Change language
English Deutsch
Change currency
€ EUR £ GBP $ USD
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 19, 2021

Protecting Lives and Livelihoods with Early and Tight Lockdowns

  • Francesca Caselli EMAIL logo , Francesco Grigoli and Damiano Sandri
From the journal The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics
https://doi.org/10.1515/bejm-2020-0266

Abstract

Using high-frequency proxies for economic activity over a large sample of countries, we show that the economic crisis during the first seven months of the COVID-19 pandemic was only partly due to government lockdowns. Economic activity also contracted severely because of voluntary social distancing in response to higher infections. Furthermore, we show that lockdowns substantially reduced COVID-19 cases, especially if they were introduced early in a country’s epidemic. This implies that, despite involving short-term economic costs, lockdowns may pave the way to a faster recovery by containing the spread of the virus and reducing voluntary social distancing. Finally, we document that lockdowns entail decreasing marginal economic costs but increasing marginal benefits in reducing infections. This suggests that tight short-lived lockdowns are preferable to mild prolonged measures.

Keywords: COVID-19; infections; lockdown; mobility; voluntary social distancing
JEL Classification: E1; I1; H0
Corresponding author: Francesca Caselli, IMF, Washington, USA, E-mail:
The views expressed in this working paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF, its Executive Board, or its management. Working papers describe research in progress by the authors and are published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. We thank Jörg Decressin, Gabriel Di Bella, Gian Maria Milesi Ferretti, Gita Gopinath, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Òscar Jordà, Malhar Nabar, Mikkel Plagborg-Møller, and Antonio Spilimbergo for insightful comments.

Appendix A: Data Sources and Country Coverage

Table A.1 lists the data sources used in the analysis. The country coverage for the different sections of the analysis is reported in Table A.2, with the selection of countries being driven by data availability. For the analysis relying on high-frequency indicators, the sample includes 22 countries when job postings are used and 128 countries when mobility is used. When we employ sub-national data on mobility, the sample consists of 422 units for 15 G20 countries. Finally, the analysis of infections is based on a sample of 89 countries for which information on temperature, humidity, testing, and contact tracing is available. At the sub-national level, the sample consists of 373 units for G20 15 countries.

Table A.1:

Data sources.

Indicator Source
Contact tracing Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker
COVID-19 cases Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker
Humidity Air Quality Open Data Platform
Lockdown stringency index Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker
Mobility Google Community Mobility Reports, Baidu for China
Stock of job postings Indeed
Temperature Air Quality Open Data Platform
Testing Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker
Table A.2:

Country coverage.

