Diabolic dilemmas of COVID-19: An empirical study into Dutch society’s trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown

Chorus, Caspar and Sandorf, Erlend Dancke and Mouter, Niek (2020): Diabolic dilemmas of COVID-19: An empirical study into Dutch society’s trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown.

Abstract

We report and interpret preferences of a representative sample of the Dutch adult population for different strategies to end the so-called ‘intelligent lockdown’ which their government had put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a discrete choice experiment, we invited participants to make a series of choices between policy scenarios aimed at relaxing the lockdown, which were specified not in terms of their nature (e.g. whether or not to allow schools to re-open) but in terms of their effects along seven dimensions. These included health-related aspects, but also impacts on the economy, education, and personal income. From the observed choices, we were able to infer the implicit trade-offs made by the Dutch between these policy effects. For example, we find that the average citizen, in order to avoid one fatality directly or indirectly related to COVID-19, is willing to accept a lasting lag in the educational performance of 18 children, or a lasting (>3 years) and substantial (>15%) reduction in net income of 77 households. We explore heterogeneity across individuals in terms of these trade-offs by means of latent class analysis. Our results suggest that most citizens are willing to trade-off health-related and other effects of the lockdown, implying a consequentialist ethical perspective. We find that the elderly, known to be at relatively high risk of being affected by the virus, are relatively reluctant to sacrifice economic pain and educational disadvantages for the younger generation, to avoid fatalities. We also identify a so-called taboo trade-off aversion amongst a substantial share of our sample, being an aversion to accept morally problematic policies that simultaneously imply higher fatality numbers and lower taxes. We explain various ways in which our results can be of value to policy makers in the context of the COVID-19 and future pandemics.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Covid-19, Coronavirus, choice experiment, consequentialism, taboo trade-offs
• Subjects: H - Public Economics > H0 - General > H00 - General; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I18 - Government Policy ; Regulation ; Public Health; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I38 - Government Policy ; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

References

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation 67. Bekker‐Grob, E.W. de, Ryan, M., Gerard, K., 2012. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 21, 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1697 Ben-Akiva, M.E., Lerman, S.R., 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37, 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5 Chorus, C.G., Mouter, N., 2020. Nederlanders maken een brede afweging bij afbouw coronamaatregelen [WWW Document]. ESB.nu. URL https://esb.nu/esb/20059795/nederlanders-maken-een-brede-afweging-bij-afbouw-coronamaatregelen (accessed 5.18.20). Chorus, C.G., Pudāne, B., Mouter, N., Campbell, D., 2018. Taboo trade-off aversion: A discrete choice model and empirical analysis. J. Choice Model. 27, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2017.09.002 CNN, 2020. March 24 coronavirus news https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-03-24-20-intl-hnk/h_44013c5762fb661bf7c1cd2329fd5ebc (accessed 20 May 2020) Daly, A., Hess, S., de Jong, G., 2012. Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., Emerging and Innovative Directions in Choice Modeling 46, 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2011.10.008 de Blaeij, A., Florax, R.J.G.M., Rietveld, P., Verhoef, E., 2003. The value of statistical life in road safety: a meta-analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 35, 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00105-7 Fiske, A.P., Tetlock, P.E., 1997. Taboo Trade-offs: Reactions to Transactions That Transgress the Spheres of Justice. Polit. Psychol. 18, 255–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00058 Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A., 2003. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 37, 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2 Hausman, J.A., Leonard, G.K., McFadden, D., 1995. A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage. J. Public Econ. 56, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(93)01415-7 Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Ortúzar, J. de D., Rizzi, L.I., 2009. Estimating the willingness to pay and value of risk reduction for car occupants in the road environment. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 43, 692–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.06.001 Hoyos, D., 2010. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1595–1603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011 Johnston, R.J., Boyle, K.J., Adamowicz, W. (Vic), Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T.A., Hanemann, W.M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., Vossler, C.A., 2017. Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4, 319–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697 Lancsar, E., Gu, Y., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Butler, J., Ratcliffe, J., Bulfone, L., Donaldson, C., 2020. The relative value of different QALY types. J. Health Econ. 70, 102303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102303 Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., 2008. Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making. PharmacoEconomics 26, 661–677. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004 McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in: Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–152. McFadden, D., Train, K., 2017. Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique. Edward Elgar Publishing. Mouter, N., van Cranenburgh, S., van Wee, B., 2017. Do individuals have different preferences as consumer and citizen? The trade-off between travel time and safety. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 106, 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.003 OECD, 2012. Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies - OECD. Rijksoverheid, 2020. Video's persconferenties coronavirus https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-beeld-en-video/videos-persconferenties (accessed 20 May 202) Rijkswaterstaat, 2020. Steunpunt Economishe Expertise [WWW Document]. URL https://www.rwseconomie.nl (accessed 5.17.20). RIVM, 2020 – Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu: Achtergrondinformatie bij het nieuwe coronavirus https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-covid-19/achtergrond (accessed 20 May 2020) Scarpa, R., Rose, J.M., 2008. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why*. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 52, 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00436.x Skedgel, C., Wailoo, A., Akehurst, R., 2015. Societal Preferences for Distributive Justice in the Allocation of Health Care Resources: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Experiment. Med. Decis. Making 35, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14547915 Train, K.E., 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. Travisi, C.M., Nijkamp, P., 2008. Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy. Ecol. Econ. 67, 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.011 van de Wetering, L., van Exel, J., Bobinac, A., Brouwer, W.B.F., 2015. Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment. PharmacoEconomics 33, 1289–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x