Content uploaded by Wasana Rathnayaka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wasana Rathnayaka on Sep 21, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The economics of COVID-19:
a systematic literature review
Imalka Wasana Rathnayaka, Rasheda Khanam and
Mohammad Mafizur Rahman
School of Business, University of Southern Queensland,
Toowoomba, Australia and
The Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba,
Australia
Abstract
Purpose –A systematic, PRISMA-guided literature review was conducted using four databases (ProQuest,
PubMed, EconLit and Scopus) to analyze research published between February 2020 and August 2021. This
review included 31 studies out of 1,248 that were identified.
Design/methodology/approach –In addition to the serious health issues it causes, severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) has a destructive impact on the global economy. The objectives of this
study are (1) to examine the growing literature on variations of economic factors due to COVID-19 (2) to review
the literature on the governmental response to the pandemic and (3) to discover the perspective and the gaps
and outline the future avenues for further research.
Findings –All selected studies (31) have used the macroeconomic, household and health economic factors to
analyze the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among these studies, 22 articles examined the
economic consequences and macroeconomic activities, 7 analyzed microeconomic costs and healthcare trade-
offs and 2 studies reviewed economic uncertainty and macroeconomic expectations.
Research limitations/implications –This study comprises the most relevant research articles to measure
the economic consequences of COVID-19. As a result of the lockdown and other containment initiatives, price
levels, employment and consumption patterns have all suffered.
Practical implications –Therefore, the government’s requirement to develop policy tools and approaches to
ensure a full recovery from the pandemic should lead to greater long-term economic resilience.
Originality/value –This study examines the economic implications of COVID-19, with the aim of not only
analysing COVID-19’s negative economic effects but also, those measures that provide new directions in the
form of short-run economic impacts and policy decisions.
Keywords COVID-19, Pandemic, Economy, Healthcare, Systematic literature review
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), which is now a global pandemic, is a highly transmittable viral
contamination with inevitable profound changes to all aspects of human life, from individual
health concerns to entire global economic systems. There have been 192 million confirmed cases
ofCOVID-19and4.1milliondeathsreportedgloballyasoftheendofJuly2021(World Health
Organization, 2021). The global economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been enormous,
with an average loss of global gross domestic product (GDP) of 84,000 million USD in 2020, and
the global economy has contracted by 16.04% of total GDP (Jackson et al.,2020). According to the
World Health Organization (2021), global spending on health in 2020 recorded USD 8.3 trillion,
which was 10% of global GDP.
The governments have responded to the effect of the pandemic on public health in a strong
and united way. Meanwhile, non-pharmaceutical strategies such as lockdown policies,
Economics of
COVID-19
JEL Classification —I15, J11
Funding: There were no sources of funding used to prepare this study.
Conflict of interest: The authors have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity
with any financial or non-financial interest in the subject focus or materials discussed in this study.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0144-3585.htm
Received 3 May 2022
Revised 14 July 2022
Accepted 2 August 2022
Journal of Economic Studies
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0144-3585
DOI 10.1108/JES-05-2022-0257
containment health measures and stringent rules have been implemented to reduce the risk of
COVID-19, which is considered one of the most health and economically costly pandemics in
recent history (Boissay and Rungcharoenkitkul, 2020). On the other hand, the global economy
utilizes containment and mitigation efforts to prevent the interruptions of agriculture,
manufacturing, education and the financial sector activities of the economy (Jin et al., 2021).
COVID-19 is negatively affecting global trade and financial market liquidity by creating
demand and supply shocks (Roy, 2020). Furthermore, the pandemic has had a significant
impact on macroeconomic expectations for inflation, job insecurity, unemployment, illness,
school and business closures and fiscal and monetary policy decisions (Binder, 2020).
Therefore, the economics of COVID-19 emerges as an important area of scientific study (both
quantitative and qualitative) in the contemporary pandemic environment.
Since the economics of the COVID-19 pandemic has created a high level of global anxiety,
many studies have been conducted on the various socioeconomic aspects of the pandemics
and its durations (Keogh-brown et al., 2020;Martin et al., 2020;Ehrenberg et al., 2021).
Numerous studies have examined the impact of COVID-19’s stringent health policies on the
economy with the GDP changes, estimation of the economic cost and fiscal and monetary
policy changes (Chudik et al., 2021;UNDP, 2021;Hossain and Rahamanv, 2021;Rasul et al.,
2021;Kolahchi et al., 2021).
The research question of this study is, what are the effects of COVID-19 on the economy
or macroeconomic factors? The literature on the impacts of COVID-19 on the economy or
macroeconomic variable is increasing daily. Therefore, it is critical to comprehend and
synthesise the data to reduce the risk of lacking relevant information from the systematic
literature review (SLR). To mitigate this risk,wehavelimitedthepapersthatwere
published from February 2020 to August 2021 and this SLR is formulated on the well-
prescribed selection criteria of SLR and guided by PRISMA guidelines.
The vast majority of COVID-19 and economic related studies are peer-reviewed journal
papers that have mainly employed descriptive data analysis. Although research detailing
the economic consequences of COVID-19 has commenced, still there is very limited evidence
and insufficient studies on the changes of all macroeconomic determinants due to COVID-
19. In this context, there are several gaps in the studies that can be addressed with
additional research. The economic effects of COVID-19 vary depending on various
parameters, such as the current status of the virus spread, socioeconomic policy changes,
fiscal support policies and economic growth changes. On the other hand, it differs in the
impacts of macroeconomic factors such as exports, imports, foreign direct investment,
financial development, interest rates and inflation. Meantime, a country- or regional-level
comparison that takes into account all of these factors will yield a more reliable estimate of
the pandemic’s economic impact.
