Sudden lockdown repeals, social mobility, and COVID-19: Evidence from a judicial natural experiment

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Dhaval Dave, Andrew I. Friedson, Kyutaro Matsuzawa, Drew McNichols, Joseph J. Sabia
{"title":"Sudden lockdown repeals, social mobility, and COVID-19: Evidence from a judicial natural experiment","authors":"Dhaval Dave,&nbsp;Andrew I. Friedson,&nbsp;Kyutaro Matsuzawa,&nbsp;Drew McNichols,&nbsp;Joseph J. Sabia","doi":"10.1111/jels.12348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The imposition and lifting of COVID-19 lockdown orders were among the most heatedly debated policies during the pandemic. Credible empirical evaluations of the effects of reopening policies are difficult because policymakers often explicitly linked sustained reductions in COVID-19 cases to the lifting of lockdown orders. This hardwired policy endogeneity creates challenges in isolating the causal effects of lifting of lockdown orders on social mobility and public health. To overcome simultaneity bias, we exploit a natural experiment generated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court when it abolished Wisconsin's “Safer at Home” order on separation-of-powers grounds. We capitalize on this sudden, dramatic, and largely unanticipated termination of a statewide lockdown order to estimate its effect—relative to a more gradual scaling back of restrictions—on social mobility and COVID-19 case growth. First, using anonymized smartphone data from SafeGraph and a synthetic control design, we find that termination of COVID-related restrictions had small and short-lived negative impacts on social distancing. Then, using data on case and mortality rates, we find no evidence that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision impacted COVID-19 growth up to a month following the repeal. These findings suggest that in the absence of carrying new information, sudden lockdown repeals may generate smaller behavioral responses than policymakers anticipate.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"20 2","pages":"272-304"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12348","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12348","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The imposition and lifting of COVID-19 lockdown orders were among the most heatedly debated policies during the pandemic. Credible empirical evaluations of the effects of reopening policies are difficult because policymakers often explicitly linked sustained reductions in COVID-19 cases to the lifting of lockdown orders. This hardwired policy endogeneity creates challenges in isolating the causal effects of lifting of lockdown orders on social mobility and public health. To overcome simultaneity bias, we exploit a natural experiment generated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court when it abolished Wisconsin's “Safer at Home” order on separation-of-powers grounds. We capitalize on this sudden, dramatic, and largely unanticipated termination of a statewide lockdown order to estimate its effect—relative to a more gradual scaling back of restrictions—on social mobility and COVID-19 case growth. First, using anonymized smartphone data from SafeGraph and a synthetic control design, we find that termination of COVID-related restrictions had small and short-lived negative impacts on social distancing. Then, using data on case and mortality rates, we find no evidence that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision impacted COVID-19 growth up to a month following the repeal. These findings suggest that in the absence of carrying new information, sudden lockdown repeals may generate smaller behavioral responses than policymakers anticipate.

Abstract Image

突然封锁废除、社会流动性和COVID - 19:来自司法自然实验的证据
新冠肺炎封锁令的实施和解除是疫情期间争论最激烈的政策之一。对重新开放政策的影响进行可信的实证评估是困难的,因为政策制定者经常明确将新冠肺炎病例的持续减少与解除封锁令联系起来。这种根深蒂固的政策内生性在隔离解除封锁令对社会流动性和公共卫生的因果影响方面带来了挑战。为了克服同时性偏差,我们利用了威斯康星州最高法院在废除威斯康星州基于权力分立的“在家更安全”命令。我们利用这一突然、戏剧性和在很大程度上出乎意料的全州范围内终止封锁命令的机会,估计其效果与更逐步地减少对社会流动和新冠肺炎病例增长的限制有关。首先,使用SafeGraph的匿名智能手机数据和合成控制设计,我们发现与新冠肺炎相关的限制措施对保持社交距离产生了微小而短暂的负面影响。然后,使用病例和死亡率数据,我们没有发现任何证据表明威斯康星州最高法院的裁决在废除后一个月内影响了新冠肺炎的增长。这些发现表明,在缺乏新信息的情况下,突然取消封锁可能会产生比政策制定者预期更小的行为反应。©2023作者。康奈尔大学法学院和威利期刊有限责任公司出版的《实证法律研究杂志》。
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
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
×
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