Country Samples Country Samples Country Samples
Afghanistan Mn, In Iraq Mn, In Guatemala Mn, In
Algeria In Ireland Mn, In, Jp Guinea In
Angola Mn Israel Mn, In Haiti Mn
Argentina Mn, Ms, In, Is Italy Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp Honduras Mn
Aruba Mn Jamaica Mn Hong Kong SAR Mn, In, Jp
Australia Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp Japan Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp Hungary Mn, In
Austria Mn, In, Jp Jordan Mn, In Iceland In
Bahrain Mn, In Kazakhstan Mn, In India Mn, Ms, In, Is
Bangladesh Mn, In Kenya Mn Indonesia Mn, Ms, In, Is
Barbados Mn Korea Mn, In Iran In
Belarus Mn Kosovo In Puerto Rico Mn
Belgium Mn, In, Jp Kuwait Mn, In Qatar Mn
Belize Mn Kyrgyz Republic Mn, In Romania Mn, In
Benin Mn Lao P.D.R. Mn, In Russia Mn, In
Bolivia Mn, In Latvia Mn Rwanda Mn
Bosnia and Herzegovina Mn, In Lebanon Mn Saudi Arabia Mn, Ms, In, Is
Botswana Mn Libya Mn Senegal Mn
Brazil Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp Lithuania Mn, In Serbia Mn, In
Bulgaria Mn, In Luxembourg Mn Singapore Mn, In, Jp
Burkina Faso Mn Macao SAR In Slovak Republic Mn, In
Cambodia Mn Malaysia Mn, In Slovenia Mn
Cameroon Mn Mali Mn, In South Africa Mn, Ms, In, Is
Canada Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp Mauritius Mn Spain Mn, In, Jp
Chile Mn, In Mexico Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp Sri Lanka Mn, In
China Mn, Ms, In, Is Moldova Mn Sweden Mn, In, Jp
Colombia Mn, In Mongolia Mn, In Switzerland Mn, In, Jp
Costa Rica Mn, In Morocco Mn Taiwan Province of China Mn
Croatia Mn, In Mozambique Mn Tajikistan Mn, In
Czech Republic Mn, In Myanmar Mn, In Tanzania Mn
Côte d’Ivoire Mn, In Namibia Mn Thailand Mn, In
Cyprus In Nepal Mn, In Togo Mn
Denmark Mn, In Netherlands Mn, In, Jp Trinidad and Tobago Mn
Dominican Republic Mn New Zealand Mn, In, Jp Turkey Mn, In
Ecuador Mn, In Nicaragua Mn Uganda Mn, In
Egypt Mn Niger Mn Ukraine Mn, In
El Salvador Mn, In Nigeria Mn United Arab Emirates Mn, In, Jp
Estonia Mn, In Norway Mn, In United Kingdom Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp
Ethiopia In Oman Mn United States Mn, In, Jp
Fiji Mn Pakistan Mn, In Uruguay Mn
Finland Mn, In Panama Mn Uzbekistan In
France Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp Papua New Guinea Mn Venezuela Mn
Gabon Mn Paraguay Mn Vietnam Mn, In
Georgia Mn, In Peru Mn, In Yemen Mn
Germany Mn, Ms, In, Is, Jp Philippines Mn, In Zambia Mn
Ghana Mn, In Poland Mn, In, Jp Zimbabwe Mn
Greece Mn, In Portugal Mn, In

  1. Mn, national-level regressions of mobility; Ms, subnational-level regressions of mobility; In, national-level regressions of infections; Is, subnational-level regressions of infections; Jp, job postings.

Appendix B: Lockdown Stringency Dynamics

When interpreting the results from local projections, it is important to consider that the estimation controls for present and past levels of lockdowns and infections but not for future levels. Figure B.1 illustrates the predicted future path of lockdowns implied by the local projections. Panel B.1a shows that a lockdown tightening at time t tends to persist in the future while gradually easing. Panel B.1b shows that a doubling of infections leads to a modest subsequent lockdown tightening, of about two points out of a scale of 100.

Figure B.1: Lockdown dynamics (index). The x-axes denote the number of days, the lines denote the point estimates, and the shaded areas correspond to 90% confidence intervals computed with standard errors clustered at the country level.
Figure B.1:

Lockdown dynamics (index).

The x-axes denote the number of days, the lines denote the point estimates, and the shaded areas correspond to 90% confidence intervals computed with standard errors clustered at the country level.

Appendix C: Main Regression Results

Table C.1:

Regressions of mobility.

h = 0 h = 5 h = 10 h = 15 h = 20 h = 25 h = 30
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Stringency index −0.026*** −0.214*** −0.223*** −0.161*** −0.103*** −0.050** −0.028
(0.004) (0.018) (0.022) (0.022) (0.025) (0.024) (0.021)
Ln of daily COVID-19 cases −0.128*** −1.561*** −2.744*** −2.992*** −3.124*** −3.106*** −2.682***
(0.030) (0.201) (0.313) (0.379) (0.405) (0.463) (0.409)
Number of countries 128 128 128 128 128 128 128
Observations 17,995 17,686 17,139 16,519 15,880 15,240 14,600
R 2 0.998 0.954 0.903 0.872 0.850 0.845 0.856

  1. Source: Authors’ calculations. h denotes the horizon of the dependent variable. All specifications include seven lags of the dependent variable and any other regressor, and country and time fixed effects. Clustered standard errors at the country level are reported in parentheses. ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at 1, 5, and 10%, respectively.

