Ray Ranjan, Kumar Sanjesh
Department of Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Indian Econ Rev. 2021;56(1):173-214. doi: 10.1007/s41775-021-00111-y. Epub 2021 May 17.
This study attempts an integrated analysis of the health and economic aspects of COVID-19 that is based on publicly available data from a wide range of data sources. The analysis is done keeping in mind the close interaction between the health and economic shocks of COVID-19. The study combines descriptive and qualitative approaches using figures and graphs with quantitative methods that estimate the plotted relationships and econometric estimation that attempts to explain cross-country variation in COVID-19 incidence, deaths and 'case fatality rates'. The study seeks to answer a set of questions on COVID-19 such as: what are the economic effects of COVID-19, focussing on international inequality and global poverty? How effective was lockdown in curbing COVID-19? What was the effect of lockdown on economic growth? Did the stimulus packages work in delinking the health shocks from the economic ones? Did 'better governed countries' with greater public trust and those with superior health care fare better than others? Did countries that have experienced previous outbreaks such as SARS fare better than those who have not? The study provides mixed messages on the effectiveness of lockdowns in controlling COVID-19. While several countries, especially in the East Asia and Pacific region, have used it quite effectively recording low infection rates going into lockdown and staying low after the lockdown, the two spectacular failures are Brazil and India. In contrast to lockdown, the evidence on the effectiveness of stimulus programs in avoiding recession and promoting growth is unequivocal. The effectiveness is much greater in the case of emerging/developing economies than in the advanced economies. Multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF need to work out a coordinated strategy to declare immediate debt relief and provide additional liquidity to the poorer economies to help them announce effective stimulus measures. COVID-19 will lead to a large increase in the global pool of those living in 'extreme poverty'. A poignant feature of our results is that while a significant share of health shocks from COVID-19 is borne by the advanced economies, the burden of 'COVID-19 poverty' will almost exclusively fall on two of the poorest regions, namely, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
本研究基于广泛数据源的公开数据，尝试对新冠疫情的健康和经济方面进行综合分析。分析过程中充分考虑了新冠疫情健康冲击与经济冲击之间的紧密相互作用。该研究将使用图表的描述性和定性方法与估计所绘制关系的定量方法以及试图解释新冠疫情发病率、死亡率和“病死率”跨国差异的计量经济学估计相结合。该研究旨在回答一系列关于新冠疫情的问题，例如：新冠疫情的经济影响是什么，重点关注国际不平等和全球贫困？封锁措施在遏制新冠疫情方面效果如何？封锁对经济增长有何影响？刺激计划在将健康冲击与经济冲击脱钩方面是否有效？具有更高公众信任度和更优质医疗保健的“治理更好的国家”是否比其他国家表现更好？经历过非典等先前疫情爆发的国家是否比未经历过的国家表现更好？该研究对于封锁措施在控制新冠疫情方面的有效性给出了喜忧参半的信息。虽然有几个国家，尤其是东亚和太平洋地区的国家，相当有效地利用了封锁措施，在实施封锁前感染率较低，封锁后也保持在低水平，但两个显著的失败案例是巴西和印度。与封锁措施形成对比的是，关于刺激计划在避免衰退和促进增长方面有效性的证据是明确的。新兴/发展中经济体的有效性远高于发达经济体。世界银行和国际货币基金组织等多边机构需要制定一项协调战略，宣布立即减免债务，并向较贫穷经济体提供额外流动性，以帮助它们宣布有效的刺激措施。新冠疫情将导致全球“极端贫困”人口大幅增加。我们研究结果的一个突出特点是，虽然新冠疫情造成的健康冲击很大一部分由发达经济体承担，但“新冠疫情贫困”的负担几乎将完全落在两个最贫困地区，即撒哈拉以南非洲和南亚。
