MATHEMATICS HIGHER LEVEL EXPLORATION

Comment :
CORELATION BETWEEN THE HEALTH EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA, GDP PER CAPITA AND INFANT
MORTALITY RATE OF INDA
Aim of the research
The aim of my project is to find the correlation between the health expenditure of India and
gdp per capita of India and its impact on the infant mortality rate of India. Which is, I will
investigate and analyze the past year trends of gdp per capita of India and look how the
increase/decrease in it would affect the health expenditure, resulting in the change of the trend
of health expenditure per capita1. Then I would look at how the change in the health expenditure
is impacting the infant mortality rate of India.
Infant mortality rate2- it is the number of children which died under the age of 1. The ratio is
calculated by per 1000 lives.
Gdp per capita3- is a measure of the total output of a country that takes gross domestic product
Health expenditure- expenditures are defined on the basis of their primary or predominant
purpose of improving health

Rationale

It wouldn’t be wrong to say that a development of a country revolves around its economic
conditions. An individual can never overestimate the prominence of the factors which influence
the economy of a nation. Hence, in a country like India where it is anticipated that it would
have the highest population, factors like gdp per capita, health expenditure per capita and infant
mortality rate are the basis which majorly influence the economic conditions of this populated
nation. With the changing time, india is also developing as a nation. Researching online and
reading online surveys, the reason why india is able to develop is that its gdp per capita is
growing and due to this growth there is higher revenue generated by the government thus, they
are spending more on the health expenditure per capita. If the health expenditure per capita
increases, this shows that an individual is spending more on its health and thus improving living
standards. With high levels of living standards, the infant mortality might as well decrease.
Which might portray an inverse relationship between health expenditure per capita and infant
mortality rate. Which means that India is able protect its sustained assets. , I was so intrigued
in the topic that I kept on researching on it for hours and hours, with extremely high
concentration level, an idea came across my mind which was how would the growth in the
health expenditure affect the infant mortality rate of India which can be a major issue with such
a huge population and I was stunt to find that the infant mortality rate of India was decreasing

1 www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.XPD.PCAP.
2 “Infant Mortality Rate.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, www.dictionary.com/browse/infant-
mortality-rate.
3 Amadeo, Kimberly. “Why the World's Largest Economies Aren't the Richest.” The Balance,
www.thebalance.com/gdp-per-capita-formula-u-s-compared-to-highest-and-lowest-3305848.
because of the increase in the gdp per capita and the increase in the health care expenditure.
While discussing all the facts and figures with my math professor, he told me that as the factors
are interrelated, we can deduce the change in the factors in anticipated future by analyzing the
past year trends. Hence all the factors motivated me and thus I started exploring this topic as
to fulfill my greed or my thirst for this quest of economics mixed with math. These are some
reasons, why I choose this topic. I believe that this topic would be worth studying as it tells me
about the components of an economy and their correlation with each other. Moreover, it would
help me to study and know more about my own country and I can see the change taking place
in India and how the economy is growing at a relatively good pace.

PROCEDURE

Further to conduct this research, I would search online for the data of the health expenditure
per capita, gdp per capita and infant mortality rate of india. Getting the data, I will plot it in an
application known as Geogebra. By plotting the graphs, I would get a scatter plot through I can
deduce the relationship between the three economic components. I would first plot the gdp per
capita and health care expenditure together so that I can see do they compliment each other or
are inverse in nature. Then I will plot the graph of the infant mortality rate with the health care
expenditure to know whether with the increase in the healthcare expenditure the mortality rate
is decreasing or with the decreasing healthcare expenditure there is an increase in the infant
mortality rate. When I plot the scatterplot I will use various trends like polynomial, exponential,
logistics, etc so that I can deduce the best fit line and make my assumption more accurate.
With the use of these trends I deduce the functions of the scatter plot through which I can use
mean deviation and manual derivation and give a specific relationship between them.

