IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/irapec/v35y2021i6p886-903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical analysis of COVID-19 response: comparison of US with the G7

Author

Listed:
  • Mahua Barari
  • Srikanta Kundu
  • Saibal Mitra

Abstract

We compare the US policy response to COVID-19 with its G7 counterparts between March and September 2020. The G7 countries, while economically and ideologically aligned, have instituted vastly different policies to mitigate the spread of the disease with varying degrees of compliance. To quantify the effect of policy responses on the spread of infections, we estimate beta for each country which is the slope coefficient of daily new cases in each country regressed against world new cases. First, we test for structural breaks in daily data for world new cases using the Bai Perron method which endogenously determines break points. We obtain five break dates that allow us to divide the time period into six windows and estimate betas separately for each window. Next, we rank the G7 countries based on their beta values for each window. Our empirical findings suggest that countries that eased their lockdown measures moderately while enforcing nationwide mask mandate and comprehensive contact tracing generally performed better in mitigating the spread of new infections. Furthermore, countries with higher degree of compliance saw improvement in their rankings. US was ranked mostly in the bottom half of the G7 group but not always the worst.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahua Barari & Srikanta Kundu & Saibal Mitra, 2021. "An empirical analysis of COVID-19 response: comparison of US with the G7," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(6), pages 886-903, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:irapec:v:35:y:2021:i:6:p:886-903
    DOI: 10.1080/02692171.2021.1965100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02692171.2021.1965100
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02692171.2021.1965100?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.

    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:taf:irapec:v:35:y:2021:i:6:p:886-903. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIRA20 .

    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.