拯救生命和生计:工资保护计划及其效力

Nika Sabasteanski , Jeremy Brooks , Thomas Chandler
{"title":"拯救生命和生计:工资保护计划及其效力","authors":"Nika Sabasteanski ,&nbsp;Jeremy Brooks ,&nbsp;Thomas Chandler","doi":"10.1016/j.econ.2021.11.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, swept through the United States. The necessary but costly non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) including social distancing, stay-at-home orders, and the closing or restriction of most businesses greatly increased the unemployment rate, and put millions of Americans at risk for eviction and bankruptcy. As a part of the relief efforts to mitigate the economic consequences of the shutdown orders, the United States Congress passed The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, which created the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The PPP, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), was intended to help small business keep employees on their payroll through loans guaranteed by the SBA that are forgivable if certain conditions are met. This paper, using publicly available data released by the SBA of loans worth $150,000 or greater, analyzes the effectiveness of the program through multiple avenues. On the overall effectiveness of the program, we explore the types of business that received PPP funding, the ranges of loan amounts provided, the types of banks that processed the loans, the cost-effectiveness of jobs saved based on the loan range, and the racial distribution of loan recipients. We also analyze the geographical distribution of loans based on congressional district to look at the influence race and political party had on how much PPP funding each congressional district received. Finally, we look at the how the PPP fit into the context of the COVID-19 pandemic by looking at the number of COVID-19 cases in each state at the time the program was initially closed, the amount of PPP funding for each state and analyzing the relationship between the loan amount per COVID-19 case and the date of reopening in each state, the relationship between the number of PPP loans received, and how long it took until a state reopened. We note that states that received more loans tended to delay their reopening, as a result, one of the main goals of the PPP, limiting the spread of COVID-19 by keeping people at home, was successful in that regard. We determine that the program, while a critical lifeline in a desperate, unprecedented time, had flaws in its deployment related to a lack of preparedness, a lack of equity in which recipients had initial access and how much funding recipients received, and noticeable gaps in the data. Finally, we recommend policy solutions and fixes going forward to bolster our preparedness response at the state and federal level and ensure that going forward, we can do better to meet the missed marks during the acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100389,"journal":{"name":"EconomiA","volume":"22 3","pages":"Pages 278-290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758021000217/pdfft?md5=10fbc1b2278ed5d5b89b5400f915bca9&pid=1-s2.0-S1517758021000217-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Saving lives and livelihoods: The Paycheck Protection Program and its efficacy\",\"authors\":\"Nika Sabasteanski ,&nbsp;Jeremy Brooks ,&nbsp;Thomas Chandler\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.econ.2021.11.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, swept through the United States. The necessary but costly non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) including social distancing, stay-at-home orders, and the closing or restriction of most businesses greatly increased the unemployment rate, and put millions of Americans at risk for eviction and bankruptcy. As a part of the relief efforts to mitigate the economic consequences of the shutdown orders, the United States Congress passed The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, which created the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The PPP, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), was intended to help small business keep employees on their payroll through loans guaranteed by the SBA that are forgivable if certain conditions are met. This paper, using publicly available data released by the SBA of loans worth $150,000 or greater, analyzes the effectiveness of the program through multiple avenues. On the overall effectiveness of the program, we explore the types of business that received PPP funding, the ranges of loan amounts provided, the types of banks that processed the loans, the cost-effectiveness of jobs saved based on the loan range, and the racial distribution of loan recipients. We also analyze the geographical distribution of loans based on congressional district to look at the influence race and political party had on how much PPP funding each congressional district received. Finally, we look at the how the PPP fit into the context of the COVID-19 pandemic by looking at the number of COVID-19 cases in each state at the time the program was initially closed, the amount of PPP funding for each state and analyzing the relationship