ Global Health), we systematically collected 923 historical growth studies covering 122 countries from 1814–2016. By harmonising height-by-age data, we reconstruct stunting patterns over two centuries. Link: doi.org/10.1136/bmjg... 5)

What is child stunting — and how has it changed over the last 200 years? Stunting means being too short for one’s age due to chronic undernutrition and disease in early life. It’s one of the clearest markers of cumulative deprivation in childhood. 1)

Today, stunting is a core global health indicator. Globally, rates fell from roughly 47% in the mid-1980s to about 22% today. That’s major progress — but still hundreds of millions of children affected. 3)

What is child stunting — and how has it changed over the last 200 years? Stunting means being too short for one’s age due to chronic undernutrition and disease in early life. It’s one of the clearest markers of cumulative deprivation in childhood. 1)