Immigrants are unsung heroes of global trade and value creation
Immigrants significantly enhance economic growth by driving innovation, improving trade value, and creating connections that strengthen global value chains in host nations.
In nearly every country that hosts foreign-born citizens, immigration emerges as a lightning rod for controversy. The economic realities of immigration, however, are far more complex than the negative sound bites suggest.
Far from being a burden, as critics claim, immigrants play pivotal roles in driving innovation, enhancing productivity and fostering economic growth in their adopted countries. They also elevate their adopted and origin countries’ standings in global value chains, contributing to economic resilience.
By facilitating what’s known as “trade in value added,” or TiVA, immigrants play a crucial role in helping countries specialize their production, move up the value chain and significantly enhance trade sophistication.
Moving up the value chain means progressing from producing basic, low-value goods to more complex, higher-value products. This shift involves improving skills, technology and production techniques, allowing a country to capture more economic value and develop advanced industries.
So, what exactly is trade in value added, and why is it important?
In today’s global economy, products are rarely made entirely in one country. Instead, different stages of production occur across multiple nations. TiVA measures each country’s contribution to a final product, providing clearer insight into global value chains. For instance, while an iPhone may be assembled in China, its components come from various countries, each adding value.
Advertisement
Measuring the effect on global value chains
Our study found that a 10% increase in immigrants from a particular country residing in one of the 38 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member states leads to a 2.08% increase in the value added from their home country that becomes embedded in their host country’s exports to the world.
This effect was strongest in the services sector, followed closely by agriculture and manufacturing.
To understand how this works, consider Indian software engineers in Silicon Valley. Their understanding of the U.S. tech industry and India’s IT sector can lead to partnerships. These partnerships lead to Indian firms providing specialized coding services for American tech giants. The result? Higher-value U.S. tech exports that incorporate Indian expertise. This perfectly illustrates how immigrants boost trade in value added.
Or take Chinese immigrants in Italy’s fashion industry. Their cultural knowledge might help Italian luxury brands tailor products for the Chinese market and connect Italian designers with highly skilled textile workers in China. The result? Italian fashion exports incorporate Chinese craftsmanship, elevating both countries’ global fashion value chain positions.
Our findings show that immigrants are pivotal bridges in global trade networks. They leverage their unique knowledge, skills and connections to strengthen economic bonds between nations. That’s in line with previous research showing the significant role immigrants play in fostering bilateral trade.
Why immigration matters in the global economy
In an era of increasing skepticismtoward globalization and migration, understanding the positive economic impacts of immigration is crucial. Our current and previous research, and the findings from related studies, indicate that rather than “stealing jobs,” immigrants often create value and new economic opportunities that might not otherwise exist.
Immigrants bring diverse skills, knowledge and networks to their host countries that can enhance innovation, fill labor shortages and open new market opportunities. They often possess unique insights into their home country markets, helping host country firms navigate cultural nuances and business practices that might otherwise pose trade barriers. https://www.youtube.com/embed/RZKX-0SK41U?wmode=transparent&start=0
Advertisement
For home countries, emigrants can serve as cultural ambassadors, creating awareness, showcasing products and services, and helping to integrate their homeland into global value chains. They may also contribute to knowledge transfer, investment flows and business connections that boost their home and host countries’ economic development.
Moreover, immigrants’ ability to enhance trade in value added suggests they play a role in moving countries up the economic value chain. Rather than simply facilitating trade in raw materials or essential manufactured goods, immigrants appear to boost trade in more sophisticated, higher-value products and services. This is crucial for economic development, as countries that position themselves higher in global value chains tend to see bigger benefits.
Rethinking immigration and trade policies
Our observations have important implications for both immigration and trade. For one, they suggest that restrictive immigration policies might have unintended consequences, hindering a country’s trade performance and position in global value chains. Countries that want to become more economically competitive might consider more open immigration policies.
What’s more, our research indicates that immigrants’ economic benefits extend beyond the often-cited labor-market and fiscal impacts – in other words, having more workers who pay more taxes.
