The geography of the effectiveness and consequences of Covid‐19 measures: Global evidence

This study has: (a) analysed the economic impact of the Covid‐19 pandemic, (b) evaluated the effectiveness and relevance of different measures against the pandemic and (c) examined nexuses between the corresponding measures and economic outcomes. The study uses a sample of 186 countries divided into four main regions, notably: Asia‐Pacific and the Middle East, Europe, Africa and America. Thirty four preventing and mitigating measures against the Covid‐19 pandemic are classified into five main categories: lockdown, movement restrictions, governance and economic, social distancing, and public health measures. The empirical evidence is based on comparative difference in means tests and correlation analyses. The findings show how the effectiveness and consequences of the Covid‐19 measures are different across regions. In adopting the relevant policies to fight the ongoing pandemic, the comparative insights from the findings in the study are worthwhile. Inter alia: (a) from a holistic perspective, only European countries have favorably benefited from the Covid‐19 measures; (b) lockdown measures at the global level have not been significant in reducing the pandemic; (c) the restriction of movement measure has been relevant in curbing the spread in the American continent; (d) the enforcement of the social distancing measures has been productive in Europe and counter‐productive in Africa; (e) governance and economic measures have exclusively been relevant in Europe and (f) overall public health measures have not had the desired outcomes in flattening the infection curve probably because most of the underlying measures are awareness decisions or oriented toward people already infected.