IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v24y2023i1d10.1007_s10198-022-01450-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vaccination or NPI? A conjoint analysis of German citizens' preferences in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Jacques Bughin

    (Université Libre de Bruxelles
    MachaonAdvisory
    FortinoCapital
    Antler)

  • Michele Cincera

    (Université Libre de Bruxelles)

  • Evelyn Kiepfer

    (ISM Global Dynamics)

  • Dorota Reykowska

    (Neurohm)

  • Florian Philippi

    (ISM Global Dynamics)

  • Marcin Żyszkiewicz

    (Neurohm)

  • Rafal Ohme

    (Neurohm
    WSB University)

  • Dirk Frank

    (ISM Global Dynamics
    University of Applied Sciences Pforzheim)

Abstract

This research uses discrete choice-based conjoint analysis that elicits the preference structure of German citizens when it comes to their timely intention to vaccinate. The focus is on the trade-offs between pharmaceuticals (vaccine) and "non-pharmaceutical interventions" (NPIs) such as lock-downs and social distancing measures, as well as the value of voluntary versus mandatory compliance to the citizens. Our results highlight three critical insights: (a) value of waiting: at 70% effective vaccine, 1/3 of citizens still would prefer to be vaccinated in the next 6 months rather than immediately; (b) costs of NPI constraints: an effective vaccine may come as a solution to compensate for the costs induced by invasive NPI imposed for an extended period; (c) freedom of choice: voluntary compliance is preferred by citizens over imposed measures whether it relates to vaccination choice, lock-down measures, or work location choice during the pandemic. Backing up those findings in monetary value, a quick shot of a 100% effective vaccination is estimated to be worth in the range of 11,400€. Still, the value of the shot quickly falls to no value when effectiveness drops below 50. At the same time, the cost of imposing protective rules lies in the range of 1500–2500€, depending on the rule analyzed. In comparison, the burden of extra complete lock-down and social distancing is about 775€ per citizen per month. As most current vaccines are being proven to have high efficacy, a strategy that selects the most effective vaccine candidates while emphasizing how the vaccine may stop the pain of lasting lock-downs will be appropriate to nudge the population towards vaccination. Control measures that are too restrictive may be welfare-deteriorating, but enough NPI measures must be recommended as long as vaccination adoption is not sufficiently large.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera & Evelyn Kiepfer & Dorota Reykowska & Florian Philippi & Marcin Żyszkiewicz & Rafal Ohme & Dirk Frank, 2023. "Vaccination or NPI? A conjoint analysis of German citizens' preferences in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 39-52, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01450-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01450-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-022-01450-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-022-01450-0?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Coibion, Olivier & Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Weber, Michael, 2020. "The Cost of the COVID-19 Crisis: Lockdowns, Macroeconomic Expectations, and Consumer Spending," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4jn1x65h, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera & Dorota Reykowska & Rafal Ohme, 2021. "Big Data is Decision Science: the Case of Covid-19 Vaccination," Working Papers TIMES² 2021-047, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    4. Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera & Kelly Peters & Dorota Reykowska & Marcin Zyszkiewicz & Rafal Ohme, 2021. "Make it or Break it: Vaccination Intention at the Time of Covid-19," Working Papers TIMES² 2021-043, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Nirosha Elsem Varghese & Iryna Sabat & Pedro Pita Barros & Werner Brouwer & Job Exel & Jonas Schreyögg & Tom Stargardt, 2020. "Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 977-982, September.
    6. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    7. Alam, Shahriar Tanvir & Ahmed, Sayem & Ali, Syed Mithun & Sarker, Sudipa & Kabir, Golam & ul-Islam, Asif, 2021. "Challenges to COVID-19 vaccine supply chain: Implications for sustainable development goals," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    8. Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera, 2020. "F.O.G. and Teleworking: Some Labor Economics of covid-19," Working Papers ECARES 2020-21, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. McPhedran, Robert & Toombs, Ben, 2021. "Efficacy or delivery? An online Discrete Choice Experiment to explore preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in the UK," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    10. Robinson, Sherman & Levy, Stephanie & Hernández, Victor & Davies, Rob & Gabriel, Sherwin & Arndt, Channing & van Seventer, Dirk & Pleitez, Marcelo, 2021. "Covid-19 and lockdown policies: A structural simulation model of a bottom-up recession in four countries," IFPRI discussion papers 2015, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera & Dorota Reykowska & Marcin Zyszkiewicz & Rafal Ohme, 2021. "Covid-19 Endemism and the Control Skeptics," Working Papers TIMES² 2021-044, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Krueger, Rico & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2022. "Stated choice analysis of preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using the Choquet integral," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    3. Thiptaiya Sydavong & Daisaku Goto & Keisuke Kawata & Shinji Kaneko & Masaru Ichihashi, 2019. "Potential demand for voluntary community-based health insurance improvement in rural Lao People’s Democratic Republic: A randomized conjoint experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    5. Fazio, Andrea & Reggiani, Tommaso & Sabatini, Fabio, 2022. "The political cost of sanctions: Evidence from COVID-19," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 872-878.
    6. Christopher D. Cotton & Vaishali Garga & Justin Rohan, 2021. "Consumption Spending during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Current Policy Perspectives 93430, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    7. Makridis, Christos & McNab, Robert, 2020. "The Fiscal Cost of COVID-19: Evidence from the States," Working Papers 10702, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    8. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    9. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    10. de Palma, André & Vosough, Shaghayegh & Liao, Feixiong, 2022. "An overview of effects of COVID-19 on mobility and lifestyle: 18 months since the outbreak," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 372-397.
    11. Abel Brodeur & David Gray & Anik Islam & Suraiya Bhuiyan, 2021. "A literature review of the economics of COVID‐19," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 1007-1044, September.
    12. Miescu, Mirela & Rossi, Raffaele, 2021. "COVID-19-induced shocks and uncertainty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    13. Jose Maria Barrero & Nicholas Bloom & Steven J. Davis, 2020. "Why Working From Home Will Stick," Working Papers 2020-174, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    14. Guglielmo Maria Caporale & Woo-Young Kang & Fabio Spagnolo & Nicola Spagnolo, 2022. "The COVID-19 pandemic, policy responses and stock markets in the G20," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 172, pages 77-90.
    15. O’Connell, Martin & Smith, Kate & Stroud, Rebekah, 2022. "The dietary impact of the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    16. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    17. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2021_010 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Nicholas W. Papageorge & Matthew V. Zahn & Michèle Belot & Eline Broek-Altenburg & Syngjoo Choi & Julian C. Jamison & Egon Tripodi, 2021. "Socio-demographic factors associated with self-protecting behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(2), pages 691-738, April.
    19. Kien Le & My Nguyen, 2021. "The psychological consequences of COVID-19 lockdowns," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 147-163, March.
    20. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    21. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COVID-19; Vaccine strategy; Non-pharmaceutical interventions; Conjoint analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
    • J23 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Demand
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods

    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:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01450-0. 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.