Data of Health expenditure per capita, Gdp per capita and Infant
mortality rate (per 1000 lives)
The data in the table represents health expenditure and gdp per capita of india from 1995 to
2014. It also shows the infant mortality rate (per 1000 lives). The data which I have gathered
is of each and every year from 1995 to 2014 and this will give an appropriate result of the data.
 Health expenditure per capita4 Infant mortality per 1000 Year Gdp per capita6
lives5

1.05 77.8 1995 370.10

1.01 75.4 1996 396.01

1.07 73.1 1997 411.38

1.10 70.9 1998 409.19

1.13 68.6 1999 437.58

1.11 66.4 2000 438.86

1.08 64.2 2001 447.05

1.03 62 2002 466.20

0.985 59.9 2003 541.13

1.02 57.8 2004 621.31

1.13 55.8 2005 707.00

4
“Health Expenditure per Capita (Current US$).” Health Expenditure per Capita (Current US$) |
Data, data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP.
5 “Mortality Rate, Infant (per 1,000 Live Births).” Mortality Rate, Infant (per 1,000 Live Births) |
Data, data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?view=chart.
6 “GDP per Capita (Current US$).” GDP per Capita (Current US$) | Data,
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD.
1.11 53.9 2006 792.02

1.10 51.9 2007 1018.16

1.16 50 2008 991.48

1.22 48.2 2009 1090.31

1.16 46.3 2010 1345.77

1.18 44.4 2011 1461.67

1.18 42.6 2012 1446.98

1.41 40.9 2013 1452.19

1.29 39.3 2014 1573.11

Plotting the data in an Application to study the trend of each factor

The above figure shows the relationship of health expenditure per capita and gdp per capita of
India.

Correlation between the health expenditure per capita and the Gdp per capita

From the data given above and the scatter plot plotted above we can see that how with the
growing components of an economy which in this project are the health expenditure and the
gdp per capita interrelated and are proportional to each other i.e. With the increase in the gdp
per capita there would be an increment in the government spending on the health expenditure
so the people living in India become an asset hence with the increasing gdp per capita the health
expenditure per capita increases and vice versa. The gdp per capita is the independent variable
and the health expenditure per capita is dependent on it.
The above figure shows the relationship of infant mortality rate with time/years.
Relationship of Infant mortality per 1000 lives and years/time

The mortality rate of India is decreasing drastically year by year and it can be inferred that
decrement can be caused by many factors.
the above figure shows the relationship between the infant mortality rate and health expenditure
per capita.

Relation between health expenditure per capita and the infant mortality rate (per 1000
lives)

From the data given and the scatter plot I was able to read that as the health expenditure per
capita of India is increasing, the infant mortality rate of India is decreasing. By using an online
application, I was able to see that their relationship is approaching to zero eventually and hence
I wanted to conduct a relation between them to see how is their relationship affected every year
and would it be ever possible for the infant mortality rate to approach zero?
The health expenditure per capita of India would be an independent variable as it is considered
as a factor which affects the infant mortality rate. The infant mortality rate would be taken as
a dependent variable.

Variable Used
Health expenditure would be taken as an independent variable because its value is not
dependent on that of other factors.
Infant mortality rate of India would be taken as dependent variable because its value is
dependent on time, the changing gdp per capita and health expenditure per capita.

Analyzing the best fit model between health expenditure per capita and
gdp per capita by using regression model
therefore, the relationship between health expenditure per capita and gdp per capita can be
deduced and is known and can be inferred that it is increasing.