In order to do so, it is important to provide a comprehensive overview of the available
evidence and explore if there is any obvious omission in the current literature on the economics
of COVID-19. The study attempts to (1) study the main economic research approaches in
COVID-19 literature, (2) review the literature on the fluctuations and estimations of the
economic factors caused by COVID-19 and finally, (3) investigate the knowledge gaps to
identify avenues for future research. This paper summarises key features of the economics of
COVID-19 literature such as study design, measurement aspects, assessment methods of the
quality of the reported results and a narrative structure of the key findings.
Further, this study investigates the economic consequences of COVID-19, with the goal of
analysing not only the negative economic effects of COVID-19 but also those measures that
provide new directions in the form of short-run economic impacts and policy decisions.
Furthermore, this SLR covers interventions aimed at demonstrating the long-term impacts of
the economy that are expected to demonstrate.
JES
Methods
This study employed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis
(PRISMA) criteria to develop the SLR. For review protocol, the study is in the process of
registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)
(Application ID number 277848- on September 13, 2021). Each step of the review was
independently reviewed by WR and RK, and MMR was consulted in case of any discrepancy.
Literature search
The databases used were ProQuest, PubMed, EconLit, and Scopus. This review drew on
the estimations of the economics of COVID-19 in the various geographical and socio-
economic settings. The majority of published articles were peer-reviewed, and a small
number were governments reports. Since all studies were recently published papers which
were based on the COVID-19 pandemic, the time frame is limited from February 2020 to
August 2021.
The literature search was performed by including the above keywords. The search string
included COVID-19/Coronavirus, economics/economic impacts and economic consequences
(Table 1). Synonyms were used for every subject to ensure full access to the available
literature. The search strategy is shown in detail in the PROSPERO protocol. EndNote (X9)
software was used to organise and manage the references.
Eligibility criteria
Journal articles included the following criteria: (1) the published research study needed to be a
peer reviewed work (including all review papers) in the English language; (2) the research
article examined economic factors; (3) the study explicitly revealed whether it has
quantitatively or qualitatively specified economic consequences on death rates or infection
rates of COVID-19.
This review excluded studies identified as the papers that used the title “Economics of
COVID-19 pandemic”but focused on a specific field (stock market, bond market, forex
market, etc.) or industry (tourism, oil, aviation, etc.). The studies that placed a greater
emphasis on socio-demographic factors and a focus on medical expenses (dental practices,
surgeries, etc.) were also removed. Quantitative studies on “Threats and Opportunities for the
Post-Pandemic World,”“Epidemic Prevention and Control Measures and Economic-Social
Development,”“Improving sanitation and hygiene,”“Improving nutrition,”and “Ambient
Air Pollution”were also left out. Finally, all papers involving medical resources and health
inequalities were also eliminated.
Study selection and data extraction
The review searched relevant studies and filtered out duplicates under the independent
evaluation process. WR, RK and MMR screened the titles, abstracts, and keywords to assess
Keywords Operator Keyword grouping Operator Keywords
COVID-19
Pandemic
AND Economic Impacts OR Economics AND Healthcare
Coronavirus AND Economy OR Economic Consequences AND Health
Economics
SARS-CoV-2 AND Economic Impacts OR Economic
Consequences
AND Health
Economics
Table 1.
Search terms used for
different relationships
(without synonyms)
Economics of
COVID-19
their eligibility for inclusion. When eligibility was unclear from the titles and abstracts, then
the full text was reviewed to check the eligibility for inclusion. The Excel forms were designed
to identify review patterns among the heterogeneity of study characteristics and outcomes.
The data of searched studies consisted of three parts: General Information (author/authors,
year of publication, countries examined); Study Characteristics (type of the study, statistical
methods, study area); and Summary of Findings (factors used and main findings). The
research study was based on PRISMA 2020. The method included four stages: (1)
identification of records via databases and registers; (2) selection of records; (3) review of
qualifications; and (4) inclusion in the study (Page et al., 2021).
Regardless of the design of the included studies, the PRISMA 2020 statement has been
created primarily for systematic reviews of studies that assess the effects of health
interventions (Page et al., 2021). Therefore, this study used PRISMA 2020 updated review
template for selecting eligibility studies. The data-charting forms used by the research team
were used to categorise the full-text studies that were reviewed. These Excel forms were
designed to identify review patterns among the heterogeneity of study characteristics and
outcomes. Forms were divided by the various relationships available in terms of the research
question and were used for data extraction by including relevant notes and keywords for
each article.
Quality assessment
The quality of these thirty-one papers was selected using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical
Appraisal checklist of systematic reviews (Appendixes 2 and 3). Two reviewers made
decisions on their eligibility and quality and disagreements that arose were solved through
negotiations. Finally, 31 papers gained the required quality score of 6.5 from 120 research
articles. This study excluded review articles, pilot studies, working papers, reports or
unpublished Ph.D. dissertations, books, symposiums, supplementary, prospective, or
intervention studies, and those published in other languages.
Results
Identification of studies
In this review study, total of 1,248 articles were initially retrieved, and 276 duplicates were
removed before entering the first phase of screening. A total of 940 articles were assessed for
the first phase of screening based on their title and abstract. So, in the first phase of screening,
only 120 articles retained while 822 studies have been rejected. Consequently, in phase two of
screening, 201 papers were assessed based on their full text. Out of them, only 31 articles met
the inclusion criteria for further evaluation. Hence, the remaining 31 studies were considered
eligible for this review (Appendix 1). Among these studies, twenty were based on descriptive
analysis, four were on time-series, two were on panel data analysis, one on cross sectional
data, and one study on GCE equilibrium model, another two on NiGEM macro models, and
two used mathematical model (see Figure 1).