Our results also align with previous research highlighting the potential value of workforce diversity for businesses, particularly for firms engaged in international trade. Employees from diverse national backgrounds can bring valuable insights and connections that help their companies navigate global markets and value chains.
It’s worth noting that immigrants’ impact on trade in value added varies across countries and sectors. This suggests that rather than one-size-fits-all approaches, targeted policies might most effectively leverage immigration for economic benefit.
Advertisement
Maximizing immigration’s positive impacts on trade and value chains also requires supportive policies and institutions that allow immigrants to use their skills and networks fully. These might include programs to assist with economic integration, language training, credential recognition and support for immigrant entrepreneurship.
A new perspective on immigration
As the global economy continues to evolve, with value chains becoming ever more complex and interconnected, the role of immigrants as facilitators of trade and value creation is likely to grow even more significant. Countries that recognize and leverage this potential stand to gain a competitive edge in the global marketplace.
Our research paints a picture of immigrants not as economic burdens but as valuable assets who enhance their host and home countries’ positions in the global economy. By making sophisticated trade linkages possible, and by boosting participation in global value chains, immigrants contribute to economic growth and development in ways that go far beyond conventional understanding.
As debates around immigration continue, it’s crucial to move beyond simplistic narratives and recognize the complex and often subtle ways that immigrants contribute to prosperity. In an interconnected world, immigrants aren’t just crossing borders – they are helping to weave the fabric of global trade and value creation.
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
(Family Features) Throughout history, humans’ ability to rely on one another has been crucial to survival. Despite modern developments that help individuals live with minimal human engagement, the human need to connect remains.
However, in many parts of America, a trend toward isolation is emerging. Over the past two decades, people are spending more time alone and less time engaging with others in person, according to data from the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. One segment of Americans at particular risk of social isolation, loneliness and their negative impacts are select populations who live in rural areas.
“There is an urgent need to take action and improve mental health in rural America,” said Jeff Winton, dairy farmer and founder and chairman of Rural Minds, a nonprofit mental health advocacy organization that partnered with Pfizer to raise awareness about the physical and mental risks of social isolation. “Challenges to mental health can be inherent in a rural lifestyle, including a belief in self-reliance as a virtue, fear of judgment and difficulty getting an appointment with a limited number of mental health professionals, among others.”
Many Americans are increasingly spending more time alone according to the American Time Use Survey. They are increasingly more likely to take meetings, shop, eat and enjoy entertainment at home, making it easier for them to stay within their own four walls and avoid social interactions.
Authentic human connection is a basic but often unacknowledged necessity for health, “as essential to survival as food, water and shelter,” according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Health Effects of Social Connection and Community.
Understanding Social Isolation
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about one-third of U.S. adults reported feeling lonely and about one-fourth said they don’t have social and emotional support (the basis of social isolation).
The concepts of social isolation and loneliness can go hand-in-hand, but the two are actually quite different.
Social isolation is defined by an absence of relationships or contact with others. Someone experiencing loneliness may or may not have social connections, but lacks feelings of closeness, support or belonging. Despite the distinction, both can have a negative impact on a person’s mental and even physical health.
Several factors can influence a person’s risk for social isolation and loneliness.
“Social connection is a dynamic that changes over time,” said Nikki Shaffer, senior director, occupational health and wellness, Pfizer. “Transient feelings of loneliness or solitude may be beneficial because they can serve as motivation to reconnect. However, chronic loneliness (even if someone is not isolated) and isolation (even if someone is not lonely) can represent significant health concerns.”
Isolation in Rural America
Compared to people who live in urban areas, many rural Americans experience higher rates of depression and suicide but are less likely to access mental health care services, according to the “Health Disparities in Rural America: Current Challenges and Future Solutions” study published in “Clinical Advisor.” What’s more, CDC data shows suicide rates among people living in rural areas can be 64-68% higher than those in large urban areas.
Rural areas have 20% fewer primary care providers compared to urban areas, according to a report in JAMA, and the Health Resources and Services Administration reports more than 25 million rural Americans, more than half of rural residents, live in mental health professional shortage areas.
Among rural counties, 65% lack a psychiatrist. Nearly 30% of rural Americans don’t have internet access in their homes, which complicates the option for telehealth. These figures from Rural Minds exemplify the challenges facing rural America.