Table C.2:

Regressions of COVID-19 infections.

h = 0 h = 5 h = 10 h = 15 h = 20 h = 25 h = 30
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Stringency index −0.000* −0.000 −0.001 −0.001 −0.002 −0.004** −0.005**
(0.000) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Temperature 0.000 0.000 −0.001 −0.003** −0.005** −0.006** −0.007**
(0.000) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) (0.003) (0.003)
Humidity −0.000 0.000 −0.000 −0.000 −0.001* −0.001* −0.001
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001)
Public information campaigns 0.006 0.032 0.049 0.184 0.407 0.534 0.571
(0.009) (0.099) (0.148) (0.177) (0.271) (0.334) (0.409)
Testing 0.002 0.021 0.052 0.135* 0.161* 0.168 0.156
(0.002) (0.016) (0.034) (0.068) (0.094) (0.112) (0.114)
Contact tracing −0.003 −0.015 −0.030 −0.044 −0.057 −0.059 −0.031
(0.004) (0.020) (0.032) (0.050) (0.068) (0.083) (0.093)
Number of countries 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Observations 10,832 10,793 10,571 10,204 9,763 9,318 8,873
R 2 0.914 0.881 0.859 0.848 0.843 0.841 0.844

  1. Source: Authors’ calculations. h denotes the horizon of the dependent variable. All specifications include seven lags of the dependent variable and any other regressor, a linear and a quadratic trend, and country and time fixed effects. Seven lags of each variables are included in the estimations. Clustered standard errors at the country level are reported in parentheses. ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at 1, 5, and 10%, respectively.

Appendix D: Robustness Results

Figure D.1: Impact of a full lockdown on mobility (percent). The x-axes denote the number of days, the lines denote the point estimates, and the shaded areas correspond to 90% confidence intervals computed with standard errors clustered at the country level.
Figure D.1:

Impact of a full lockdown on mobility (percent).

The x-axes denote the number of days, the lines denote the point estimates, and the shaded areas correspond to 90% confidence intervals computed with standard errors clustered at the country level.

Figure D.2: Impact of voluntary social distancing on mobility (impact of a doubling in daily COVID-19 cases, percent). The x-axes denote the number of days, the lines denote the point estimates, and the shaded areas correspond to 90% confidence intervals computed with standard errors clustered at the country level.
Figure D.2:

Impact of voluntary social distancing on mobility (impact of a doubling in daily COVID-19 cases, percent).

The x-axes denote the number of days, the lines denote the point estimates, and the shaded areas correspond to 90% confidence intervals computed with standard errors clustered at the country level.

Figure D.3: Heterogeneous response of mobility (percent). The x-axes denote the number of days, the lines denote the point estimates, and the shaded areas correspond to 90% confidence intervals computed with standard errors clustered at the country level.
Figure D.3:

Heterogeneous response of mobility (percent).

The x-axes denote the number of days, the lines denote the point estimates, and the shaded areas correspond to 90% confidence intervals computed with standard errors clustered at the country level.

References

Adda, J. 2016. “Economic Activity and the Spread of Viral Diseases: Evidence from High Frequency Data.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131 (2): 891–941, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw005.Search in Google Scholar

Andersen, A. L., E. T. Hansen, N. Johannesen, and S. Adam. 2020. “Pandemic, Shutdown and Consumer Spending: Lessons from Scandinavian Policy Responses to COVID-19.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04630.Search in Google Scholar

Aum, S., S. Y. Tim Lee, and Y. Shin. 2020. “COVID-19 Doesn’t Need Lockdowns to Destroy Jobs: The Effect of Local Outbreaks in Korea.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 27264.10.3386/w27264Search in Google Scholar