Study characteristics
Out of 31 chosen articles, 19 articles examined the economic impacts of COVID-19 on a
particular nation, region, or the entire world. Meanwhile, seven research studies estimated
macroeconomic costs, two papers basically analysed socio-economic impacts while the
remaining two papers examined economic uncertainty and macroeconomic expectations.
The outbreak of COVID-19 was first reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) on
December 31, 2019 (World Health Organization, 2020). On January 30, 2020, the WHO
declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. Therefore, the study is limited to
JES
the short time period. Then this study reviewed all articles that were published between
February 2020 to August 2021. Slightly more than half of the included articles were related to
developing countries (Sub-Saharan Africa 55, South Asia 53, China 51, Peru 51,
Pakistan 51, Congo 51 and Montenegro 51). Meanwhile, 40% of studies came from
developed countries (USA 54, UK 53, EU 52, Canada 51, and Australia 51), while 6
articles were global or multi-country studies.
Furthermore, the methodological nature and comprehensiveness of the structure of the
studies ranged from average to excellent with the use of the AIM(RaD)C framework:
Abstract, Introduction, Materials/Methods, repeated Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.
Studies used a variety of research methods and tools to evaluate the economics of COVID-19.
Most of the studies used quantitative methods (23 papers) and four studies employed
qualitative methods. Economic models such as the General Equilibrium Model, the Markov-
switching model, Mathematical model like standard Susceptible, Infected, and Removed (SIR)
model and the Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multiplier model were used in three studies.
Except for one article, which used primary sources to collect data, all studies relied on
secondary sources.
The study outcomes of interest mainly were the direction, impact, and statistical
significance of the COVID-19 cases and Gross Domestic Product, Inflation, Unemployment,
labour market, human development and International Trade. Some studies compared the
Records identified from*:
Databases (n = 1180)
Registers (n = 68)
Records removed before screening:
Duplicate records removed (n
= 276)
Records marked as ineligible by
automation tools (n = 23)
Records removed for other
reasons (n = 0)
Records screened
(n = 940)
Records excluded**
(n = 822)
Reports sought for retrieval
(n = 9)
Reports not retrieved
(n = 7)
Reports assessed for
eligibility (n = 120)
Reports excluded:
Full-text articles excluded (n =
93)
JBI SUMMARY criteria low (n
= 41)
Different variables or research
question (particular industry,
Special clinical sector, etc. (n =
42) Relevance (n = 6)
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Id
en
tif
ic
at
io
n
S
cr
ee
ni
n
g
In
cl
u
d
Studies included in review
(n = 31)
Reports of included studies
(n = 0)
Source(s): (Page et al., 2021)
Figure 1.
The economics of
COVID-19 PRISMA
(2020) flow diagram
Economics of
COVID-19
association between direct and indirect costs of COVID-19 pandemic and healthcare facilities
using Econometric tools and techniques. Table 2 summarises the characteristics of the
included studies.
Descriptive statistical methods were the most widely used methodologies, while some
studies used the ordinary least square models. One-fourth of the studies employed a time
series, panel data analysis, and cross-sectional studies. Further popular models like Robust
Statistical Bayesian Model, the CGE general equilibrium model, Markov-switching model,
Study area nPercentage Sources
Economic impacts 22 70.90
Marginal impact of lockdowns on
income, total expenditure and
remittances
1 3.20 Gupta et al. (2020),Varona and Gonzales
(2021),Pinilla et al. (2021),McKibbin and
Fernando (2020),Alhassan et al. (2020),Hayat
et al. (2021),Burger and Calitz (2020),Ngepah
(2021),Ke and Hsiao (2021),Rasul et al. (2021),
Sarkodie and Owusu (2021),Martin et al.
(2020),Iluno et al. (2021),B
eland et al. (2020),
Bitanihirwe and Ssewanyana (2021),Li et al.
(2021),Lim et al. (2021),Islam and Muyeed
(2020),Amewu et al. (2020),Natuhoyila et al.
(2021),Parveen et al. (2021)
Impact on economic activities 1 3.20
Macroeconomic variable changes 11 35.40
Economic impacts –public health
expenditure and economic growth
4 12.90
Economic impact –household level 1 3.20
Short-term economic impacts 1 3.20
Socioeconomic factors 2 6.40
Economic cost 7 22.50
Microeconomic costs 3 9.60 Ataguba (2020),Donaldson and Mitton (2020),
Boissay and Rungcharoenkitkul (2020),
Villaverde and Jones (2020),Djurovic et al.
(2020),Keogh-Brown et al. (2020),Rowthorn
and Maciejowski (2020),Argente et al. (2022)
Healthcare trade-offs 1 3.20
Mortality and GDP loss 2 6.40
Economic uncertainty 1 3.20 Van Der Wielen et al. (2021)
Macroeconomic expectations 1 3.20 Binder (2020)
Study setting
Developing country 13 44.4 Sub Saharan Africa, India, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Congo, Montenegrio
Developed country 12 37 United Kingdom, Canada, USA, Spain,
European Union
Global 4 11.1 USA, Global Economy
Multiple country category 2 7 [Argentina Australia, Brazil, Canada, China,
France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy,
Japan Mexico, Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia
South Africa, Turkey United Kingdom,
United States of America], [South Asia]
Publication year Data sources n %
2020 16 55.6 Secondary 30 96.2
2021 15 44.4 Primary 1 3.7
Methodology
Quantitative 21 74.1 Time series 3 11.1
OLS 4 14.8
Panel data 1
Cross-sectional study 1 3.7
Descriptive statistics 2 70.3
Qualitative 5 14.8 Literature-based studies 1 3.7
Models 5 11.1 General equilibrium model, Markov-
switching model, SIR model, social
accounting matrix (SAM) multiplier models
Table 2.