“Some people in rural communities still don’t understand or accept that mental illness is a disease,” said Winton, who grew up on a rural farm. “Rather, a mental illness can often be viewed as a personal weakness or character flaw. A lot of the stigma around mental illness results in unwarranted shame, which adds to the burden for someone already suffering from mental illness.”
Health Impacts of Social Isolation
Loneliness is far more than just a bad feeling; it harms both individual and societal health. In fact, loneliness and social isolation can increase the risk for premature death by 26% and 29%, respectively.
Lacking social connection can increase the risk for premature death as much as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day or drinking six alcoholic drinks daily.
In addition, poor or insufficient social connection is associated with increased risk of disease, including a 29% increased risk of heart disease and a 32% increased risk of stroke.
Social isolation is also associated with increased risk for anxiety, depression and dementia. Additionally, a lack of social connection may increase susceptibility to viruses and respiratory illness.
Learn more about the impact of social isolation, especially on residents of rural areas, and the steps you can take to reduce isolation and loneliness by visiting ruralminds.org.
Boost Your Social Connections
Take a proactive approach to combatting social isolation and loneliness with these everyday actions that can promote stronger social ties.
Invest time in nurturing your relationships through consistent, frequent and high-quality engagement with others. Take time each day to reach out to a friend or family member.
Minimize distractions during conversation to increase the quality of the time you spend with others. For instance, don’t check your phone during meals with friends, important conversations and family time.
Seek out opportunities to serve and support others, either by helping your family, co-workers, friends or people in your community or by participating in community service.
Be responsive, supportive and practice gratitude. As you practice these behaviors, others are more likely to reciprocate, strengthening social bonds, improving relationship satisfaction and building social capital.
Participate in social and community groups such as religious, hobby, fitness, professional and community service organizations to help foster a sense of belonging, meaning and purpose.
Seek help during times of struggle with loneliness or isolation by reaching out to a family member, friend, counselor, health care provider or the 988 crisis line.
Kelsey Juliana, a lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit over responsibility for climate change, speaks at a 2019 rally in Oregon.
AP Photo/Steve DipaolaHannah Wiseman, Penn State
The U.S. Supreme Court in March 2025 ended a decade-old lawsuit filed by a group of children who sought to hold the federal government responsible for some of the consequences of climate change. But just two months earlier, the justices allowed a similar suit from the city and county of Honolulu, Hawaii, to continue against oil and gas companies.
Evidence shows that fossil fuel companies, electric utilities and the federal government have known about climate change, its dangers and its human causes for at least 50 years. But the steps taken by fossil fuel companies, utilities and governments, including the U.S. government, have not been enough to meet international climate targets.
So local and state governments and citizens have asked the courts to force companies and public agencies to act. Their results have varied, with limited victories to date. But the cases keep coming.
In response to this federal executive seesaw of climate action, some legal claims use a court-based, or common law, approach to address climate concerns. For instance, in Connecticut v. American Electric Power, filed in 2004, nine states asked a federal judge to order power plants to reduce their emissions. The states said those emissions contributed to global warming, which they argued met the federal common law definition of a “public nuisance.”
That case ended when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the existence of a statute – the federal Clean Air Act – meant common law did not apply. Other plaintiffs have tried to use the “public nuisance” claim or a related common-law claim of “trespass” to force large power plants or oil and gas producers to pay climate-related damages. But in those cases, too, courts found that the Clean Air Act overrode the common-law grounds for those claims.
With those case outcomes, many plaintiffs have shifted their strategies, focusing more on state courts and seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for allegedly deceiving the public about the causes and effects of climate change.
Three examples of petroleum industry advertisements a lawsuit alleges are misleading about the causes of climate change.State of Maine v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sunoco and American Petroleum Insititute
Examining deception
In many cases, state and local governments are arguing that the fossil fuel industry knew about the dangers of climate change and deceived the public about them, and that the industry exaggerated the extent of its investments in energy that doesn’t emit carbon.
