IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedgfn/2021-05-24-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How much lockdown policies contribute to local unemployment? Evidence from the first and second waves of COVID-19

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Did people reduce their social interactions as a result of the pandemic, restrictive lockdown policies, or both? What was the impact of reduced social interactions on local employment? Importantly, why did unemployment spike during the first wave of the pandemic, but gradually decline thereafter, even though the outbreak was much more severe during the second wave? In this note, we attempt to answer these questions by exploiting newly available data on hours worked among small firms at the industry-county-state-week level.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcus Dockerty & Antonis Kotidis & Ilknur Zer, 2021. "How much lockdown policies contribute to local unemployment? Evidence from the first and second waves of COVID-19," FEDS Notes 2021-05-24-1, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedgfn:2021-05-24-1
    DOI: 10.17016/2380-7172.2903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.federalreserve.gov//econres/notes/feds-notes/how-much-lockdown-policies-contribute-to-local-unemployment-20210524.htm
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17016/2380-7172.2903?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Harley Frazis, 2022. "Sources of Increases in Time Alone during the COVID Pandemic: Evidence from the American Time Use Survey," Economic Working Papers 559, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    2. Kalewold Hailu Kalewold, 2023. "Lockdowns and the ethics of intergenerational compensation," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(3), pages 271-289, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fip:fedgfn:2021-05-24-1. 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: Ryan Wolfslayer ; Keisha Fournillier (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbgvus.html .

    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.