Polynomial Regression Model for health expenditure per capita and

infant mortality rate
The equation of the regression model is-
y = -5.8950.555x 5 + 331200.27x 4 - 736086.361x 3 + 808161.825x 2 - 437909.483x + 93645.826
Interpolation is an estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values.
Extrapolation is an estimation of a value based on extending a known sequence of values or
facts beyond the area that is certainly known.
For the analysis of the trend, the regression model of polynomial equation is taken into
consideration.
the equation of the polynomial regression model is obtained from an online software
“geogebra”.
We can see that how initially the graph is increasing and then it is decreasing. For the model
to be applicable for modelling, the function should be best fit on the data points.
From the graph it can be inferred that with the increase in the health expenditure per capita, the
infant mortality rate of India (per 1000 lives) is decreasing.
The data plotted is of a very long time period, hence it would be difficult to get the most
accurate function which would be best fit to the modelled data. Therefore, to find the adequate
function, I would find the mean of the absolute differences.
å(X - X°)
The formula which I would use for mean deviation is: - N

This particular formula would be used to calculate the mean of absolute differences and further
would help in deducing the best fit regression model of the data.
Mean deviation for polynomial regression model is7: -
For the polynomial regression model, the mean deviation was coming out to be: - 5.52

The Exponential regression model for Infant mortality rate and health
expenditure per capita.

the equation for the regression model is-

y = 345.551e-1.611x
The above figure shows the best fit trend for the data at the exponential regression model.

7
Appendix 1
I would use the regression model of exponential because the line of best fit is constantly
decreasing and hence it describes the relationship between the infant mortality rate and health
expenditure per capita.
This model can be used for interpolation because the line of best fit is approaching to zero.
The mean deviation for the exponential regression model is8: -
For the exponential regression model, the deviation calculated is: - 7.015

The Log regression model for health expenditure and Infant mortality
rate: -

the above figure shows the regression model for log.

The equation of regression model is-
y = 69.245 -101.821ln(x)
I would the regression model of logs because the line of best fit is constantly decreasing and
hence it describes the relationship between the infant mortality rate and health expenditure per
capita.
This model can be used for interpolation because the line of best fit is approaching to zero.

8
Appendix 2
the mean deviation for log regression model is9: -

For the logistics regression model, the deviation calculated is: - 7. 17

The Logistics regression model for health expenditure and infant

mortality rate

The above figure shows the regression model for logistics.

The equation of the regression model is-
142.15
y=
1+ 73.407e2.78 x
I would use the regression model of logistics because the line of best fit is constantly decreasing
and hence it describes the relationship between the infant mortality rate and health expenditure
per capita.
This model can be used for interpolation because the line of best fit is approaching to zero.

the mean deviation for the regression logistics model is10: -

For the logs regression model, the deviation is: - 7.175

9
Appendix 3
10
Appendix 4
Comparing the mean deviation of all the function for the best fit function

Serial number function Mean deviation for

regression models
1 Polynomial regression model 5.52

2 Exponential regression 7.015

model
3 Log regression model 7.17

4 Logistics regression model 7.175

It can be inferred from the above data table that the polynomial regression model is the most
accurate function which can be used for interpolation. It can be used as its results are least from
the real data points as compared to the other functions. Its mean deviation is only 5.52.
The equation derived from the software geogebra for polynomial function is: -

The equation for the polynomial regression model has to be taken out manually so that the
manual equation could be compared to the equation of geogebra. I will do this by determining
the mean deviations and the more accurate model would be selected for modelling as it would
give the best approximation.
The points selected for the manual derivation that I would take into consideration is for the
point 9th, 11th, 14th,19th, 20th and 7th. The points on x and y axis are: -
(0.984930506, 59.9), (1.1342577, 55.8), (1.162740942, 50), (1.077996182, 64.2),
(1.286886584, 39.3) and (1.407237618, 40.9)
these points are taken because they lie on the line of best fit on the graph and would provide
the best approximation of the values.
For the manual deviation, I used a graphic display calculator. I made six equations for them.
Equation 1
59.9 = a(0.985)5 + b(0.985)4 + c(0.985)3 + d(0.985)2 + e(0.985) + f