Baek, C. W., P. B. McCrory, M. Todd, and M. Preston. 2020. “Unemployment Effects of Stay-at-Home Orders: Evidence from High Frequency Claims Data.” Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Working Paper (101-20).Search in Google Scholar

Baker, S. R., R. A. Farrokhnia, S. Meyer, M. Pagel, and C. Yannelis. 2020. “How Does Household Spending Respond to an Epidemic? Consumption During the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic.” The Review of Asset Pricing Studies 10 (4): 834–862, https://doi.org/10.1093/rapstu/raaa009.Search in Google Scholar

Bartik, A. W., M. Bertrand, F. Lin, J. Rothstein, and M. Unrath. 2020. “Measuring the Labor Market at the Onset of the COVID-19 Crisis.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 27613.10.3386/w27613Search in Google Scholar

Beland, L.-P., B. Abel, and W. Taylor. 2020. “COVID-19, Stay-at-Home Orders and Employment: Evidence from CPS Data.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 13282.10.2139/ssrn.3608531Search in Google Scholar

Born, B., A. Dietrich, and G. J. Müller. 2020. “Do Lockdowns Work? A Counterfactual for Sweden.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP14744.Search in Google Scholar

Carvalho, V. M., S. Hansen, A. Ortiz, J. R. Garcia, T. Rodrigo, S. Rodriguez Mora, and P. R. de Aguirre. 2020. “Tracking the COVID-19 Crisis with High- Resolution Transaction Data.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP14642.10.1098/rsos.210218Search in Google Scholar

Chen, S., D. Igan, N. Pierri, and A. F. Presbitero. 2020. “Tracking the Economic Impact of COVID-19 and Mitigation Policies in Europe and the United States.” Covid Economics 36.10.5089/9781513549644.001Search in Google Scholar

Chernozhukov, V., H. Kasaha, and S. Paul. 2020. “Causal Impact of Masks, Policies, Behavior on Early Covid-19 Pandemic in the U.S.” Covid Economics (35): 116–175.10.1101/2020.05.27.20115139Search in Google Scholar

Chetty, R., J. N. Friedman, N. Hendren, and M. Stepner. 2020. “How Did COVID- 19 and Stabilization Policies Affect Spending and Employment? A New Real-Time Economic Tracker Based on Private Sector Data.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 27431.Search in Google Scholar

Chronopoulos, D. K., M. Lukas, and J. O. S. Wilson. 2020. “Consumer Spending Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Assessment of Great Britain.” Covid Economics 34: 145–186.10.2139/ssrn.3586723Search in Google Scholar

Coibion, O., Y. Gorodnichenko, and M. Weber. 2020. “The Cost of the COVID-19 Crisis: Lockdowns, Macroeconomic Expectations, and Consumer Spending.” Covid Economics 20: 1–51.10.3386/w27141Search in Google Scholar

Correia, S., S. Luck, and E. Verner. 2020. “Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu”. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560.10.2139/ssrn.3561560Search in Google Scholar

Dave, D., A. I. Friedson, K. Matsuzawa, and J. J. Sabia. 2020. “When Do Shelter-in-Place Orders Fight COVID-19 Best? Policy Heterogeneity Across States and Adoption Time.” Economic Inquiry 59 (1): 29–52, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12944.Search in Google Scholar

Demirgüç-Kunt, A., M. Lokshin, and I. Torre. 2020. “The Sooner, the Better : The Early Economic Impact of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” World Bank Policy Research. Working Paper No. 9257.10.1596/1813-9450-9257Search in Google Scholar

Fang, H., L. Wang, and Y. Yang. 2020. “Human Mobility Restrictions and the Spread of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-ncov) in China.” Journal of Public Economics 191: 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104272.Search in Google Scholar