Rather than directly asking courts to order reduced carbon emissions, these cases tend to seek damages that will help governments cover the costs associated with climate change, such as construction of cooling centers
and repair of roads damaged by increased precipitation.
In legal terms, the lawsuits are saying oil and gas companies violated consumer-protection laws and committed common-law civil violations such as negligence. For instance, the city of Chicago alleges that major petroleum giants – along with the industry trade association the American Petroleum Institute – had “abundant knowledge” of the public harms of fossil fuels yet “actively campaigned” to hide that information and deceive consumers. Many other complaints by states and local governments make similar allegations.
Another lawsuit, from the state of Maine, lists and provides photographs of a litany of internal industry documents showing industry knowledge of the threat of climate change. That lawsuit also cites a 1977 memo from an Exxon employee to Exxon executives, which stated that “current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing atmospheric carbon dioxide increase to fossil fuel consumption,” and a 1979 internal Exxon memo about the buildup of carbon dioxide emissions, which warned that “(t)he potential problem is great and urgent.”
These complaints also show organizations supported by fossil fuel companies published ads as far back as the 1990s, with titles such as “Apocalypse No” and “Who told you the earth was warming … Chicken Little?” Some of these ads – part of a broader campaign – were funded by a group called the Information Council for the Environment, supported by coal producers and electric utilities.
Courts have dismissed some of these complaints, finding that federal laws overrule the principles those suits are based on. But many are still winding their way through the courts.
In 2023 the Supreme Court of Hawaii found that federal laws do not prevent climate claims based on state common law. In January 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the case to continue.
Lead claimant Rikki Held, then 22, confers with lawyers before the beginning of a 2023 Montana trial about young people’s rights in a time of climate change.William Campbell/Getty Images
Other approaches
Still other litigation approaches argue that governments inadequately reviewed the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, or even supported or subsidized those emissions caused by private industry. Those lawsuits – some of which were filed by children, with help from their parents or legal guardians – claim the governments’ actions violated people’s constitutional rights.
For instance, children in the Juliana v. United States case, first filed in 2015, said 50 years of petroleum-supporting actions by presidents and various federal agencies had violated their fundamental “right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that their claim was a “political question” – meant for Congress, not the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to reconsider that ruling in March 2025.
But children in Montana found more success. The Montana Constitution requires state officials and all residents to “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment … for present and future generations.” In 2024 the Montana Supreme Court determined that this provision “includes a stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties.”
The Montana Supreme Court also reviewed a state law banning officials from considering greenhouse gas emissions of projects approved by the state. The court found that the ban violated the state constitution, too. Since then, the Montana Supreme Court has specifically required state officials to review the climate effects of a project for which permits were challenged.
Concerned people and groups continue to file climate-related lawsuits across the country and around the world. They are seeing mixed results, but as the cases continue and more are filed, they are drawing attention to potential corporate and government wrongdoing, as well as the human costs of climate change. And they are inspiring shareholders and citizens to demand more accurate information and action from fossil fuel companies and electric utilities.Hannah Wiseman, Professor of Law, Penn State
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Callie Maddox, Miami University
For most baseball fans, hope springs eternal on Opening Day.
Many of those fans – more than you might think – are women.
A 2024 survey found that women made up 39% of those who attended or watched Major League Baseball games, and franchises have taken notice. The Philadelphia Phillies offer behind-the-scenes tours and clinics for their female fans, while the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees offer fantasy camps that are geared to women.
The number of women working professionally in baseball has also grown. Kim Ng made history in 2020 when she became the first woman general manager of an MLB team, the Miami Marlins. As of 2023, women made up 30% of central office professional staff and 27% of team senior administration jobs. In addition, 43 women held coaching and managerial jobs across the major and minor league levels – a 95% increase in just two years.
As a fan and scholar of the game, I’m happy to see more women watching baseball and working in the industry. But it still nags at me that the girls and women who play baseball don’t get much recognition, particularly in the U.S.
Women take the field
In the U.S., baseball is seen as a sport for boys and men. Girls and women, on the other hand, are supposed to play softball, which uses a bigger ball and has a smaller field.
It wasn’t always this way.
