The Geography of the Effectiveness and Consequences of COVID-19 Measures: Global Evidence

Abstract

This study has: (i) analysed the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, (ii) evaluated the effectiveness and relevance of different measures against the pandemic and (iii) examined nexuses between the corresponding measures and economic outcomes. The study uses a sample of 186 countries divided into four main regions, notably: Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, Europe, Africa and America. 34 preventing and mitigating measures against the Covid-19 pandemic are classified into five main categories: lockdown, movement restrictions, governance and economic, social distancing, and public health measures. The empirical evidence is based on comparative difference in means tests and correlation analyses. The findings show how the effectiveness and consequences of the Covid-19 measures are different across regions. In adopting the relevant policies to fight the ongoing pandemic, the comparative insights from the findings in the study are worthwhile. Inter alia: (i) from a holistic perspective, only European countries have favourably benefited from the Covid-19 measures; (ii) lockdown measures at the global level have not been significant in reducing the pandemic; (iii) the restriction of movement measure has been relevant in curbing the spread in the American continent; (iv) social distancing has been productive in Europe and counterproductive in Africa; (v) governance and economic measures have exclusively been relevant in Europe and (vi) overall public health measures have not had the desired outcomes in flattening the infection curve probably because most of the underlying measures are awareness decisions or oriented toward people already infected.

COVID‐19 economic vulnerability and resilience indexes: Global evidence

“…First, consistent with the attendant literature (Asongu, Diop & Nnanna, 2020), there are various geographical (i.e. country and regional) disparities on the effectiveness and consequences of Covid-19 measures.…”

COVID-19 internet vaccination information and vaccine administration: evidence from the United States

“…To address formally the role of the internet in the vaccination process, this paper uniquely examines the impact of internet information on COVID-19 vaccination rates across U.S. states. Despite the recent nature of the coronavirus, some formal research has emerged focusing on different aspects of the pandemic (see Alfano and Ercolano 2020 ; Asongu et al 2020 ; Bayram and Shields 2021 ; Farzanegan et al 2020 ; Goel and Nelson 2021 ; Price and van Holm 2021 ; Yum 2020 ; Baldwin and Weder di Mauro 2020 ) for a broader review). However, the role of the internet, in terms of the information related to COVID-19 vaccines available on websites, considered in this paper is new.…”

What matters for regional economic resilience amid COVID-19? Evidence from cities in Northeast China

“…A growing number of researchers have started to understand the geographically uneven impact and consequences of the pandemic. Different nations, in particular, are evidently found to have a wide variation with regard to the spatiality of transmission, vulnerabilities of human life, qualities of healthcare systems, effectiveness of state policy/measure to contain it, and subsequent socio-economic consequences ( Åslund, 2020 ; Asongu et al, 2020 ; Chung et al, 2020 ; Rose-Redwood et al, 2020 ; Wang et al, 2020 ). Others argue that COVID-19 itself mirrors and produces more inequalities of power and space, as well as socio-political conflicts within and among nations, regions, localities ( Dodds et al, 2020 ; also see the Special Issues in Dialogues in Human Geography , volume 20 Issue 2, and in Eurasian Geography and Economics , volume 61, Issue 4–5.).…”