Characteristics of the
included
studies (n531)
JES
Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multiplier models and SIR models used to quantify and
analyse the economic impact of COVID-19.
Summary of the key findings
All of the studies in this review included critical economic parameters and factors on the
COVID-19 pandemic. Figure 2 illustrates the variables and their frequency of use by the
included articles. Gross Domestics Product variable was the most frequently used factor.
Out of 31 studies, fifteen investigated the impact of COVID-19 on GDP and six studies
focused on consumption, unemployment, labor market outcome and four papers assessed
government policies and economic growth during COVID-19. It is worth noting that the
majority of the studies examined multiple variables at the same time.
Economic structural changes during the pandemic
The agriculture and food production sector has encountered significant disruptions due to
the COVID-19 crisis and associated lockdown restrictions. Several studies have analysed the
impact of COVID-19 on the agricultural processes (Amewu et al., 2020;Bitanihirwe and
Ssewanyana, 2021). For example, Amewu et al. (2020) estimated the economic costs of COVID-
19 policies and external shocks focusing on agri-food system impacts and calculated value
was 19.8% of GDP. In contrast, sector-level production has faced a sharp decline in sector-
level activity following the suppression strategy. Hotels, restaurant services, and recreational
activities have dropped gradually, while processed food sectors were much less affected
(Bitanihirwe and Ssewanyana, 2021).
Growth and Infections
Growth and Deaths 1
Growth and Mortility 1
Demand & Supply
Shocks, 2
Economic Activity, 1
GDP, 15
healthcare cost, 2
non-healthcare cost, 1
Public expenditure, 5
Consumption, 6
Savings /Investments, 3
Production, 1
Infla tion, 3
Unemployment, 6
Health / Government
Policies, 4
Income/ Revenue, 3
Poverty, 2
risk, 2
Human Capital /
Labou r, 6
Transpotation, 1
Remitances, 3
Borrowings, 3
non-consumption , 1
IPI, 1
FDI, 1
Economic Growth, 4
Business Inventory, 1
Figure 2.
Factors examined and
their frequencies in the
included studies
Economics of
COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented decline in industrial production. The
manufacturing of durable consumer products and capital equipment was affected the most,
with respective falls during strict confinement (Pinilla et al., 2021).
Impacts of COVID-19 on the labour market
Six out of 31 studies investigated the impacts of COVID-19 on human capital development
and the labour market, with only one study coming under the economic cost calculations
(from Montegerio).
Djurovic et al. (2020) considered human capital as a supply-side factor, and the impact of
the disease incapacitated a portion of the employment force. The implication is that having a
high life expectancy will provide economies with the labor force needed to improve the
country’s GDP productivity (Alhassan et al., 2020). In the meantime, infectious disease
outbreaks have had an impact on labor supply and productivity across industries, owing to
reduced work time for infected workers or time lost by caregivers (Keogh-brown et al., 2020).
The negative impacts on labor market outcomes due to the pandemic are larger for men,
younger workers and less educated workers. This situation suggest that COVID-19 had
increased labor market inequalities and also, COVID-19 cases and deaths had eventually
affected the economy directly by affecting the labor supply of infected individuals (B
eland
et al., 2020). According to the Mckibbin and Fernando (2020) mortality due to infection,
morbidity due to infection, and morbidity arising from caregiving for affected family
members have created a shock to the labour supply in each country.
Impacts of COVID-19 on unemployment
Six studies examined unemployment changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Out of these
studies, 66% were based on developed countries (two studies based on the USA, one study
conducted as a comparison of the USA and global context, and one study based on Spain).
‘The rest of the studies were conducted based on African and South Asian Countries.
Medium level businesses and manufacturing firms could not sustain themselves through
the lockdown, leaving many informal sector workers unemployed; economic losses
accumulated due to reduced demand, restriction of movement, lack of access to markets,
and the loss of mobility of people and goods have all affected workers (Rasul et al., 2021).
Meanwhile, there has been a significant increase in unemployment and underemployment in
developing countries as a result of COVID- 19. And also, COVID-19 restrictions have brought
major economic activities to a standstill and have closed the operation of business except a
few health-related enterprises (Ataguba, 2020;Rasul et al., 2021). For an instance, Binder
(2020) revealed that only 6.5% of Americans expected lower unemployment in 2020, while
57.4% expected roughly the same amount of unemployment and 36.1% expected more
unemployment. The COVID-19 crisis also disrupted the Spanish labor market. According to
Pinilla’s (2021) projections, the unemployment rate was rice by 11.9% in 2020.
Impacts of COVID-19 on consumptions
Six research papers identified consumer spending as one of the key factors impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic, with 75% studies indicating a considerable decrease in consumer
spending during the pandemic.