Women have been playing baseball in the U.S. since at least the 1860s. At women’s colleges such as Smith and Vassar, students organized baseball teams as early as 1866. The first professional women’s baseball team was known as the Dolly Vardens, a team of Black players formed in Philadelphia in 1867. Barnstorming teams, known as Bloomer Girls, traveled across the country to play against men’s teams from the 1890s to the 1930s, providing the players with independence and the means to make a living.
American women have been playing baseball since at least the 1860s.Ullstein Bild/Getty Images
The All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, founded by Philip K. Wrigley in 1943, also offered women the chance to play professionally. The league, which inspired the 1992 film “A League of Their Own,” enforced rigid norms of femininity expected at the time. Players were required to wear skirts and makeup while playing and were fined if they engaged in any behavior deemed “unladylike.” Teams were open only to white women and light-skinned Latinas. Black women were not allowed to play, a policy that reflected the segregation of the Jim Crow era.
Three Black women – Connie Morgan, Mamie “Peanut” Johnson and Toni Stone – did play in the otherwise male Negro Leagues in the early 1950s. However, their skills were often downplayed by claims that they’d been signed to generate ticket sales and boost interest in the struggling league.
The All-American Girls Professional Baseball League folded in 1954, and by the late-1950s women’s participation in baseball had dwindled.
Girls funneled into softball
Softball was invented in Chicago in 1887 as an indoor alternative to baseball.
Originally aimed at both men and women, it eventually became the accepted sport for girls and women due to its smaller field, larger ball and underhand pitching style – aspects deemed suitable for the supposedly weaker and more delicate female body.
The passage of Title IX in 1972 further pushed the popularization of fast-pitch softball, as participation in high school and college increased markedly. In 1974, the National Organization for Women filed a lawsuit against Little League Baseball because the league’s charter excluded girls from playing. The lawsuit was successful, and girls were permitted to join teams.
In response, Little League created Little League Softball as a way to funnel girls into softball instead of baseball. As political scientist Jennifer Ring has pointed out, this decision reinforced the gendered division of each sport and “cemented the post-Title IX segregated masculinity of baseball.”
Girls can still play baseball, but most are encouraged to eventually switch to softball if they want to pursue college scholarships. If they want to keep playing baseball, they have to constantly confront stubborn cultural beliefs and assumptions that they should be playing softball instead.
Instead of encouraging girls to play baseball, Little League launched Little League Softball to direct girls away from the sport.Chris Ryan/Corbis via Getty Images
A global game
You might be surprised to learn that the U.S. fields a national women’s baseball team that competes in the Women’s Baseball World Cup. But they receive scant media attention and remain unknown to most baseball fans.
In a 2019 article published in the Journal of Sport and Social Issues, I argued that the U.S. has experienced inconsistent success on the global stage because of a lack of infrastructure, limited resources and persistent gendered assumptions that hamper the development of women’s baseball. Other countries such as Japan, Canada and Australia have established solid pathways that allow girls and women to pursue baseball from the youth level through high school and beyond.
That being said, opportunities for girls to play baseball are increasing in the U.S. thanks to the efforts of organizations such as Baseball for All and DC Girls Baseball.
Approximately 1,300 girls play high school baseball, and a handful of young women play on men’s college baseball teams each year. In recent years, numerous women’s collegiate club baseball teams have been established; there’s even an annual tournament to crown a national champion.
Japanese pitcher Yukari Isozaki competes during the 2010 Women’s Baseball World Cup in Venezuela.AP Photo/Fernando Llano
Pro league in the works
Momentum continues to build.
MLB recently appointed Veronica Alvarez as its first girls baseball ambassador, who will oversee development programs such as the Trailblazers Series and the Elite Development Invitational. A new documentary film, “See Her Be Her,” is touring the country to celebrate the growth of women’s baseball and raise awareness of the challenges these athletes face.
Perhaps most significantly, the Women’s Pro Baseball League announced that it is planning to start play in summer 2026 with six teams located in the northeastern U.S. Over 500 players from 11 countries have registered with the league, with a scouting camp and player draft scheduled for later this year.