Equation 2
55.8 = a(1.13)5 + b(1.13)4 + c(1.13)3 + d(1.13)2 + e(1.13) + f
Equation 3
50 = a(1.16)5 + b(1.16)4 + c(1.16)3 + d(1.16)2 + e(1.16) + f
Equation 4
64.2 = a(1.08)5 + b(1.08)4 + c(1.08)3 + d(1.08)2 + e(1.08) + f
Equation 5
39.3 = a(1.29)5 + b(1.29)4 + c(1.29)3 + d(1.29)2 + e(1.29) + f
Equation 6
40.9 = a(1.41)5 + b(1.41)4 + c(1.41)3 + d(1.41)2 + e(1.41) + f
By using the graphic display calculator, the value estimated for the constants a, b, c, d, e and
f are: - -28487.9644, 154969.7572, -330357.7428, 343499.0605, -173177.1377 and
33617.33953

The mean deviation for the manual function calculated is: -

Health expenditure Infant mortality rate Function for Deviation for manual
manually calculated for manually
model calculated model
1.05 77.8 66.718 11.1

1.01 75.4 64.92 10.5

1.07 73.1 65.32 7.8

1.10 70.9 61.26 9.6

1.13 68.6 55.795 12.8

1.11 66.4 59.54 6.9

1.08 64.2 64.19 0

1.03 62 66.68 4.7

0.985 59.9 59.89 0

1.02 57.8 66.03 8.2

1.13 55.8 55.795 0

1.11 53.9 59.54 5.6

1.10 51.9 61.26 9.4

1.16 50 49.99 0
1.22 48.2 40.98 7.2

1.16 46.3 49.98 3.7

1.18 44.4 46.41 2

1.18 42.6 46.41 3.8

1.41 40.9 40.89 0

1.29 39.3 39.29 0

Evidence for Manual derivation using a GDC

Therefore, the mean deviation calculated for the manual function is: - 5.165. It is least value
and hence it is better than the function given by geogebra. The model with the function
calculated manually would be the best fit and the most accurate for interpolation. Thus the
manually modelled polynomial regression model would be used to further predict the values
and the relationship between health expenditure per capita and infant mortality rate (per
1000 lives).

EXTRAPOLATION
Extrapolation would be use so that I can get an approximate value of the past year trend and
predict an anticipated future for infant mortality rate per 100 lives.
The polynomial regression model

The model is rejected because initially the function is increasing and then it starts to decrease.
This shows the accurate relationship between the health expenditure per capita and infant
mortality rate. But in this regression model, the function starts to increase and it decreases
again. The value of the function is also going negative and hence it cannot be selected for
extrapolation. This can be concluded by looking at the regression model below.
The exponential regression model

this model is rejected because, it does not have a line of best fit. This portrays the relationship
between health expenditure and infant mortality rate inversely. However, in this inverse
relationship the value approaches to zero but the value of health expenditure per capita is
huge as compared to logistics regression model and the mean deviation for it also greater.
The proof is given in the model below.
The logs regression model

this model is rejected because, it does not have a best fit. This portrays the relationship
between health expenditure and infant mortality rate inversely but the inverse relationship
has negative values which is not possible as the value can approach to zero but cannot achieve
it, hence this function would be rejected for extrapolation.
This statement can be concluded by looking at the trend as mentioned below.

The logistics regression model.

It would be used for extrapolation as the function approaches to zero and also the points are
best fit on the modelled data.
The function for the logistics graph is: -

This model would the best fit for extrapolation as, the absolute mean difference for this graph
is less which 7.17. Also some of the data points lie on the line of best fit. This regression model
is also clearly justifying the relation between the y and the x axis. It clearly shows that with the
increasing health expenditure per capita, the infant mortality rate (per 1000 lives) would
decline. In this model, the function is obtained from an online software geogebra and the
function shows portrays that as the x axis is increasing the value of y axis is decreasing, the
value of y axis would decrease till it approaches zero.