Martin et al. (2021) found that even simple containment health policies have reduced people’s
consumption expenditure. They mentioned that higher containment rates make consumption
more costly, so people cut back on the amount they consume and work. Meanwhile,
consumption losses are smaller across all income quintiles, with the lowest drop occurring
among the poorest individuals because benefits from the assistance program can be greater
JES
than pre-crisis income, average consumption losses are most likely to be the smallest. On the
other hand, consumers put less effort into searching and comparing non-durable goods before
purchasingthem because the pandemic’s impact on the purchase of durable goods is uncertain
because such purchases are frequently preceded by an information-gathering process (Van Der
Wielen et al., 2021). Except for groceries, he documented absolute decreases in spending in all
sectors and consumption was vary seasonally (Gupta et al., 2020). However, there has been a
rise in the relative consumption of products and services that could be consumed at home or
purchased online during the pandemic period (Van Der Wielen et al.,2021). For instance,
accordingto the Li et al. (2021) consumption was fell sharply in the first and second quartersdue
to the effects of lockdowns and the restrictions of daily activities for US citizens. However,
owing to the relaxation of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions across the country, consumption
expenditures has rebounded sharply in the September quarter in Australia (Melbourne being
the exception) (Lim et al.,2021).
Impacts of COVID-19 on size and the composition of public expenditure and healthcare costs
Seven studies revealed different results on health care facilities and government spending
due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Among these, five papers investigated government spending,
while two studies looked at variations of healthcare costs during the pandemic.
Public spending has had a significant negative impact on contemporary economic
activity. Therefore, governments should focus on using fast and expensive measures to
ensure that the circular flow of money is not interrupted to flatten the recession curve and
minimize the damage caused to the economy (Varona and Gonzales, 2021). However, Burger
(2020) discussed that, while the expenditure increases the debt, it also causes GDP to rise
sufficiently to economic stability or even improve the debt to GDP ratio.
Some policymakers fear that cutting expenditure may undermine growth and fail to
restore fiscal sustainability. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments
have argued in favour of increased government spending, believing that through the
expenditure multiplier, such spending would generate a sufficient increase in economic
growth (Burger and Calitz, 2020;Alhassan et al., 2020).
According to the Donaldson and Mitton (2020), increased healthcare spending and social
and economic support packages thrown at COVID-19 by various governments should include
an assessment of the opportunity cost of patients whose procedures and treatments were
curtailed. And also, McKibbin and Fernando (2020) stated that, to prevent the outbreak from
spreading further, governments around the world have taken more precautionary measures,
such as strengthening health screening at ports and investing in strengthening healthcare
infrastructure. Further, Donaldson and Mitton (2020) mentioned that COVID-19 had brought
a large-scale problem in terms of health versus the economy, and it had increased healthcare
expenditures thrown at COVID-19.
Impacts of COVID-19 on savings and investment
A total of three studies were identified that examined the impact of COVID-19 on the savings
and Investments. The COVID-19 has reduced global trade in goods, trade in services, and
foreign direct investment dramatically. For an instance, the severe COVID-19 lockdown in
China’s Hubei province reduced fixed capital investment by 169 billion yuan in February
2020. By March 2020, the value of the loss dropped to 279 billion. During the lockdown period,
the average loss was 224 billion yuan or about 82% of the counterfactual (Ke and Hsiao,
2021). Furthermore, Alhassan et al. (2020) recommended that governments prioritise
investment in human capital development through the provision of healthcare facilities,
personnel training, monitoring, and evaluation, and making access to healthcare facilities
affordable to mitigate the risks of COVID-19.
Economics of
COVID-19
Martin et al. (2020) presented a household-level model to examine the socioeconomic
consequences of COVID-19 on per capita consumption, savings, and benefits of government
interventions. According to their findings, the most individuals depleted their savings to
smooth consumption, with some people fully deplete their savings.
Impacts of COVID-19 on GDP
GDP, which has been affected in various ways, was the most commonly examined parameter
(in 15 studies). Ten studies out of 15 have examined the effects of the pandemic on GDP, and
most of them were based on high COVID-19 fatality countries.
Per capita GDP showed a downward trend during the COVID-19 pandemic in many
studies (Iluno et al., 2021;Pinilla et al., 2021;Boissay and Rungcharoenkitkul, 2020). Since
GDP depends on some factors, such as COVID-19 mortality, population, etc., it is considered
that COVID-19 mortality is the main contributor to the downward trend, even when GDP per
capita remains constant (Iluno et al., 2021). The decline in GDP attributable to the pandemic
has been exogenous to the country and is beyond the government’s control, as it is dependent
on the global dynamics of the pandemic and the countries that are economically most
interconnected. Furthermore, necessary restrictions on social interactions and “avoidable”
restrictions on economic activity that exceed optimal restrictions cause a drop in GDP
(Pinilla et al., 2021). For example, Spain’s economy is based on the services sector mainly, and
it had larger dropdowns from COVID-19 In 2020 while reducing GDP by 11.41% as a result of
COVID-19 (Boissay and Rungcharoenkitkul, 2020). And also, the national GDP of Ghana was
expected to fall by 28% during their lockdown period (Amewu et al., 2020). On the other hand,
the GDP of Australia fell by a record 7% in the second quarter of 2020, following a 0.3% drop
in the March quarter, recording the country’s first technical recession since 1991 (Lim et al.,
2021). These results imply that GDP losses are much higher in developing countries than
developed countries.
