ArticleSouthern economic journal2021
Externality and COVID-19.
Article in Southern economic journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bespoke science: the use of ad hoc scientific advisory committees in the Covid-19 pandemic.Public choice · 2025Article
- Does noncompliance with COVID-19 regulations impact the depressive symptoms of others?Economic modelling · 2023Article
- Inframarginal externalities: COVID-19, vaccines, and universal mandates.Public choice · 2023Article
- The pox of politics: Troesken's tradeoff reexamined.Public choice · 2023Article
- Foucault and Hayek on public health and the road to serfdom.Public choice · 2023Article
- Key links in network interactions: Assessing route-specific travel restrictions in China during the Covid-19 pandemic.China economic review · 2022Article
- Rights redistribution and COVID-19 lockdown policy.European journal of law and economics · 2022Article
- On Coase and COVID-19.European journal of law and economics · 2022Article
- Optimal lockdowns.Public choice · 2022Article
- The political economy of the COVID-19 pandemic.Southern economic journal · 2021Article
- Externality and COVID-19.Southern economic journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Negative infectious disease externalities are less prevalent in the absence of government intervention and less costly to society than is often supposed. That is so for three reasons. (1) Unlike externality-creating behaviors in many classical externality contexts, such behaviors are often self-limiting in the context of infectious disease. (2) In market economies, behaviors that may create infectious disease externalities typically occur at sites that are owned privately and visited voluntarily. Owners have powerful incentives to regulate such behaviors at their sites, and visitors face residual infection risk contractually. (3) The social cost of infectious disease externalities is limited by the cheapest method of avoiding externalized infection risk. That cost is modest compared to the one usually imagined: the value of life (or health) lost to the disease if government does not intervene. We elaborate these arguments in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.