With the growing population of India, it would be difficult to predict the infant mortality rate
of India. Hence, if we only take the next 20 years in consideration, the model would be most
accurate as this model only shows the highest decrement in the rate of infant mortality.

a
-cx
= f (x)
Now for the manual explanation, the general logistics function is: 1+ be

For the manual function, I would select three points from the regression model.
The three points are: - (1.025761987, 64.2), (1.1342577, 55.8) and (1.220971081, 48.2)

Further I would derive 3 equations from the data given above

Equation 1
a
= 64.2
1+ be-c(1.03)

Equation 2
a
= 55.8
1+ be-c(1.13)

Equation 3
a
= 48.2
1+ be-c(1.22)

now equating 1 and 2, we get:

1+ be-c(1.13) 64.2
=
1+ be-c(1.03) 55.8
55.8(1+ be- c(1.13) ) = 64.2(1+ be-c(1.03) )

then we will multiply and subtract the equation,

8.4 = 55.8be- c(1.13) - 64.2be- c(1.03)

by taking “b” common, we would get a function for “b” which is;
8.4
- c(1.13)
=b
55.8e - 64.2e- c(1.03)
this would be taken as the equation 4

now we would equate the equations 2 and 3,

1+ be-c(1.22) 55.8
=
1+ be-c(1.13) 48.2
48.2 + 48.2be- c(1.22) = 55.8 + 55.8be- c(1.13)

then we will subtract the equations now;

48.2be-c(1.22) - 55.8be-c(1.13) = 7.6
we will take “b” common and cross multiply it and write a function for “b”
7.6
- c(1.22)
=b
48.2e - 55.8e-c(1.13)
this would the equation 5
now we would equate the equation 4 and 5

7.6 8.4
- c(1.22) -c(1.13)
=b - c(1.13) - c(1.03)
=b
48.2e - 55.8e = 55.8e - 64.2e
by cross multiplication;
404.88e-c(1.22) - 468.72e-c(1.13) = 424.08e-c(1.13) - 487.72e-c(1.03)
892.8e-c(1.13) = 487.92e-c(1.03) + 404.88e-c(1.22)

For manual derivation, GDV evidence

by the drawing the function on GDC, the value for c= 6.042 or 6.04
to denote the value of “b”, I would the 5th equation
7.6
-(7.3688)
=b
42.8e - 55.8e-(6.8252)
therefore, the value for ‘b’= -251.60
I can determine the value of “a” by using the 1st equation
a
= 55.8
1+ (-251.6e-(6.8252) )
and hence the value of “a” = 40.552 or 40.5
40.5
the final equation for manual calculation is: -
1+ (-251.6e-(6.04 x ) )

But the equation obtained manually is very different from that of the geogebra. Hence I would
use mean deviation to know which function is the most accurate for the extrapolation.

Mean deviation for the manual function for the regression model of logistics
Infant mortality rate Health expenditure Function for Deviation for
per capita manually derived manually derived
regression model for regression model for
extrapolation extrapolation
77.8 1.05 72.7120000000001 5.1
75.4 1.01 92.9060000000001 17.5

73.1 1.07 66.6770000000001 6.4

70.9 1.10 60.2200000000001 10.7

68.6 1.13 55.7200000000001 12.9

66.4 1.11 58.5540000000001 7.8

64.2 1.08 64.2430000000001 0

62 1.03 80.9828000000001 19

59.9 0.985 117.740400000000 59

57.8 1.02 86.3500000000001 28.6

55.8 1.13 55.7000000000001 0.1

53.9 1.11 58.6000000000001 4.7

 51.9 1.10 60.2000000000001 8.3

50 1.16 52.4580000000001 2.5

48.2 1.22 48.1370000000001 0.1

46.3 1.16 52.5000000000001 6.2

44.4 1.18 50.7535000000001 6.4

42.6 1.18 50.8000000000001 8.2

40.9 1.41 42.6470000000000 1.7

39.3 1.29 45.1988000000000 5.9

The mean deviation calculated for the manual function was= 10.555.
The deviation is much greater than that of the geogebra which was only 7.17 and hence for
the most accurate extrapolation graph the function given by geogebra for the regression
model of logistics should be the most accurate.