Impacts of COVID-19 on economic growth
This SLR identified four studies that examined the association between the impacts of
COVID-19 and economic growth. Hayat et al. (2021) examined the linkages between inflation,
interest rate, and economic growth in Pakistan under the influence of COVID-19 pandemic
using a Wavelet Transformation Approach. Their findings indicate that the inflation
rate-growth and interest rate–growth relationships are not unidirectional or bidirectional
across all time scales. Therefore, they suggested that the monitory authority should attempt
to maintain inflation and interest rate at a low level in the short-run and medium run instead
of putting too much pressure in the long-run to achieve an economic growth. The GDP growth
rate decreased in most countries during the pandemic. In some countries (Italy, Spain, the
USA, the Netherland, Belgium, and Australia), the GDP growth rates started decreasing in
the first quarter of 2020. Apart from that, the GDP growth rate decreased significantly from
the fourth quarter of 2019 to the first quarter of 2020 in Germany, France, Sweden, and
Canada. Among the countries with more than a thousand corona-affected cases, Malaysia is
the only one whose GDP growth rate has not been affected by the Covid-19 (Islam and
Muyeed, 2020).
Impacts of COVID-19 on international trade
According to Ke and Hsiao (2021) export and import decreased as a result of the COVID-19
lockdown policies. However, after the implementation of the unlock policy, both exports and
imports have further declined. Therefore, they suggested that advancement of international
trade permitted to restart of production immediately by finding alternative domestic or
JES
foreign suppliers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The depreciation of the exchange rate has
increased exports and decreased imports in countries losing capital, resulting in a current
account adjustment that was consistent with the capital account adjustment (Mckibbin and
Fernando, 2020). Meantime Lim et al. (2021) stated that the immediate economic burden of the
sharp declines in net exports of services was, to a large extent, borne by sectors that were
most exposed to international trade.
Impacts of COVID-19 on remittances
Three research papers examined the economic impact of COVID-19 on remittances; all studies
found a considerable decrease in remittance income during the pandemic. These three studies
analyzed the effects of Covid-19 on key social and economic areas, including migrant
remittances (Gupta et al., 2020;Islam and Muyeed, 2020;Rasul et al., 2021). Households’
capacity to purchase necessary food and non-food items to support their livelihoods has been
harmed by a significant drop in remittance income following the lockdown (Gupta et al., 2020).
The COVID-19 epidemic made a substantial impact on the migration and remittance
industries. Initial projections reveal that remittances may drop significantly across the board
in South Asian nations (Rasul et al., 2021).
Impacts of COVID-19 on demand and supply shocks, and price level
Three studies revealed the effects of inflation, and two papers discussed demand and supply
shocks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Pinilla et al. (2021), the decline in
business activity was directly related to the sharp decrease in demand during the pandemic,
and the decline in the Industrial Production Index, which discouraged the supply side during
the pandemic. Meanwhile, lockdowns, travel restrictions, and shop closures, including informal
grocery stores, bars, and restaurants, caused a significant decline in demand (Ataguba, 2020).
The inflation expectations were distinct from country to country during the COVID-19
pandemic. For an example, the impact of COVID-19 was expected to cause slightly higher
inflation in South Asian countries in 2020. With the exception of Pakistan, all other South
Asian countries were expected to have low inflation in 2020, compared to 2019 inflation rates
(Rasul et al., 2021). Moreover, coronavirus was associated with more pessimistic
unemployment expectations and higher inflation expectations. This is consistent with the
findings that consumer pessimism is linked to higher inflation expectations (Binder, 2020).
The imports from countries highly affected by COVID-19 pandemic were reduced, the general
price levels had increased in some countries (Ataguba, 2020).
Impacts of COVID-19 on poverty and wellbeing
The Covid-19 outbreak has had an immediate impact on people’s health and economic
activity, threatening the livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable groups. Two studies
were examined impact of Covid-19 on poverty and human wellbeing. One study focused on
South Asian countries, while the other focused on Sub-Saharan Africa. Both studies
highlighted the significance of assisting and implementing policy measures to mitigate the
pandemic’s negative effects on the poor and most vulnerable segments of society and
promote economic recovery (Amewu et al., 2020;Rasul et al., 2021).
According to Amewu et al. (2020), the national poverty headcount increased during the
lockdown period. This significant, albeit temporary, increased resulted in an additional 3.8 million
people falling into poverty during the lockdown. Governments required to provide social security
to the poorest citizens, especially when they lose their informal employment opportunities.
Improving the poor’s saving habits, providing access to banking services, and providing safety
nets during times of crisis reduce people’s socioeconomic vulnerability (Rasul et al., 2021).
Economics of
COVID-19
Impacts of COVID-19 on socio-economic factors
Three studies have discussed socio-economic factors and human development while analysing
the economic impact of COVID-19. Women, liberal occupations, a low level of education, and
attendance at revival churches allhad a significant socio-economic impact due to the COVID-19
pandemic (Natuhoyila et al.,2021). On the other hand, lack of awareness of the spread of
COVID-19, insufficient information transmission, and rude and social distancing procedures
caused to made the COVID-19 epidemic vast danger (Parveen et al.,2021). Therefore,
governments must consider socioeconomic fundamentals when makinghealth policy decisions
because that can be useful in lowering household exposure to alcohol and cigarettes, reducing
poverty rates, ensuring economic inclusion, and fine-tuning government control measures to
minimise harm to the population while effectively curbing mortality (Ngepah, 2021).
Futher, Argente et al. (2022) used the SIR model to calibrate the impact of the change in
commuting patterns following the public disclosure of information on the transmission of the
virus and the economic losses due to the change in commuting patterns. He found that the
economic welfare declined by 0.3% at the height of illness because workers have realized the
cost of getting infected and changed their commuting behavior.
Discussion
This paper provides a comprehensive review of the economics of COVID-19 using the literature
published between March 2020 to August 2021 (Appendix 1). It takes into account mainly
economic impacts, cost, and uncertainty. The changes in economic factors and containment
health policies have been considerations in the decision-making process of nations. It is
important to identify behaviors of macroeconomic factors during the pandemic and their
impact on entire economies while reviewing stringent policies of COVID-19 in each country.