between the loan amount per COVID-19 case and the date of reopening in each state, the relationship between the number of PPP loans received, and how long it took until a state reopened. We note that states that received more loans tended to delay their reopening, as a result, one of the main goals of the PPP, limiting the spread of COVID-19 by keeping people at home, was successful in that regard. We determine that the program, while a critical lifeline in a desperate, unprecedented time, had flaws in its deployment related to a lack of preparedness, a lack of equity in which recipients had initial access and how much funding recipients received, and noticeable gaps in the data. Finally, we recommend policy solutions and fixes going forward to bolster our preparedness response at the state and federal level and ensure that going forward, we can do better to meet the missed marks during the acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EconomiA\",\"volume\":\"22 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 278-290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758021000217/pdfft?md5=10fbc1b2278ed5d5b89b5400f915bca9&pid=1-s2.0-S1517758021000217-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EconomiA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758021000217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EconomiA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758021000217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年3月,由SARS-CoV-2病毒引起的COVID-19大流行席卷了美国。必要但昂贵的非药物干预措施(npi),包括保持社交距离、居家令以及关闭或限制大多数企业,大大增加了失业率,并使数百万美国人面临被驱逐和破产的风险。作为减轻政府关门令经济后果的救济工作的一部分,美国国会通过了《冠状病毒援助、救济和经济安全法》,也被称为《关怀法案》,该法案创建了工资保护计划(PPP)。PPP由小企业管理局(SBA)管理,旨在帮助小企业通过SBA担保的贷款来维持员工的工资,如果满足某些条件,这些贷款是可以原谅的。本文利用小企业管理局公布的15万美元及以上贷款的公开数据,通过多种途径分析了该计划的有效性。在该项目的总体有效性方面,我们探讨了获得PPP资金的企业类型、提供的贷款金额范围、处理贷款的银行类型、根据贷款范围挽救工作的成本效益,以及贷款接受者的种族分布。我们还分析了基于国会选区的贷款地理分布,以了解种族和政党对每个国会选区获得多少PPP资金的影响。最后,我们通过查看项目最初关闭时每个州的COVID-19病例数、每个州的PPP资金量,并分析每个COVID-19病例的贷款额与每个州重新开放日期之间的关系、收到的PPP贷款数量与各州重新开放所需时间之间的关系,来研究PPP如何适应COVID-19大流行的背景。我们注意到,获得更多贷款的州往往会推迟重新开放,因此,PPP的主要目标之一是通过让人们呆在家里来限制COVID-19的传播,这在这方面取得了成功。我们认为,虽然该计划是在一个绝望的、前所未有的时期提供关键的生命线,但它在部署方面存在缺陷,这与缺乏准备、缺乏对受援国最初获得资助和获得多少资金的公平性以及数据中明显的差距有关。最后,我们建议未来的政策解决方案和修复措施,以加强我们在州和联邦一级的防范反应,并确保我们能够更好地在冠状病毒大流行的急性阶段实现遗漏的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Saving lives and livelihoods: The Paycheck Protection Program and its efficacy

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, swept through the United States. The necessary but costly non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) including social distancing, stay-at-home orders, and the closing or restriction of most businesses greatly increased the unemployment rate, and put millions of Americans at risk for eviction and bankruptcy. As a part of the relief efforts to mitigate the economic consequences of the shutdown orders, the United States Congress passed The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, which created the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The PPP, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), was intended to help small business keep employees on their payroll through loans guaranteed by the SBA that are forgivable if certain conditions are met. This paper, using publicly available data released by the SBA of loans worth $150,000 or greater, analyzes the effectiveness of the program through multiple avenues. On the overall effectiveness of the program, we explore the types of business that received PPP funding, the ranges of loan amounts provided, the types of banks that processed the loans, the cost-effectiveness of jobs saved based on the loan range, and the racial distribution of loan recipients. We also analyze the geographical distribution of loans based on congressional district to look at the influence race and political party had on how much PPP funding each congressional district received. Finally, we look at the how the PPP fit into the context of the COVID-19 pandemic by looking at the number of COVID-19 cases in each state at the time the program was initially closed, the amount of PPP funding for each state and analyzing the relationship between the loan amount per COVID-19 case and the date of reopening in each state, the relationship between the number of PPP loans received, and how long it took until a state reopened. We note that states that received more loans tended to delay their reopening, as a result, one of the main goals of the PPP, limiting the spread of COVID-19 by keeping people at home, was successful in that regard. We determine that the program, while a critical lifeline in a desperate, unprecedented time, had flaws in its deployment related to a lack of preparedness, a lack of equity in which recipients had initial access and how much funding recipients received, and noticeable gaps in the data. Finally, we recommend policy solutions and fixes going forward to bolster our preparedness response at the state and federal level and ensure that going forward, we can do better to meet the missed marks during the acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
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