Can relief measures nudge compliance in a public health crisis? Evidence from a kinked fiscal policy rule.

We show that compensation measures aimed at improving the fairness of a crisis policy response can unintendedly nudge compliance with emergency rules. We combine information on the distribution of relief funds across Italian municipalities during the novel coronavirus pandemic with data tracking citizens' movements through mobile devices and navigation systems. To assess the impact of transfers on compliance, we exploit a sharp kink schedule in the allocation of funds. The empirical analysis provides evidence that compliance increased with transfers, suggesting that the observance of emergency rules also depends on the fairness of the pandemic policy response.

Experts vs. policymakers in the COVID-19 policy response.

We build an evolutionary game-theoretic model of the interaction between policymakers and experts in shaping the policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Players' decisions concern two alternative strategies of pandemic management: a "hard" approach, enforcing potentially unpopular measures such as strict confinement orders, and a "soft" approach, based upon voluntary and short-lived social distancing. Policymakers' decisions may also rely upon expert advice. Unlike experts, policymakers are sensitive to a public consensus incentive that makes lifting restrictions as soon as possible especially desirable. This incentive may conflict with the overall goal of mitigating the effects of the pandemic, leading to a typical policy dilemma. We show that the selection of strategies may be path-dependent, as their initial distribution is a crucial driver of players' choices. Contingent on cultural factors and the epidemiological conditions, steady states in which both types of players unanimously endorse the strict strategy can coexist with others where experts and policymakers agree on the soft strategy, depending on the initial conditions. The model can also lead to attractive asymmetric equilibria where experts and policymakers endorse different strategies, or to cyclical dynamics where the shares of adoption of strategies oscillate indefinitely around a mixed strategy equilibrium. This multiplicity of equilibria can explain the coexistence of contrasting pandemic countermeasures observed across countries in the first wave of the outbreak. Our results suggest that cross-country differences in the COVID-19 policy response need not be the effect of poor decision making. Instead, they can endogenously result from the interplay between policymakers and experts incentives under the local social, cultural and epidemiological conditions.

The political cost of sanctions: Evidence from COVID-19.

We use survey data to study how trust in government and consensus for the pandemic policy response vary with the propensity for altruistic punishment in Italy, the early epicenter of the pandemic. Approval for the management of the crisis decreases with the size of the penalties that individuals would like to see enforced for lockdown violations. People supporting stronger punishment are more likely to consider the government's reaction to the pandemic as insufficient. However, after the establishment of tougher sanctions for risky behaviors, we observe a sudden flip in support for the government. Higher amounts of the desired fines become associated with a higher probability of considering the COVID policy response as too extreme, lower trust in government, and lower confidence in the truthfulness of the officially provided information. These results suggest that lockdowns entail a political cost that helps explain why democracies may adopt epidemiologically suboptimal policies.

Perceived risk and vaccine hesitancy: Quasi-experimental evidence from Italy.

In March 2021, Italian health authorities suspended the Vaxzevria vaccine (VA) for 4 days over reports of very rare blood disorders among recipients. We exploit the quasi-experimental setting arising from this break to study the drivers of vaccine hesitancy. Before the suspension, the VA vaccination trend followed the same pattern as Pfizer-Biontech (PB). After the suspension, VA and PB injections started to diverge, with VA daily decreasing by almost 60 doses per 100,000 inhabitants for the following 3 weeks. The resulting vaccination rate was 60 percent lower than the value that would have stemmed from the VA pre-suspension pattern. We show that the slowdown was weaker and less persistent in regions with higher COVID penetration and steadier and more pronounced in regions displaying greater attention to vaccine side effects as detected through Google searches. The public's interest in vaccine adverse events negatively correlates with COVID cases and deaths across regions.