Forsythe, E., L. B. Kahn, F. Lange, and D. Wiczer. 2020. “Labor Demand in the Time of COVID-19: Evidence from Vacancy Postings and UI Claims.” Journal of Public Economics 189: 104238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104238.Search in Google Scholar

Friedson, A. I., D. McNichols, J. J. Sabia, and D. Dave. 2020. “Did California’s Shelter-in-Place Order Work? Early Coronavirus-Related Public Health Effects.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 26992.10.3386/w26992Search in Google Scholar

Gapen, M., J. Millar, B. Uruçi, and P. Sriram. 2020. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Alternative Measures to Slow the Spread of COVID-19 in the United States.” Covid Economics: 46.Search in Google Scholar

Glaeser, E. L., C. S. Gorback, and J. R. Stephen. 2020. “How Much Does COVID-19 Increase with Mobility? Evidence from New York and Four Other US Cities.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 27519.10.3386/w27519Search in Google Scholar

Goolsbee, A., and C. Syverson. 2020. “Fear, Lockdown, and Diversion: Comparing Drivers of Pandemic Economic Decline.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 27432.10.3386/w27432Search in Google Scholar

Gupta, S., L. Montenovo, D. N. Thuy, F. L. Rojas, I. M. Schmutte, K. I. Simon, B. A. Weinberg, and C. Wing. 2020. “Effects of Social Distancing Policy on Labor Market Outcomes.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 27280.10.3386/w27280Search in Google Scholar

Imai, N., K. A. M. Gaythorpe, S. Abbott, S. Bhatia, S. van Elsland, P. Kiesha, Y. Liu, and N. M. Ferguson. 2020. “Adoption and Impact of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions for COVID-19.” Wellcome Open Research 5: 1–17, https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15808.1.Search in Google Scholar

Jinjarak, Y., R. Ahmed, S. Nair-Desai, W. Xin, and J. Aizenman. 2020. “Accounting for Global COVID-19 Diffusion Patterns, January–April 2020.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 27185.10.3386/w27185Search in Google Scholar

Jordà, Ö. 2005. “Estimation and Inference of Impulse Responses by Local Projections.” American Economic Review 95 (1): 161–82, https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828053828518.Search in Google Scholar

Maloney, W., and T. Taskin. 2020. “Determinants of Social Distancing and Economic Activity During COVID-19: A Global View.” The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper 9242.10.1596/1813-9450-9242Search in Google Scholar

Rojas, F. L., X. Jiang, L. Montenovo, K. I. Simon, B. A. Weinberg, and C. Wing. 2020. “Is the Cure Worse than the Problem Itself? Immediate Labor Market Effects of COVID-19 Case Rates and School Closures in the U.S.” NBER Working Paper 27127.10.3386/w27127Search in Google Scholar

Yilmazkuday, H. 2020. “COVID-19 Deaths and Inter-County Travel: Daily Evidence from the US.” Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 8: 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100244.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2020-12-11
Accepted: 2021-02-08
Published Online: 2021-04-19

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

From the journal
The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics
The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics
Volume 22 Issue 1
Submit manuscript

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same Issue

Frontmatter
Supply-side Effects of Pandemic Mortality: Insights from an Overlapping-generations Model
Precaution, Social Distancing and Tests in a Model of Epidemic Disease
Quarantine, Contact Tracing, and Testing: Implications of an Augmented SEIR Model
Cash-Management in Times of Covid-19
The Mechanics of Individually- and Socially-Optimal Decisions during an Epidemic
Assessing Targeted Containment Policies to Fight COVID-19
Lockdown Accounting
COVID Social Distancing and the Poor: An Analysis of the Evidence for England
Protecting Lives and Livelihoods with Early and Tight Lockdowns
Home Production and Leisure during the COVID-19 Recession
The Impact of the Lockdown on the Greek Economy and the Role of the Recovery Fund
Handle with Care: Regulatory Easing in Times of COVID-19
Downloaded on 5.5.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejm-2020-0266/html
Scroll to top button