Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on August 17, 2005
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(5):1163-1164; doi:10.1093/ije/dyi132
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/5/1163    most recent
dyi132v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Razzell, P.
Right arrow Articles by Spence, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Razzell, P.
Right arrow Articles by Spence, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association

Letter to the Editor

Social capital and the history of mortality in Britain

Peter Razzell* and Christine Spence

Department of History, Essex University, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK

* Corresponding author. E-mail: peter.razzell@clara.co.uk

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

There are two main areas of disagreement between Simon Szreter1,2 and ourselves,3 one concerning the evidence on mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries and the other its interpretation.

Szreter dismisses the evidence quoted in our letter, yet it is relevant to a number of themes in his original article:

  1. The increase in infant and child mortality in the 18th century contradicts his argument that England was a country with ‘burgeoning bridging and linking social capital’ and a ‘polity’ which was ‘the most prosperous, socially cohesive, and socially secure in Europe’ at this time.
  2. London was by far the most important city in England in the 19th century, and one of the main centres of industrial activity until well into the 20th century.4,5 Its life expectancy improved throughout the whole period, directly contrary to Szreter's thesis of . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
S. Szreter
Author's Response
Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2005; 34(5): 1164 - 1165.
[Full Text] [PDF]