In chapter 2 of its latest World Economic Outlook the International Monetary Fund argues that "Lockdowns and voluntary social distancing played a near comparable role in driving the economic recession" and warns "Against lifting lockdowns prematurely in hope of jump-starting economic activity." In other words, it was not mandatory lockdowns that drove many economies to the ground during the pandemic, but the fear of contracting the virus, which led many people to reduce social contact.
If the IMF's models are correct and lockdowns and voluntary social distancing have played a similar role in reducing mobility and economic activity during the pandemic, why would the former be necessary at all? Even if lockdowns are allegedly not causing additional economic pain, they certainly have a psychological cost, which reduces people's welfare.
The IMF's claim is based on a quantitative analysis of the impact of lockdowns and voluntary social distancing on mobility.
The IMF further concludes that during the first three months of the pandemic, both lockdowns and voluntary social distancing had a large and roughly similar impact on mobility, with a smaller contribution from voluntary social distancing in low-income countries and a larger one in advanced economies.
Subsequently, the number of cases increased about five times from November 2020 to January 2021, which is clearly not enough to put lockdowns and voluntary social distancing on the same footing in terms of impact on mobility.
Finally, the IMF analysis shows that the lockdowns' negative impact on mobility dissipates much faster than that of voluntary social distancing.
The IMF's claim that mandatory lockdowns and voluntary social distancing played a similar role in driving the economic recession during the pandemic seems mostly unfounded.
https://mises.org/wire/lockdowns-are-more-economically-devastating-voluntary-social-distancing
No comments:
Post a Comment