Conclusion
After carefully analyzing the various models, on the basis of their mean absolute difference,
for both health expenditure per capita and infant mortality rate of India (per 1000 lives). I
predicted the logically the possible future of mortality rate in India. The function that I chose
for the prediction suggested that the mortality rate of India would decrease. This seems true
because the GDP per capita of India is increasing and it would lead to increment of health
expenditure per capita, due to this the infant mortality would decrease.

The polynomial model that I chose for the relation of infant mortality rate and health

expenditure per capita can be considered accurate for interpolation as the data in hand

helped in predicting the future statistics of their relationship. The negative gradient also

makes it true. However, the function will be true only for the near future. That is true because

the value of the model would decrease.

Bibliography

“GDP per Capita (Current US$).” GDP per Capita (Current US$) | Data,
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD.
“Health Expenditure per Capita (Current US$).” Health Expenditure per Capita (Current US$) |
Data, data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP.
“Infant Mortality Rate.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, www.dictionary.com/browse/infant-
mortality-rate.
“Mortality Rate, Infant (per 1,000 Live Births).” Mortality Rate, Infant (per 1,000 Live Births) |
Data, data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?view=chart.
Amadeo, Kimberly. “Why the World's Largest Economies Aren't the Richest.” The Balance,
www.thebalance.com/gdp-per-capita-formula-u-s-compared-to-highest-and-lowest-3305848.
www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.XPD.PCAP.
Appendix

Appendix 1
Health expenditure per Infant mortality per Deviation for
capita 1000 lives polynomial regression
model
1.05 77.8 8.7

1.01 75.4 9

1.07 73.1 5.2

1.10 70.9 7.2

1.13 68.6 10.9

1.11 66.4 4.5

1.08 64.2 2.6

1.03 62 6.7

0.985 59.9 0.9

1.02 57.8 10

1.13 55.8 1.9

 1.11 53.9 8

1.10 51.9 11.8

1.16 50 1.1

1.22 48.2 7.1

1.16 46.3 4.8

1.18 44.4 2.6

1.18 42.6 4.4

1.41 40.9 1.2

1.29 39.3 1.8

Appendix 2

Health expenditure per capita Infant mortality per 1000 Deviation for exponential
lives regression model
1.05 77.8 14.1

1.01 75.4 7.5

1.07 73.1 11.5

1.10 70.9 12.2

1.13 68.6 12.6

1.11 66.4 8.6

1.08 64.2 3.5

1.03 62 3.7

0.985 59.9 10.8

1.02 57.8 9

1.13 55.8 0.2

1.11 53.9 3.9

1.10 51.9 6.8

1.16 50 3.3

1.22 48.2 0.2

1.16 46.3 7

1.18 44.4 7.2

1.18 42.6 9

1.41 40.9 5.3

1.29 39.3 3.9

Appendix 3
Health expenditure per capita Infant mortality per 1000 Deviation for log regression
lives model
1.05 77.8 13.5

1.01 75.4 7.2

1.07 73.1 10.7

1.10 70.9 11.4

1.13 68.6 11.8

1.11 66.4 7.8

1.08 64.2 2.8

1.03 62 4.2

0.985 59.9 10.9

1.02 57.8 9.4

1.13 55.8 1

1.11 53.9 4.7

1.10 51.9 7.6

1.16 50 4.1

1.22 48.2 0.2

1.16 46.3 7.8

1.18 44.4 8

1.18 42.6 9.8

1.41 40.9 6.6

1.29 39.3 4

Appendix 4
Health expenditure per capita Infant mortality per 1000 Deviation for logistics
lives regression model
1.05 77.8 13.4

1.01 75.4 7.1

1.07 73.1 10.6

1.10 70.9 11.2

1.13 68.6 11.7

1.11 66.4 7.7

1.08 64.2 2.6

1.03 62 4.3

0.985 59.9 10.8

1.02 57.8 9.5

1.13 55.8 1.1

1.11 53.9 4.8

1.10 51.9 7.8

1.16 50 4.1

1.22 48.2 0.6

1.16 46.3 7.8

1.18 44.4 7.9

1.18 42.6 9.7

1.41 40.9 7.1

1.29 39.3 3.6