IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v203y2025i1d10.1007_s11127-024-01185-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Demonstrated risk preferences and COVID-19 regulations in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Anderson

    (University of Nottingham)

Abstract

Research has pointed towards U.S. state officials setting COVID regulations based on their constituents’ political affiliation. But a further explanation is needed as prior to 2020, U.S. voters did not choose their political party in accord with how they thought politicians would act in a pandemic. In contrast, other papers have found that people with higher risk preferences took fewer mitigating actions during COVID. Building on these results and the public choice view that political markets lack a dynamic-feedback process, this paper hypothesizes that upcoming elections incentivized state officials to partially set regulations in congruence with their constituents’ demonstrated risk preferences. The hypothesis is tested with a balanced panel of all U.S. states over seven time periods ranging from April until shortly before the 2020 election. A log-linear hybrid model finds a negative relationship between risky actions and the stringency of COVID regulations at the between-state level. The relationship is statistically and regulatorily significant while controlling for relevant time-varying and time-invariant health, political, and economic measures. Multiple robustness tests confirm these results, including instrumenting people’s risky actions. At the within-state level, regulations only varied with changes in revealed risk preferences when governors faced impending feedback from a reelection contest. Republican governors running for reelection decreased regulations when revealed risk taking increased whereas their Democratic counterparts responded by increasing regulations. In states without a gubernatorial election, regulations show little responsiveness to changes in risk taking, corroborating the public choice viewpoint.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Anderson, 2025. "Demonstrated risk preferences and COVID-19 regulations in the United States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 203(1), pages 53-75, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01185-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-024-01185-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-024-01185-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-024-01185-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Miozzi & Benjamin Powell, 2023. "The pre-pandemic political economy determinants of lockdown severity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 167-183, October.
    2. Rowley, Charles K, 1997. "Donald Wittman's The Myth of Democratic Failure: Review Article," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 92(1-2), pages 15-26, July.
    3. Gonzalez-Eiras, Martín & Niepelt, Dirk, 2022. "The political economy of early COVID-19 interventions in US states," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    4. Sutter, Daniel, 2002. "The Democratic Efficiency Debate and Definitions of Political Equilibrium," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 15(2-3), pages 199-209, June.
    5. Ying Fan & A. Yeşim Orhun & Dana Turjeman, 2020. "Heterogeneous Actions, Beliefs, Constraints and Risk Tolerance During the COVID-19 Pandemic," NBER Working Papers 27211, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Thomas Hale & Noam Angrist & Rafael Goldszmidt & Beatriz Kira & Anna Petherick & Toby Phillips & Samuel Webster & Emily Cameron-Blake & Laura Hallas & Saptarshi Majumdar & Helen Tatlow, 2021. "A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker)," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 529-538, April.
    7. Ketki Sheth & Greg C. Wright, 2020. "The usual suspects: do risk tolerance, altruism, and health predict the response to COVID-19?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 1041-1052, December.
    8. Peter T. Leeson & Louis Rouanet, 2021. "Externality and COVID‐19," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(4), pages 1107-1118, April.
    9. Ho Fai Chan & Ahmed Skali & David Savage & David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Risk Attitudes and Human Mobility during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Papers 2006.06078, arXiv.org.
    10. Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling & Nur Amiera binti Md Suhud & Pau Chung Leng & Lee Bak Yeo & Chin Tiong Cheng & Mohd Hamdan Haji Ahmad & Ak Mohd Rafiq Ak Matusin, 2021. "Factors Influencing Asia-Pacific Countries’ Success Level in Curbing COVID-19: A Review Using a Social–Ecological System (SES) Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-27, February.
    11. Ling, Gabriel Hoh Teck & Suhud, Nur Amiera binti Md & Leng, Pau Chung & Yeo, Lee Bak & Cheng, Chin Tiong & Ahmad, Mohd Hamdan Haji & Matusin, AK Mohd Rafiq AK, 2021. "Factors Influencing Asia-Pacific Countries’ Success Level in Curbing COVID-19: A Review Using a Social–Ecological System (SES) Framework," SocArXiv b9f2w, Center for Open Science.
    12. Marcus Drometer & Romuald Méango, 2020. "Electoral cycles, partisan effects and US naturalization policies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 43-68, April.
    13. Reinhard Schunck & Francisco Perales, 2017. "Within- and between-cluster effects in generalized linear mixed models: A discussion of approaches and the xthybrid command," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 17(1), pages 89-115, March.
