This paper uses two large panel data sets in China to study the effects of a health shock on household income mobility from 1991-2016. We compare outcomes of households with a member who receives a health shock with households that do not receive any health shocks. To do so, we match on demographic and worker characteristics of household members. At the aggregated level, a health shock lowers the probability of "getting out of the low-income trap" by 8.4 percentage points. At the household level, a health shock lowers household income per capita by 12.8%, and income position by 3.2 percentiles. Households that receive a health shock do not adjust labor supply at the intensive margin, but all household members' hourly wages decrease substantially. Households who become poor due to a health shock continue to exhibit lower income mobility in the following years.
{"title":"On the Role of Health in Climbing the Income Ladder: Evidence from China","authors":"Gordon Liu, Franklin Qian, Xiang Zhang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3576250","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3576250","url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses two large panel data sets in China to study the effects of a health shock on household income mobility from 1991-2016. We compare outcomes of households with a member who receives a health shock with households that do not receive any health shocks. To do so, we match on demographic and worker characteristics of household members. At the aggregated level, a health shock lowers the probability of \"getting out of the low-income trap\" by 8.4 percentage points. At the household level, a health shock lowers household income per capita by 12.8%, and income position by 3.2 percentiles. Households that receive a health shock do not adjust labor supply at the intensive margin, but all household members' hourly wages decrease substantially. Households who become poor due to a health shock continue to exhibit lower income mobility in the following years.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72768233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Matthew Goodkin-Gold, M. Kremer, Christopher M. Snyder, Heidi L. Williams
Vaccines exert a positive externality, reducing spread of disease from the consumer to others, providing a rationale for subsidies. We study how optimal subsidies vary with disease characteristics by integrating a standard epidemiological model into a vaccine market with rational economic agents. In the steady-state equilibrium for an endemic disease, across market structures ranging from competition to monopoly, the marginal externality and optimal subsidy are non-monotonic in disease infectiousness, peaking for diseases that spread quickly but not so quickly as to drive all consumers to become vaccinated. Motivated by the Covid-19 pandemic, we adapt the analysis to study a vaccine campaign introduced at a point in time against an emerging epidemic. While the nonmonotonic pattern of the optimal subsidy persists, new findings emerge. Universal vaccination with a perfectly effective vaccine becomes a viable firm strategy: the marginal consumer is still willing to pay since those infected before vaccine rollout remain a source of transmission. We derive a simple condition under which vaccination exhibits increasing social returns, providing an argument for concentrating a capacity-constrained campaign in few regions. We discuss a variety of extensions and calibrations of the results to vaccines and other mitigation measures targeting existing diseases.
{"title":"Optimal Vaccine Subsidies for Endemic and Epidemic Diseases","authors":"Matthew Goodkin-Gold, M. Kremer, Christopher M. Snyder, Heidi L. Williams","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3731611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3731611","url":null,"abstract":"Vaccines exert a positive externality, reducing spread of disease from the consumer to others, providing a rationale for subsidies. We study how optimal subsidies vary with disease characteristics by integrating a standard epidemiological model into a vaccine market with rational economic agents. In the steady-state equilibrium for an endemic disease, across market structures ranging from competition to monopoly, the marginal externality and optimal subsidy are non-monotonic in disease infectiousness, peaking for diseases that spread quickly but not so quickly as to drive all consumers to become vaccinated. Motivated by the Covid-19 pandemic, we adapt the analysis to study a vaccine campaign introduced at a point in time against an emerging epidemic. While the nonmonotonic pattern of the optimal subsidy persists, new findings emerge. Universal vaccination with a perfectly effective vaccine becomes a viable firm strategy: the marginal consumer is still willing to pay since those infected before vaccine rollout remain a source of transmission. We derive a simple condition under which vaccination exhibits increasing social returns, providing an argument for concentrating a capacity-constrained campaign in few regions. We discuss a variety of extensions and calibrations of the results to vaccines and other mitigation measures targeting existing diseases.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79091228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Frederick S. Pardee Center for International F University of Denver
The spread of COVID-19 is a global pandemic that has changed how humans live, produce, interact, and communicate. It has reached into all aspects of life and created great uncertainty, intensifying the vulnerability of struggling populations, and challenging the legitimacy of governments, creating a shared human experience that stretches around the world. Before economic shutdowns and social distancing measures, Africa was on a steady economic growth and development trajectory. In particular, economic shutdowns greatly impacted livelihoods, and altered development patterns forcing policymakers to reimagine development systems. This report introduces a framework to assist decision-makers in thinking about the long-term effects of COVID-19 on development and pursuit of Agenda 2063 in Africa. The report uses a systems framework to understand the effects of COVID-19 on interconnected aspects of government and development. Using the International Futures forecasting model we create two alternative scenarios to assess long-term effects on human development. The results indicate that COVID-19 has specific effects on vulnerable populations, and that policy needs to be directed to such disproportionate impacts. Further, the pandemic will have significant long-term economic impacts that will contribute to indirect mortality rates, increase in extreme poverty and general impact on human development. Overall, the report highlights the interrelatedness between saving lives and saving livelihoods. It also emphasizes the need to re-imagine development by integrating sustainability, inclusive policies, and economic development.
