IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0287257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Correlates of support for international vaccine solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey evidence from Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Florian Stoeckel
  • Jack Thompson
  • Paula Szewach
  • Sabrina Stöckli
  • Matthew Barnfield
  • Joseph B Phillips
  • Benjamin Lyons
  • Vittorio Mérola
  • Jason Reifler

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many residents of high-income countries (HICs) were eligible for COVID-19 vaccine boosters, while many residents of lower-income countries (LICs) had not yet received a first dose. HICs made some efforts to contribute to COVID-19 vaccination efforts in LICs, but these efforts were limited in scale. A new literature discusses the normative importance of an international redistribution of vaccines. Our analysis contributes an empirical perspective on the willingness of citizens in a HIC to contribute to such efforts (which we term international vaccine solidarity). We analyse the levels and predictors of international vaccine solidarity. We surveyed a representative sample of German adults (n = 2019) who participated in a two-wave YouGov online survey (w1: Sep 13–21, 2021 and w2: Oct 4–13, 2021). International vaccine solidarity is measured by asking respondents preferences for sharing vaccine supplies internationally versus using that supply as boosters for the domestic population. We examine a set of pre-registered hypotheses. Almost half of the respondents in our sample (48%) prioritize giving doses to citizens in less developed countries. A third of respondents (33%) prefer to use available doses as boosters domestically, and a fifth of respondents (19%) did not report a preference. In line with our hypotheses, respondents higher in cosmopolitanism and empathy, and those who support domestic redistribution exhibit more support for international dose-sharing. Older respondents (who might be more at risk) do not consistently show less support for vaccine solidarity. These results help us to get a better understanding of the way citizens’ form preferences about a mechanism that redistributes medical supplies internationally during a global crisis.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian Stoeckel & Jack Thompson & Paula Szewach & Sabrina Stöckli & Matthew Barnfield & Joseph B Phillips & Benjamin Lyons & Vittorio Mérola & Jason Reifler, 2023. "Correlates of support for international vaccine solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey evidence from Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-12, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287257
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287257
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287257&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0287257?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Corneo, Giacomo & Gruner, Hans Peter, 2002. "Individual preferences for political redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 83-107, January.
    2. Gilens, Martin, 2001. "Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 379-396, June.
    3. Heinrich, Tobias & Kobayashi, Yoshiharu & Bryant, Kristin A., 2016. "Public Opinion and Foreign Aid Cuts in Economic Crises," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 66-79.
    4. Linda Alvarez & Constantine Boussalis & Jennifer L. Merolla & Caryn A. Peiffer, 2018. "Love thy neighbour: Social identity and public support for humanitarian aid," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(S2), pages 935-953, September.
    5. Baker, Andy, 2015. "Race, Paternalism, and Foreign Aid: Evidence from U.S. Public Opinion," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 93-109, February.
    6. Ferdinand Geissler & Felix Hartmann & Macartan Humphreys & Heike Klüver & Johannes Giesecke, 2022. "Public support for global vaccine sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Simas, Elizabeth N. & Clifford, Scott & Kirkland, Justin H., 2020. "How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(1), pages 258-269, February.
    8. Thérien, Jean-Philippe & Noël, Alain, 2000. "Political Parties and Foreign Aid," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(1), pages 151-162, March.
    9. Pieter Vanhuysse & Michael Jankowski & Markus Tepe, 2021. "Vaccine alliance building blocks: a conjoint experiment on popular support for international COVID-19 cooperation formats," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 493-506, September.
    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. Kobayashi, Yoshiharu & Heinrich, Tobias & Bryant, Kristin A., 2021. "Public support for development aid during the COVID-19 pandemic," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. Christopher A. Simon & Michael C. Moltz, 2019. "Immigrant Citizens and Racial Resentment in International Policy Perspective: The Role of Nativity and Racial Resentment in Shaping Support for US Foreign Assistance Expenditure, 2002–2016," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 62(1), pages 186-195, December.
    3. Joseph McMurray, 2017. "Ideology as Opinion: A Spatial Model of Common-Value Elections," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 108-140, November.
    4. Jens Eger & Sebastian H. Schneider & Martin Bruder & Solveig H. Gleser, 2023. "Does Evidence Matter? The Impact of Evidence Regarding Aid Effectiveness on Attitudes Towards Aid," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(5), pages 1149-1172, October.
    5. Collewet, Marion & Fairley, Kim & Kessels, Roselinde & Knoef, Marike & van Vliet, Olaf, 2024. "The design of welfare: unraveling taxpayers' preferences," OSF Preprints 4am7e, Center for Open Science.
    6. Hugh-Jones, David & Ooi, Jinnie, 2023. "Where do fairness preferences come from? Norm transmission in a teen friendship network," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Bruno Amable, 2009. "The Differentiation of Social Demands in Europe. The Social Basis of the European Models of Capitalism," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 391-426, May.
    8. Bernd Hayo & Florian Neumeier, 2017. "Public Attitudes toward Fiscal Consolidation: Evidence from a Representative German Population Survey," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 42-69, February.
    9. Tim Friehe & Mario Mechtel, 2014. "Statuskonsum in Ost- und Westdeutschland: Beeinflusst durch das politische Regime?," ifo Dresden berichtet, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 21(03), pages 31-36, June.
    10. Meier, Volker & Schiopu, Ioana, 2020. "Enrollment expansion and quality differentiation across higher education systems," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 43-53.
    11. Ilpo Kauppinen & Panu Poutvaara, 2012. "Preferences for Redistribution among Emigrants from a Welfare State," ifo Working Paper Series 120, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    12. Anke Gerber & Andreas Nicklisch & Stefan Voigt, 2013. "Strategic Choices for Redistribution and the Veil of Ignorance: Theory and Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 4423, CESifo.
    13. Tim Krieger & Christine Meemann & Stefan Traub, 2022. "Inequality, Life Expectancy, and the Intragenerational Redistribution Puzzle - Some Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9677, CESifo.
    14. David Bjerk, 2016. "In front of and behind the veil of ignorance: an analysis of motivations for redistribution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(4), pages 791-824, December.
    15. Kuhn, Andreas, 2011. "In the eye of the beholder: Subjective inequality measures and individuals' assessment of market justice," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 625-641.
    16. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    17. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    18. Hayo, Bernd & Ono, Hiroyuki, 2010. "Comparing public attitudes toward providing for the livelihood of the elderly in two aging societies: Germany and Japan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 72-80, January.
    19. Javier D. Donna, 2024. "Redistributive politics under ambiguity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(3), pages 583-607, May.
    20. Kübler, Raoul V. & Manke, Kai & Pauwels, Koen, 2025. "I like, I share, I vote: Mapping the dynamic system of political marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0287257. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.