The 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic in Economic History

M. Karlsson, Daniel Kühnle, Nikolaos Prodromidis
{"title":"The 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic in Economic History","authors":"M. Karlsson, Daniel Kühnle, Nikolaos Prodromidis","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Due to the similarities with the COVID–19 pandemic, there has been a renewed interest in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic, which represents the most severe pandemic of the 20th century with an estimated total death toll ranging between 30 and 100 million. This rapidly growing literature in economics and economic history has devoted attention to contextual determinants of excess mortality in the pandemic; to the impact of the pandemic on economic growth, inequality, and a range of other outcomes; and to the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions.\n Estimating the effects of the pandemic, or the effects of countermeasures, is challenging. There may not be much exogenous variation to go by, and the historical data sets available are typically small and often of questionable quality. Yet the 1918–1919 pandemic offers a unique opportunity to learn how large pandemics play out in the long run.\n The studies evaluating effects of the pandemic, or of policies enacted to combat it, typically rely on some version of difference-in-differences, or instrumental variables. The assumptions required for these designs to achieve identification of causal effects have rarely been systematically evaluated in this particular historical context. Using a purpose-built dataset covering the entire Swedish population, such an assessment is provided here. The empirical analysis indicates that the identifying assumptions used in previous work may indeed be satisfied. However, the results cast some doubt on the general external validity of previous findings as the analysis fails to replicate several results in the Swedish context. These disagreements highlight the need for additional studies in other populations and contexts which puts the spotlight on further digitization and linkage of historical datasets.","PeriodicalId":211658,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.682","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Due to the similarities with the COVID–19 pandemic, there has been a renewed interest in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic, which represents the most severe pandemic of the 20th century with an estimated total death toll ranging between 30 and 100 million. This rapidly growing literature in economics and economic history has devoted attention to contextual determinants of excess mortality in the pandemic; to the impact of the pandemic on economic growth, inequality, and a range of other outcomes; and to the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions. Estimating the effects of the pandemic, or the effects of countermeasures, is challenging. There may not be much exogenous variation to go by, and the historical data sets available are typically small and often of questionable quality. Yet the 1918–1919 pandemic offers a unique opportunity to learn how large pandemics play out in the long run. The studies evaluating effects of the pandemic, or of policies enacted to combat it, typically rely on some version of difference-in-differences, or instrumental variables. The assumptions required for these designs to achieve identification of causal effects have rarely been systematically evaluated in this particular historical context. Using a purpose-built dataset covering the entire Swedish population, such an assessment is provided here. The empirical analysis indicates that the identifying assumptions used in previous work may indeed be satisfied. However, the results cast some doubt on the general external validity of previous findings as the analysis fails to replicate several results in the Swedish context. These disagreements highlight the need for additional studies in other populations and contexts which puts the spotlight on further digitization and linkage of historical datasets.
1918-1919年经济史上的流感大流行
由于与COVID-19大流行的相似之处,1918-1919年流感大流行重新引起了人们的关注,这是20世纪最严重的大流行,估计总死亡人数在3000万至1亿之间。经济和经济史方面迅速增长的文献关注了大流行中死亡率过高的背景决定因素;为大流行对经济增长、不平等和一系列其他后果的影响;以及非药物干预的影响。估计大流行的影响或对策的影响是具有挑战性的。可能没有太多的外生变量可以参考,而且可用的历史数据集通常很小,而且质量经常有问题。然而,1918-1919年的大流行提供了一个独特的机会,可以了解大规模流行病在长期内的发展情况。评估大流行影响的研究,或评估为抗击疫情而制定的政策的研究,通常依赖于某种形式的差异中的差异,或工具变量。在这种特殊的历史背景下,这些设计为确定因果关系所需要的假设很少得到系统的评估。使用覆盖整个瑞典人口的专用数据集,这里提供了这样的评估。实证分析表明,以前工作中使用的识别假设确实可以满足。然而,由于分析未能复制瑞典背景下的几个结果,结果对先前发现的一般外部有效性产生了一些怀疑。这些分歧突出了在其他人群和背景下进行进一步研究的必要性,这将重点放在进一步数字化和历史数据集的联系上。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信