COVID-19 with Stigma: Theory and Evidence from Mobility Data.

Abstract

This study conducts both theoretical and empirical analyses of how non-legally-binding COVID-19 policies affect people's going-out behavior. The theoretical analysis assumes that under a declared state of emergency, the individual going out suffers psychological costs arising from both the risk of infection and the stigma of going out. Our hypothesis states that under a declared state of emergency people refrain from going out because it entails a strong psychological cost. Then, this study estimates a model using regional mobility data and emergency declarations data to analyze self-restraint behavior under a non-legally binding emergency declaration. The results show that, compared with before the declaration of the state of emergency, going-out behavior was suppressed under the state of emergency and after it was lifted even when going out did not result in penalties, which is consistent with the theoretical analysis.