Should the league have success, it will mark a revitalization of women’s professional baseball in the U.S., a nod to the rich history of the women’s game and a commitment to securing opportunities for the girls and women who continue to defy cultural norms to play the game they love.Callie Maddox, Associate Professor of Sport Leadership and Management, Miami University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
(Family Features) Throughout history, humans’ ability to rely on one another has been crucial to survival. Despite modern developments that help individuals live with minimal human engagement, the human need to connect remains.
However, in many parts of America, a trend toward isolation is emerging. Over the past two decades, people are spending more time alone and less time engaging with others in person, according to data from the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. One segment of Americans at particular risk of social isolation, loneliness and their negative impacts are select populations who live in rural areas.
“There is an urgent need to take action and improve mental health in rural America,” said Jeff Winton, dairy farmer and founder and chairman of Rural Minds, a nonprofit mental health advocacy organization that partnered with Pfizer to raise awareness about the physical and mental risks of social isolation. “Challenges to mental health can be inherent in a rural lifestyle, including a belief in self-reliance as a virtue, fear of judgment and difficulty getting an appointment with a limited number of mental health professionals, among others.”
Many Americans are increasingly spending more time alone according to the American Time Use Survey. They are increasingly more likely to take meetings, shop, eat and enjoy entertainment at home, making it easier for them to stay within their own four walls and avoid social interactions.
Authentic human connection is a basic but often unacknowledged necessity for health, “as essential to survival as food, water and shelter,” according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Health Effects of Social Connection and Community.
Understanding Social Isolation
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about one-third of U.S. adults reported feeling lonely and about one-fourth said they don’t have social and emotional support (the basis of social isolation).
The concepts of social isolation and loneliness can go hand-in-hand, but the two are actually quite different.
Social isolation is defined by an absence of relationships or contact with others. Someone experiencing loneliness may or may not have social connections, but lacks feelings of closeness, support or belonging. Despite the distinction, both can have a negative impact on a person’s mental and even physical health.
Several factors can influence a person’s risk for social isolation and loneliness.
“Social connection is a dynamic that changes over time,” said Nikki Shaffer, senior director, occupational health and wellness, Pfizer. “Transient feelings of loneliness or solitude may be beneficial because they can serve as motivation to reconnect. However, chronic loneliness (even if someone is not isolated) and isolation (even if someone is not lonely) can represent significant health concerns.”
Isolation in Rural America
Compared to people who live in urban areas, many rural Americans experience higher rates of depression and suicide but are less likely to access mental health care services, according to the “Health Disparities in Rural America: Current Challenges and Future Solutions” study published in “Clinical Advisor.” What’s more, CDC data shows suicide rates among people living in rural areas can be 64-68% higher than those in large urban areas.
Rural areas have 20% fewer primary care providers compared to urban areas, according to a report in JAMA, and the Health Resources and Services Administration reports more than 25 million rural Americans, more than half of rural residents, live in mental health professional shortage areas.
Among rural counties, 65% lack a psychiatrist. Nearly 30% of rural Americans don’t have internet access in their homes, which complicates the option for telehealth. These figures from Rural Minds exemplify the challenges facing rural America.
“Some people in rural communities still don’t understand or accept that mental illness is a disease,” said Winton, who grew up on a rural farm. “Rather, a mental illness can often be viewed as a personal weakness or character flaw. A lot of the stigma around mental illness results in unwarranted shame, which adds to the burden for someone already suffering from mental illness.”
Health Impacts of Social Isolation
Loneliness is far more than just a bad feeling; it harms both individual and societal health. In fact, loneliness and social isolation can increase the risk for premature death by 26% and 29%, respectively.
Lacking social connection can increase the risk for premature death as much as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day or drinking six alcoholic drinks daily.
In addition, poor or insufficient social connection is associated with increased risk of disease, including a 29% increased risk of heart disease and a 32% increased risk of stroke.
Social isolation is also associated with increased risk for anxiety, depression and dementia. Additionally, a lack of social connection may increase susceptibility to viruses and respiratory illness.
Learn more about the impact of social isolation, especially on residents of rural areas, and the steps you can take to reduce isolation and loneliness by visiting 
Hannah Wiseman, Professor of Law, Penn State
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
