Who Stays at Home? The Politics of Social Distancing in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-9349100
Paul F Testa, Richard Snyder, Eva Rios, Eduardo Moncada, Agustina Giraudy, Cyril Bennouna
{"title":"Who Stays at Home? The Politics of Social Distancing in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic.","authors":"Paul F Testa,&nbsp;Richard Snyder,&nbsp;Eva Rios,&nbsp;Eduardo Moncada,&nbsp;Agustina Giraudy,&nbsp;Cyril Bennouna","doi":"10.1215/03616878-9349100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Reductions in population mobility can mitigate COVID-19 virus transmission and disease-related mortality. But do social distancing policies actually change population behavior and, if so, what factors condition policy effects?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We leverage subnational variation in the stringency and timing of state-issued social distancing policies to test their effects on mobility across 109 states in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States. We also explore how conventional predictors of compliance, including political trust, socioeconomic resources, health risks, and partisanship, modify these policy effects.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In Brazil and the United States, stay-at-home orders and workplace closures reduced mobility, especially early in the pandemic. In Mexico, where federal intervention created greater policy uniformity, workplace closures produced the most consistent mobility reductions. Conventional explanations of compliance perform well in the United States but not in Brazil or Mexico, apart from those emphasizing socioeconomic resources.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In addition to new directions for research on the politics of compliance, the article offers insights for policy makers on which measures are likely to elicit compliance. Our finding that workplace closure effectiveness increases with socioeconomic development suggests that cash transfers, stimulus packages, and other policies that mitigate the financial burdens of the pandemic may help reduce population mobility.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":"46 6","pages":"929-958"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-9349100","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Context: Reductions in population mobility can mitigate COVID-19 virus transmission and disease-related mortality. But do social distancing policies actually change population behavior and, if so, what factors condition policy effects?

Methods: We leverage subnational variation in the stringency and timing of state-issued social distancing policies to test their effects on mobility across 109 states in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States. We also explore how conventional predictors of compliance, including political trust, socioeconomic resources, health risks, and partisanship, modify these policy effects.

Findings: In Brazil and the United States, stay-at-home orders and workplace closures reduced mobility, especially early in the pandemic. In Mexico, where federal intervention created greater policy uniformity, workplace closures produced the most consistent mobility reductions. Conventional explanations of compliance perform well in the United States but not in Brazil or Mexico, apart from those emphasizing socioeconomic resources.

Conclusions: In addition to new directions for research on the politics of compliance, the article offers insights for policy makers on which measures are likely to elicit compliance. Our finding that workplace closure effectiveness increases with socioeconomic development suggests that cash transfers, stimulus packages, and other policies that mitigate the financial burdens of the pandemic may help reduce population mobility.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁呆在家里?COVID-19大流行期间巴西、墨西哥和美国的社会距离政治
背景:减少人口流动可以减轻COVID-19病毒传播和疾病相关死亡率。但是,保持社会距离政策真的会改变人口行为吗?如果是这样,是什么因素制约了政策的效果?方法:我们利用各州发布的社会距离政策的严格程度和时间上的地方差异,测试它们对巴西、墨西哥和美国109个州的流动性的影响。我们还探讨了包括政治信任、社会经济资源、健康风险和党派关系在内的传统预测因素如何改变这些政策影响。研究结果:在巴西和美国,居家令和关闭工作场所减少了流动性,尤其是在大流行初期。在墨西哥,联邦干预创造了更大的政策统一性,关闭工作场所产生了最一致的流动性减少。除了那些强调社会经济资源的解释外,传统的合规解释在美国表现良好,但在巴西或墨西哥则不然。结论:本文除了为合规政治研究提供了新的方向外,还为政策制定者提供了哪些措施可能引发合规的见解。我们发现,工作场所关闭的有效性随着社会经济发展而增加,这表明现金转移、刺激计划和其他减轻疫情财政负担的政策可能有助于减少人口流动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Explaining Political Differences in Attitudes to Vaccines in France: Partisan Cues, Disenchantment with Politics, and Political Sophistication. Implementing Primary Care Reform in France: Bargaining, Policy Adaptation, and the Maisons de Santé Pluriprofessionnelles. Policy Feedback and the Politics of Childhood Vaccine Mandates: Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019. Regime Type and Data Manipulation: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Why Some Nonelderly Adult Medicaid Enrollees Appear Ineligible Based on Their Annual Income.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1