{"title":"COVID-19: The Future of African Development Systems","authors":"The Frederick S. Pardee Center for International F University of Denver","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3892465","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3892465","url":null,"abstract":"The spread of COVID-19 is a global pandemic that has changed how humans live, produce, interact, and communicate. It has reached into all aspects of life and created great uncertainty, intensifying the vulnerability of struggling populations, and challenging the legitimacy of governments, creating a shared human experience that stretches around the world. Before economic shutdowns and social distancing measures, Africa was on a steady economic growth and development trajectory. In particular, economic shutdowns greatly impacted livelihoods, and altered development patterns forcing policymakers to reimagine development systems. This report introduces a framework to assist decision-makers in thinking about the long-term effects of COVID-19 on development and pursuit of Agenda 2063 in Africa. The report uses a systems framework to understand the effects of COVID-19 on interconnected aspects of government and development. Using the International Futures forecasting model we create two alternative scenarios to assess long-term effects on human development. The results indicate that COVID-19 has specific effects on vulnerable populations, and that policy needs to be directed to such disproportionate impacts. Further, the pandemic will have significant long-term economic impacts that will contribute to indirect mortality rates, increase in extreme poverty and general impact on human development. Overall, the report highlights the interrelatedness between saving lives and saving livelihoods. It also emphasizes the need to re-imagine development by integrating sustainability, inclusive policies, and economic development.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85673085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Around the world, policymakers and news reports have warned that domestic violence (DV) could increase as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the attendant restrictions on individual mobility and commercial activity. However, both anecdotal accounts and academic research have found inconsistent effects of the pandemic on DV across measures and cities. We use high-frequency, real-time data from Los Angeles on 911 calls, crime incidents, arrests, and calls to a DV hotline to study the effects of COVID-19 shutdowns on DV. We find conflicting effects within that single city and even across measures from the same source. We also find varying effects between the initial shutdown period and the one following the initial re-opening. DV calls to police and to the hotline increased during the initial shutdown, but DV crimes decreased, as did arrests for those crimes. The period following re-opening showed a continued decrease in DV crimes and arrests, as well as decreases in calls to the police and to the hotline. Our results highlight the heterogeneous effects of the pandemic across DV measures and caution against relying on a single data type or source.
{"title":"Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Domestic Violence in Los Angeles","authors":"Amalia R. Miller, C. Segal, M. Spencer","doi":"10.3386/w28068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3386/w28068","url":null,"abstract":"Around the world, policymakers and news reports have warned that domestic violence (DV) could increase as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the attendant restrictions on individual mobility and commercial activity. However, both anecdotal accounts and academic research have found inconsistent effects of the pandemic on DV across measures and cities. We use high-frequency, real-time data from Los Angeles on 911 calls, crime incidents, arrests, and calls to a DV hotline to study the effects of COVID-19 shutdowns on DV. We find conflicting effects within that single city and even across measures from the same source. We also find varying effects between the initial shutdown period and the one following the initial re-opening. DV calls to police and to the hotline increased during the initial shutdown, but DV crimes decreased, as did arrests for those crimes. The period following re-opening showed a continued decrease in DV crimes and arrests, as well as decreases in calls to the police and to the hotline. Our results highlight the heterogeneous effects of the pandemic across DV measures and caution against relying on a single data type or source.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73350705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We use event study approach to assess the effects of the early stages of COVID-19 on global markets. A large sample of stock markets (66) covering all key global markets and regions is included. The findings indicate that the Wuhan lockdown induces negative spillover effects on markets in Europe, North America and other global markets that have yet to introduce domestic restrictions and have minimal infections at the time. Increasing cases outside China particularly in Europe and the introduction of containment measures result in severe market decline. Our findings highlight the need for quick, globally coordinated response to contagious diseases.
