State Capacity and COVID-19: Targeted versus Population-Wide Restrictions.

Abstract

Context: During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments varied in their implementation of social distancing rules. Some governments were able to target their social distancing requirements toward specific segments of the population, whereas others had to resort to more indiscriminate applications. This article will argue that state capacity crucially affected the manner in which social distancing rules were applied.

Methods: Using data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, the author performed a series of ordered logistic regressions to examine whether state capacity increased the likelihood of more targeted applications of each social distancing rule.

Findings: Given the same level of infectivity, more capable states were indeed more likely to resort to targeted applications of each social distancing restriction. Interestingly, the size of state capacity's effect varied by the type of restriction. State capacity had a stronger influence on face-covering requirements and private-gathering restrictions than it had on school closures, workplace closures, and stay-at-home orders.

Conclusions: The way in which social distancing rules are applied is endogenous to state capacity. Effective governance is a precursor to more targeted and nuanced applications of social distancing rules.