    14. Bazzi, Samuel & Fiszbein, Martin & Gebresilasse, Mesay, 2021. "“Rugged individualism” and collective (in)action during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    15. Anderson, Lisa R. & Mellor, Jennifer M., 2008. "Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1260-1274, September.
    16. Veronica L. Thomas & Hooman Mirahmad & Grace Kemper, 2022. "The role of response efficacy and risk aversion in promoting compliance during crisis," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 1454-1474, December.
    17. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Htay-Wah Saw & Dana P. Goldman, 2020. "Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 177-194, October.
    18. Simon Condliffe & Gregory T. Fiorentino, 2014. "The impact of risk preference on health insurance and health expenditures in the United States," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(9), pages 613-616, June.
    19. Peter Boettke & Christopher Coyne & Peter Leeson, 2007. "Saving government failure theory from itself: recasting political economy from an Austrian perspective," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 127-143, June.
    20. Daniel R. Petrolia & Craig E. Landry & Keith H. Coble, 2013. "Risk Preferences, Risk Perceptions, and Flood Insurance," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 227-245.
    21. repec:osf:socarx:b9f2w_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Martin K. Mayer & John C. Morris & Ryan D. Williamson & Jan C. Hume & Steven P. McKnight & Nurun Naher & Sindhu Weber & Xiaodan Zhang, 2022. "Politics or need? Explaining state protective measures in the coronavirus pandemic," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1140-1154, September.
    23. Rui Mata & Renato Frey & David Richter & Jürgen Schupp & Ralph Hertwig, 2018. "Risk Preference: A View from Psychology," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 155-172, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bin Chen & Yao Liu & Bo Yan & Long Wu & Xiaomin Zhang, 2023. "Why were some countries more successful than others in curbing early COVID-19 mortality impact? A cross-country configurational analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Dagorn, Etienne & Dattilo, Martina & Pourieux, Matthieu, 2024. "The role of populations’ behavioral traits in policy-making during a global crisis: Worldwide evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    3. Hassad de Andrade, Liz & Moreira Antunes, Jorge Junio & Araújo de Medeiros, Antônio Mamede & Wanke, Peter & Nunes, Bernardo Pereira, 2022. "The impact of social welfare and COVID-19 stringency on the perceived utility of food apps: A hybrid MCDM approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PB).
    4. Vincent Miozzi & Benjamin Powell, 2023. "The pre-pandemic political economy determinants of lockdown severity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 167-183, October.
    5. Xu,Yuanwei & Delius,Antonia Johanna Sophie & Pape,Utz Johann, 2022. "Gender Differences in Household Coping Strategies for COVID-19 in Kenya," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9959, The World Bank.
    6. SeEun Jung & Sang-Hyun Kim, 2020. "Managing the Public Health Risks in the Time of COVID-19," Working papers 2020rwp-181, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    7. Daryna Grechyna, 2024. "Elections and policies: Evidence from the Covid pandemic," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 77(3), pages 812-831, August.
    8. Leonhard K. Lades & Kate Laffan & Till O. Weber, 2020. "Do economic preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour?," Working Papers 202003, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    9. Yating Chuang & John Chung-En Liu, 2020. "Who wears a mask? Gender differences in risk behaviors in the COVID-19 early days in Taiwan," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 2619-2627.
    10. Grimalda, Gianluca & Murtin, Fabrice & Pipke, David & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    11. Kawamura, Tetsuya & Mori, Tomoharu & Motonishi, Taizo & Ogawa, Kazuhito, 2021. "Is Financial Literacy Dangerous? Financial Literacy, Behavioral Factors, and Financial Choices of Households," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    13. Étienne Dagorn & Martina Dattilo & Matthieu Pourieux, 2022. "Preferences matter! Political Responses to the COVID-19 and Population’s Preferences," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 2022-01, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    14. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    15. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.
    16. Henrike Sternberg & Janina Isabel Steinert & Tim Büthe, 2024. "Compliance in the public versus the private realm: Economic preferences, institutional trust and COVID‐19 health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 1055-1119, May.
    17. Lee, Sang Yoon(Tim), 2022. "The political economy of early COVID-19 interventions in U.S. states: Comment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    18. Rosolino A. Candela & Vincent J. Geloso, 2020. "The Lighthouse Debate and the Dynamics of Interventionism," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(3), pages 289-314, September.
    19. Ren, He & Zheng, Yi, 2023. "COVID-19 vaccination and household savings: An economic recovery channel," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    20. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:203:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-024-01185-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.