Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35779982›Full record

ArticleHealth policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022

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

Andrea Fazio, Tommaso Reggiani, Fabio Sabatini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 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

3 authors.

Andrea FazioUniversity of Pavia, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Italy. Electronic address: andrea.fazio@unipv.it.
Tommaso ReggianiCardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Masaryk University, MUEEL Lab, Brno, Czech Republic; IZA, Bonn, Germany. Electronic address: reggianit@cardiff.ac.uk.
Fabio SabatiniSapienza University of Rome, Italy; IZA, Bonn, Germany. Electronic address: fabio.sabatini@uniroma1.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

COVID-19Communicable Disease ControlGovernmentHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Altruistic punishmentCOVID-19Law enforcementLockdownSurvey data

Identifiers

PMID35779982
PMCPMC9232262

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.