{"title":"Global Evidence on Early Effects of COVID-19 on Stock Markets","authors":"Burcu Kapar, Steven Buigut, Faisal Rana","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3727790","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3727790","url":null,"abstract":"We use event study approach to assess the effects of the early stages of COVID-19 on global markets. A large sample of stock markets (66) covering all key global markets and regions is included. The findings indicate that the Wuhan lockdown induces negative spillover effects on markets in Europe, North America and other global markets that have yet to introduce domestic restrictions and have minimal infections at the time. Increasing cases outside China particularly in Europe and the introduction of containment measures result in severe market decline. Our findings highlight the need for quick, globally coordinated response to contagious diseases.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82130583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Felipe, Scott T. Fullwiler, Gemma Estrada, M. Jaber, Maria Ann Magadia, Remrick Patagan
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has forced governments to provide stimulus packages amid falling tax revenues, prompting debate on “monetization” of government debt. Drawing on selected country experiences, this paper shows through actual central bank operations and accounting that “monetization,” commonly equated with “printing money,” is operationally impossible and that inflationary concerns are misplaced.
{"title":"How “Monetization” Really Works—Examples from Nations’ Policy Responses to COVID-19","authors":"J. Felipe, Scott T. Fullwiler, Gemma Estrada, M. Jaber, Maria Ann Magadia, Remrick Patagan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3785100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3785100","url":null,"abstract":"The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has forced governments to provide stimulus packages amid falling tax revenues, prompting debate on “monetization” of government debt. Drawing on selected country experiences, this paper shows through actual central bank operations and accounting that “monetization,” commonly equated with “printing money,” is operationally impossible and that inflationary concerns are misplaced.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79162596","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We examine the impact of COVID-19 on the federal budget outlook. We find substantial but temporary effects on spending and revenues, with more moderate but permanent effects on the long-term projections. We project that the debt-to-GDP ratio, currently 98%, will rise to 190% in 2050 under current law, compared to a CBO pre-COVID projection of 180%. Sharply lower interest rates projected for the next dozen years help moderate future debt accumulation. Under a “current policy” projection that allows temporary tax provisions—such as those in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017—to be made permanent, the debt-to-GDP ratio would rise to 222% by 2050 and would continuing rising thereafter. The long-term projections are sensitive to interest rates. We discuss several aspects of these results, including how the current episode compares to past debt changes, the role of historically low interest rates, and the role of recent Federal Reserve Board policies and actions. Because of the macro-stabilization effects of fiscal tightening, and because low interest rates create “breathing room” for fiscal policy, we do not see the large, short-run debt accumulation resulting from the current pandemic as necessitating any immediate offsetting response. But the long-term projections show that significant fiscal imbalances remain and will eventually require attention.
{"title":"The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Federal Budget Outlook","authors":"A. Auerbach, William G. Gale","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3728247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3728247","url":null,"abstract":"We examine the impact of COVID-19 on the federal budget outlook. We find substantial but temporary effects on spending and revenues, with more moderate but permanent effects on the long-term projections. We project that the debt-to-GDP ratio, currently 98%, will rise to 190% in 2050 under current law, compared to a CBO pre-COVID projection of 180%. Sharply lower interest rates projected for the next dozen years help moderate future debt accumulation. Under a “current policy” projection that allows temporary tax provisions—such as those in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017—to be made permanent, the debt-to-GDP ratio would rise to 222% by 2050 and would continuing rising thereafter. The long-term projections are sensitive to interest rates. We discuss several aspects of these results, including how the current episode compares to past debt changes, the role of historically low interest rates, and the role of recent Federal Reserve Board policies and actions. Because of the macro-stabilization effects of fiscal tightening, and because low interest rates create “breathing room” for fiscal policy, we do not see the large, short-run debt accumulation resulting from the current pandemic as necessitating any immediate offsetting response. But the long-term projections show that significant fiscal imbalances remain and will eventually require attention.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79630649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We identify 22,461 recipients of COVID-19 Economic Impact Payments in anonymized transaction-level bank account data from Facteus. We use an event study framework to show that in the two weeks following a $1,200 stimulus payment in April 2020, consumers increased spending by $546, implying a marginal propensity to consume of 46%. Consumers used an additional 10% of the stimulus payment to pay off debt. Consumer spending fell to normal levels after two weeks. Stimulus recipients who live paycheck-to-paycheck spent 60% of the stimulus payment within two weeks, while recipients who save much of their monthly income spent only 24% of the stimulus payment within two weeks. Spending patterns are quite similar for the second round of stimulus payments in January, 2021, with consumers spending 39% of their stimulus payments within two weeks and using an additional 14% of their payment to pay off debt. Reweighting our data to match the U.S. population, ignoring equilibrium effects, and assuming a constant MPC for each person, we estimate that the CARES Act’s $296 billion of stimulus payments increased consumer spending by $130 billion (44% of total outlays) within two weeks of stimulus receipt. A stimulus bill targeted at individuals with the highest MPCs could have increased consumer spending and debt payments by the same amount at a cost of only $246 billion.
