Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35317527›Full record

ArticleStructural change and economic dynamics2022

Distribution of COVID-19 government support and its consequences for firm liquidity and solvency.

Tibor Lalinsky, Rozália Pál

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Structural change and economic dynamics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tibor LalinskyNational Bank of Slovakia, Imricha Karvasa 1, 813 25 Bratislava, Slovakia.
Rozália PálEuropean Investment Bank, 98-100, boulevard Konrad Adenauer, L-2950, Luxembourg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We utilize several unique firm-level datasets in order to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the government support aiming to curb the economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. The results, drawing on the experience of a small open European country, suggest the distributed COVID-19 subsidies save non-negligible number of jobs and sustain economic activity during the first wave of the pandemic. General distribution rules designed on the fly may bring close to optimal results in terms of the support allocation, as relatively more productive, privately owned, foreign-demand oriented firms are prioritized and firms with a high environmental footprint or zombie firms record a relatively lower chance of obtaining government funding. By assuming constant cost elasticities to sales, we show that the pandemic deteriorates strongly firm profits and increases significantly the share of illiquid and insolvent firms. Government wage subsidies somewhat mitigate firm losses and have statistically significant effect, but relatively mild compared to the size of the economic shock. Our estimates also confirm that larger firms, receiving smaller relative size of the support, have more space to cover their additional liquidity needs by increasing trade liabilities or liabilities to affiliated entities, while SMEs face higher risk of insolvencies.

Indexed as

CoronavirusCOVID-19D22Firm-levelG32G33H20J38LiquidityPolicy measuresProfitSolvencyWage subsidies

Identifiers

PMID35317527
PMCPMC8920973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.