No abstract

This paper investigates the impacts of COVID-19 safer-at-home polices on collisions and pollution. We find that statewide safer-at-home policies lead to a 20% reduction in vehicular collisions and that the effect is entirely driven by less severe collisions. For pollution, we find particulate matter concentration levels approximately 1.5 μ g/m 3 lower during the period of a safer-at-home order, representing a 25% reduction. We document a similar reduction in air pollution following the implementation of similar policies in Europe. We calculate that as of the end of June 2020, the benefits from avoided car collisions in the U.S. were approximately $16 billion while the benefits from reduced air pollution could be as high as $13 billion.

Recent quantitative research in competitive sport with the Task and Ego Orientations in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) and Perceptions of Success Questionnaire (POSQ) pointed to a potential critical issue that the two questionnaires did not agree across a number tested hypotheses (Lochbaum, Kazak Çetinkalp, Graham, Wright, & Zazo, 2016). Thus, the present quantitative review examined whether correlates of the two achievement goal orientations were moderated by the two measures. To achieve this purpose, 772 unique correlates (489 TEOSQ, 283 POSQ; 402 task orientation, 370 ego orientation) from 93 studies spanning 1989-2016 from 32 countries with 26,387 participants were placed into 15 different categories and meta-analyzed. The task goal orientation was significantly and small to moderate in meaningfulness related to adaptive success factors (rw=.29), maladaptive success factors (rw=-.12), desirable behaviors (rw=.28), positive emotions (rw=.35), amotivation (rw=-.13), extrinsic motivation (rw=.20), external regulations (rw=.12), internal regulations (rw=.34), intrinsic motivation (rw=.47), the mastery/task climate (rw=.38), perceived competence (rw=.26), and trait selfesteem (rw=.35). The ego goal orientation was significantly and small in meaningfulness related to adaptive success factors (rw=.10), maladaptive success factors (rw=.12), negative emotions (rw=.11), undesirable behaviors (rw=.23), amotivation (rw=.16), extrinsic motivation (rw=.28), external regulation (rw=.21), intrinsic motivation (rw=.14), performance/ego climate (rw=.28), and perceived competence (rw=.17). The questionnaire measure was a significant moderator for the task goal orientation relationship with desirable behaviors (POSQ rw=.24; TEOSQ rw=.37), internal regulations (POSQ rw=.26; TEOSQ rw=.39), and trait self-esteem (POSQ rw=.45; TEOSQ rw=.32) and for the ego goal orientation relationship with performance/ego climate (POSQ rw=.34; TEOSQ rw=.24). Overall, the extent of the questionnaire type being a concern when examining correlates was fortunately minimal. Yet, differences in the two dominant measures exit. Recommendations for future research examining both the TEOSQ and POSQ were proposed.

In this paper, we examine the short-term consequences of COVID-19 and evaluate the impacts of stay-at-home orders on employment and wages in the United States. Guided by a pre-analysis plan, we document that COVID-19 increased the unemployment rate, decreased hours of work and labor force participation, especially for younger workers, non-white, not married and less-educated workers. We built four indexes (exposure to disease, proximity to coworkers, work remotely and critical workers) to study the impact of COVID-19. We find that workers that can work remotely are significantly less likely to have their labor market outcomes affected, while workers working in proximity to coworkers are more affected. The unemployment effects are significantly larger for states that implemented stay-at-home orders. Our estimates suggest that, as of early May, these policies increased unemployment by nearly 4 percentage points, but reduced COVID-19 cases by 186,600-311,000, and deaths by 17,851-23,325. We apply our estimates to compute lost income ($18.6-$21.4 billion), reduced government income tax revenues

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.