This study compiled data from over 60 countries, including the United States, India, and Brazil,
which had significant COVID-19 mortality rates. Because all countries were interrelated
regionally and worldwide in trade, travel, tourism and other socio economic conditions, the
COVID-19 virus spread quickly and had long-term economic consequences for the entire world.
When investigating the economic effects of COVID-19, gross domestic product, health
spending, consumption, and the labor markets had encountered significant obstacles (Pinilla
et al.,2021;B
eland et al.,2020;Hayat et al.,2021). Further, according to the study by Rasul et al.
(2021) COVID-19 is likely to have an impact on economic growth by increasing the fiscal deficit
and monetaryburden, increasing the risks of macroeconomic instability, decreasing migration
and remittances, and decreasing income from travel and tourism.
Economic impacts
The studies were categorised according to effects COVID-19 on economic variables. The
pandemic has behaved as a systemic shock on the price level, consumption, unemployment,
and savings at the macroeconomic level (Varona and Gonzales, 2021). Meantime, household
savings and consumption have dropped significantly. The crisis was exacerbated by a
general decrease in demand, people’s change in consumer behavior, and a general slowdown
in economic activities (Martin et al., 2020). According to Villaverde and Jones (2020), most
countries, regions, and cities fall into one of two categories: high GDP losses with high fatality
rates (New York City, Lombardy, United Kingdom, etc.) or low GDP losses with low fatality
rates (Germany, Norway, Kentucky). Only a few states, primarily California and Sweden,
differ from this pattern. Those countries with the highest mortality reduced economic activity
dramatically to reduce social contacts and slow the spread of the pandemic through a
combination of government mandates and voluntary changes in behaviour. In comparison,
areas that were able to control the virus from the start could maintain economic activity while
JES
suffering fewer deaths. In addition, the tourism, hospitality, aviation, textile, agriculture,
construction, and jewelry industries were primarily responsible for the economy and job
creation. Those sectors have reported significant losses during the pandemic (You et al.,
2020). As Van der Wielen et al. (2021) proposed, a targeted policy response is required to boost
economic recovery and reduce the risk of unemployment due to the severe labor market
difficulties that have arisen as a result of the COVID-19 epidemic.
Economic cost
COVID-19 has the potential to inflict severe economic costs on both regional and global
economies (Pak et al., 2020). The high direct costs on human health and economic activities
during the pandemic pose the most adverse effects on the livelihoods of the poor and the most
vulnerable communities. For a example, COVID-19 has imposed unprecedented economic
costs on the UK economy, and the duration of school and business closures were crucial to
determining the indirect cost of the pandemic (Keogh-brown et al., 2020). On the other hand,
the strict COVID-19 containment policy resulted in Hubei’s economy in China holding
massive costs. However, the size and scope of huge losses have quickly reduced after
re-opening the Chinese economy (Ke and Hsiao, 2021). Although all countries have suffered
hardships due to Covid-19, South Asian countries, in particular, have had to face challenging
situations with their large population, poor health facilities, high poverty rates, low
socio-economic circumstances, and inadequate social protection systems. As a result, the
economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Asia are anticipated to
be significant and long-lasting (Rasul et al., 2021). According to the calculations of Argente
et al. (2022), the average economic welfare loss per day compared to the no disclosure case
declines by 0.3% in South Korea. Under partial disclosure and under no disclosure, the daily
economic welfare loss for the young and old is 0.04% and 0.14%, respectively.
The global consumption, as a major source of economic activity, collapsed during the first
wave of the pandemic in early 2020. The coronavirus has had a wide range of effects on
individual consumption expenditure, even though its economic impact has been uneven.
Since some companies continued to pay wages during lockdown has made huge costs, and
some households may have had savings to fall back on to sustain consumption, it may
overstate the experience of being poor (Rasul et al., 2021;Amewu et al., 2020).
Government policies
As countries begin to emerge from the most severe phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, they
have used different policy tools to reduce health risks and monitor economic activities. The
economic shocks of the COVID-19 have been more than just a demand management issue;
they are a multifaceted crisis that will necessitate monetary, fiscal, and healthcare policy
responses (Mckibbin and Fernando, 2020). For instance, the public debt to GDP ratio was
budgeted to be around 80% in 2020/21, which was nearly 15% points higher than anticipated
in the February 2020 budget due to the Covid-19 crisis in South Africa (Burger and Calitz,
2020). As a result, health economists should take the lead in developing policies for current
and future pandemics. Therefore, many governments have used contingency funds for
emergency pandemic response, including for urgent health needs, such as establishing
testing labs, setting up special wards to boost hospitalisation and care capacity and
procuring critical medical supplies (Donaldson and Mitton, 2020).
Further, The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted large-scale emergency government
assistance for businesses and industries. The design and implementation of this assistance
are essential in avoiding medium- and long-term aggregate demand and supply distortions
(Binder, 2020). All countries have increased health spending, including improvements in
virus diagnostics, vaccine purchases, hospital equipment purchases, and clinic and hospital
Economics of
COVID-19
construction. Furthermore, many developed countries provided assistance to workers and
vulnerable groups, such as increased transfers to unemployment insurance benefits and
payments to minimum-wage workers (Martin et al., 2020;Sarkodie and Owusu, 2021;Bagchi
et al., 2020).
Contributions to the literature
The study’s findings contributed to the literature in a variety of ways. The COVID-19
literature relating to economics have been placed in a clear and understandable context. This
study has visualised knowledge gaps by graphing these relationships and visualising their
various connections, demonstrating their mutual influences.
