Pandemics, economic freedom, and institutional trade-offs.

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS
European Journal of Law and Economics Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-19 DOI:10.1007/s10657-021-09704-7
Vincent Geloso, Kelly Hyde, Ilia Murtazashvili
{"title":"Pandemics, economic freedom, and institutional trade-offs.","authors":"Vincent Geloso,&nbsp;Kelly Hyde,&nbsp;Ilia Murtazashvili","doi":"10.1007/s10657-021-09704-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We argue that institutions are bundles that involve trade-offs in the government's ability to provide public goods that affect public health. We hypothesize that the institutions underlying economic freedom affect the mix of diseases by reducing diseases of poverty relative to diseases of commerce (those associated with free movement of people, such as smallpox or COVID-19). We focus on smallpox and typhoid fever in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century in order to build on recent work that make arguments similar to ours, especially the framework Werner Troesken sets forth in <i>The Pox of Liberty</i>. Our evidence shows that economic freedom, in multiple periods of time and settings prior to the eradication of smallpox in the second half of the twentieth century, reduced typhoid mortality but had no effect on smallpox deaths. The implication for COVID-19 is that the trade-off between fighting the pandemic and preserving economic freedom may not be too severe in the short run. However, in the long run, the wealth benefits from economic freedom are likely to be crucial in reducing vulnerability to diseases of commerce primarily from their impact on comorbidities (such as diabetes and heart disease). Thus, economic freedom is on balance good for public health, which suggests that it, while requiring trade-offs, might be the best institutional bundle for dealing with pandemics.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10657-021-09704-7.</p>","PeriodicalId":51664,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Law and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10657-021-09704-7","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-021-09704-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

We argue that institutions are bundles that involve trade-offs in the government's ability to provide public goods that affect public health. We hypothesize that the institutions underlying economic freedom affect the mix of diseases by reducing diseases of poverty relative to diseases of commerce (those associated with free movement of people, such as smallpox or COVID-19). We focus on smallpox and typhoid fever in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century in order to build on recent work that make arguments similar to ours, especially the framework Werner Troesken sets forth in The Pox of Liberty. Our evidence shows that economic freedom, in multiple periods of time and settings prior to the eradication of smallpox in the second half of the twentieth century, reduced typhoid mortality but had no effect on smallpox deaths. The implication for COVID-19 is that the trade-off between fighting the pandemic and preserving economic freedom may not be too severe in the short run. However, in the long run, the wealth benefits from economic freedom are likely to be crucial in reducing vulnerability to diseases of commerce primarily from their impact on comorbidities (such as diabetes and heart disease). Thus, economic freedom is on balance good for public health, which suggests that it, while requiring trade-offs, might be the best institutional bundle for dealing with pandemics.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10657-021-09704-7.

Abstract Image

流行病、经济自由和制度权衡。
我们认为,制度是政府提供影响公众健康的公共产品的能力之间的权衡。我们假设,经济自由背后的制度通过减少与商业疾病(与人员自由流动有关的疾病,如天花或COVID-19)相关的贫困疾病,来影响疾病的组合。我们关注的是19世纪末和20世纪初的天花和伤寒,目的是建立在最近的研究基础上,这些研究与我们的观点相似,尤其是沃纳·特罗斯肯在《自由之痘》中提出的框架。我们的证据表明,在20世纪下半叶消灭天花之前的多个时期和环境中,经济自由降低了伤寒死亡率,但对天花死亡率没有影响。这对COVID-19的启示是,在抗击大流行和维护经济自由之间的权衡在短期内可能不会太严重。然而,从长远来看,经济自由带来的财富收益可能对减少对商业疾病的脆弱性至关重要,主要是因为它们对合并症(如糖尿病和心脏病)的影响。因此,总的来说,经济自由对公共卫生是有益的,这表明,虽然需要权衡,但它可能是应对流行病的最佳制度组合。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s10657-021-09704-7获得。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Law and Economics provides readers with high-quality theoretical and empirical research in which both the legal and economic dimensions merge and combine. The journal welcomes articles that promote a better understanding of legal phenomena, legal decisions made by judges, courts or regulatory agencies, and involving economic tools. Theoretical papers are welcome, provided they have a strong basis in law and economics. We also welcome case studies, as well as empirical analyses – including empirical legal studies – and experimental investigations. The European Journal of Law and Economics does not favor any particular topic, but does have a focus on new and emerging problems. European themes are particularly welcome, because we feel it is important to exploit Europe’s considerable institutional diversity in order to build a more robust body of theory and empirical evidence. However, the purpose of the journal is also to showcase the diversity of law and economics approaches, as supplied by an international mix of authors. Drawing on the support of respected scholars from around the world, who serve as consulting editors and editorial board members, the Editors wish to give contributing authors the opportunity to improve their papers, while also offering them a quick and efficient review process. Officially cited as: Eur J Law Econ
×
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