{"title":"Heterogeneity in the Marginal Propensity to Consume: Evidence from COVID-19 Stimulus Payments","authors":"Ezra Karger, Aastha Rajan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3612828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3612828","url":null,"abstract":"We identify 22,461 recipients of COVID-19 Economic Impact Payments in anonymized transaction-level bank account data from Facteus. We use an event study framework to show that in the two weeks following a $1,200 stimulus payment in April 2020, consumers increased spending by $546, implying a marginal propensity to consume of 46%. Consumers used an additional 10% of the stimulus payment to pay off debt. Consumer spending fell to normal levels after two weeks. Stimulus recipients who live paycheck-to-paycheck spent 60% of the stimulus payment within two weeks, while recipients who save much of their monthly income spent only 24% of the stimulus payment within two weeks. Spending patterns are quite similar for the second round of stimulus payments in January, 2021, with consumers spending 39% of their stimulus payments within two weeks and using an additional 14% of their payment to pay off debt. Reweighting our data to match the U.S. population, ignoring equilibrium effects, and assuming a constant MPC for each person, we estimate that the CARES Act’s $296 billion of stimulus payments increased consumer spending by $130 billion (44% of total outlays) within two weeks of stimulus receipt. A stimulus bill targeted at individuals with the highest MPCs could have increased consumer spending and debt payments by the same amount at a cost of only $246 billion.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83753196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
COVID-19 represents one of the biggest pandemic faced by humanity in recent times, spreading to almost all countries and territories on all continents. Because it spread so suddenly and quickly, COVID-19 produced an unparalleled increase in demand in personal protective equipment, medical products and devices, which far outpaced the ability to increase supply. The outcome was a shortage in these products, which lead several countries to introduce export restrictions. This paper offers a legal and economic assessment of these export restrictions and argues that the current international rules – administered respectively by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – are ill-suited to deal with critical shortages that are likely to arise during, or at least in the early days of, a pandemic. Absent better rules and greater international cooperation, there was no alternative to the proliferation of export restrictions. The paper proposes the establishment of a new normative framework involving both WHO and WTO to avert supply shortages and export restrictions during a pandemic.
{"title":"Export Restrictions During Global Health Crises: The International Community Can and Must do Better","authors":"Laura Puccio, A. Sapir","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3711484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3711484","url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 represents one of the biggest pandemic faced by humanity in recent times, spreading to almost all countries and territories on all continents. Because it spread so suddenly and quickly, COVID-19 produced an unparalleled increase in demand in personal protective equipment, medical products and devices, which far outpaced the ability to increase supply. The outcome was a shortage in these products, which lead several countries to introduce export restrictions. This paper offers a legal and economic assessment of these export restrictions and argues that the current international rules – administered respectively by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – are ill-suited to deal with critical shortages that are likely to arise during, or at least in the early days of, a pandemic. Absent better rules and greater international cooperation, there was no alternative to the proliferation of export restrictions. The paper proposes the establishment of a new normative framework involving both WHO and WTO to avert supply shortages and export restrictions during a pandemic.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91001482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Do consumers react differently to zero prices? We test the presence of a zero-price effect in child health care and find that a zero price is special as it boosts demand discontinuously. A zero price affects resource allocations by encouraging healthier children to use more services and exacerbates behavioral hazard by increasing inappropriate use of antibiotics. A co-payment, of as small as US$2 per visit, alleviates these problems without substantially increasing financial risk. However, a zero price may be used to boost demand for highly cost-effective treatments. Zero and non-zero prices should be strategically chosen to achieve specific goals. (JEL G22, H75, I11, I13, I18, J13)
{"title":"Is Zero a Special Price? Evidence from Child Healthcare","authors":"Toshiaki Iizuka, H. Shigeoka","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3287571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3287571","url":null,"abstract":"Do consumers react differently to zero prices? We test the presence of a zero-price effect in child health care and find that a zero price is special as it boosts demand discontinuously. A zero price affects resource allocations by encouraging healthier children to use more services and exacerbates behavioral hazard by increasing inappropriate use of antibiotics. A co-payment, of as small as US$2 per visit, alleviates these problems without substantially increasing financial risk. However, a zero price may be used to boost demand for highly cost-effective treatments. Zero and non-zero prices should be strategically chosen to achieve specific goals. (JEL G22, H75, I11, I13, I18, J13)","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75028174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：