Through the study, we have been able to provide empirical evidence of the economic
impacts, economic costs, economic uncertainty, and macroeconomic variable changes of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The results of the study have indicated that these variables have
influenced each other in different ways. More importantly, developing countries have an
above-average leverage effect on macroeconomic performance as those countries have strong
impacts on their economies.
Many studies have been conducted to examine the macroeconomic variable changes,
impacts on public health expenditure, and economic growth as a result of the pandemic.
There were a few studies on the short-term relationship between economic risks,
expectations, and costs. There was almost no sufficient literature on the relationship
between fiscal support and performance of economic activities during the pandemic, which
may be surprising considering the incentives of the containment policies that exist in several
countries. In addition to the fact that very few studies have investigated the abovementioned
relationships, another area of research can investigate to what extent countries can recover
their economic loss while implementing containment health practices.
Limitations
An overview containing a diverse body of literature on the economics of COVID-19 through
an examination of the multidimensional aspects may provide an understanding about
mitigating practices of the adverse economic impacts of the pandemic. This review does not
examine the financial impacts of COVID-19, though it is very much related to the economic
performance of a country. The study mainly reviewed the economic consequences to
illustrate the idea of the economics of COVID-19. Although this study made an attempt to
cover both macroeconomic and household sector economic situations, there are some broad
areas that cover microeconomic aspects, health financing, and efficiency of health resource
utilisation, and have used a wide range of heterogeneous methods and measures. This study
did not judge studies by their impact on ecological, demographical, and social impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic. In the meantime, the review is limited by the JBI summary quality
framework of the underlying studies.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the economies of countries adversely while creating
significant pressure on health systems. As the world becomes more interconnected, the
economic impact of the pandemic has become more serious. In this sense, the current study
contributes to a multidisciplinary stream of research on the economics of the COVID-19
pandemic. It has opened up a future research path to investigate the decision-making policies
of the economy during the pandemic. This study documented the most relevant research
articles to measure the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2021.
The study examined the economic impacts of COVID-19 focusing on the behavior of
JES
macroeconomic variables during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to guide
governments, firms and households to take future decisions and act rationally by reducing
the impacts caused by any future pandemic.
Thelockdownsandothercontainmentpolicieshavehadadverseeffectsonthepricelevel,
employment and GDP. In the meanwhile, it caused a significant drop in consumption and
investment spending for many goods and services and manufacturing processes. Therefore,
governments need to follow more development policy tools to ensure that the recovery from the
pandemic leads to greater long-term resilience. Governments have been at the forefront of
keeping economies and societies afloat. They have had to make difficult policy decisions
immediately to prevent the spread of the virus especially as it affected the economy. Many
countries have implemented government responses on public health, and social protection, and
provided a test for budgeting, public employment, regulation, digital and infrastructure systems.
There were several guidelines to discuss the economic consequences of the pandemic,
which were indicated by the future research studies referred to by authors from selected
published studies. As a result, more comprehensive studies can be conducted to determine the
threshold levels of inflation, interest rates and fiscal and monetary policy responses during
the pandemic (Hayat et al., 2021;Binder, 2020). A view of macroeconomic impacts and
analysis to understand the short-run and long-run impacts of the macroeconomic factors
while mitigating the risks of outbreaks of economic threats has been proposed to facilitate
further study (Li et al., 2021).
References
Alhassan, G.N., Adedoyin, F.F., Bekun, F.V. and Agabo, T.J. (2020), “Does life expectancy, death rate
and public health expenditure matter in sustaining economic growth under COVID-19:
empirical evidence from Nigeria?”,Regional Science Policy and Practice, Vol. 21 No. 4, e2302, doi:
10.1002/pa.2302.
Amewu, S., Asante, S., Pauw, K. and Thurlow, J. (2020), “The economic costs of COVID-19 in Sub-
Saharan Africa: insights from a simulation exercise for Ghana”,European Journal of
Development Research, Vol. 32, Special Issue Article, pp. 1-26.
Argente, D., Hsieh, C.T. and Lee, M. (2022), “The cost of privacy: welfare effects of the disclosure of
Covid-19 cases”,Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 176-186.
Ataguba, J.E. (2020), “COVID-19 pandemic, a war to be won: understanding its economic implications
for Africa”,Applied Health Economic Health Policy, Vol. 18, pp. 325-328.
Bagchi, B., Chatterjee, S., Ghosh, R. and Dandapat, D. (2020), “Impact of COVID-19 on global
economy”,Coronavirus Outbreak and the Great Lockdown: Impact on Oil Prices and Major
Stock Markets Across the Globe, Springer Singapore, Singapore, Vol 18 No. 10, pp. 15-26.
B
eland, L.P., Brodeur, A., Mikola, D. and Wright, T. (2020), “The short-term economic consequences of
COVID-19: exposure to disease, remote work and government response”, IZA Discussion Paper
No. 13254.
Binder, C. (2020), “Coronavirus fears and macroeconomic expectations”,The Review of Economics and
Statistics, Vol. 102, pp. 721-730.
Bitanihirwe, B.K.Y. and Ssewanyana, D. (2021), “The health and economic burden of the coronavirus
in sub-Saharan Africa”,Glob Health Promot, Vol. 28, pp. 70-74.
Boissay, F. and Rungcharoenkitkul, P. (2020), “Macroeconomic effects of Covid-19: an early review”,
Bank for International Settlements, No. 7, pp. 1-7.
Burger, P. and Calitz, E. (2020), “Covid-19, economic growth and South African fiscal policy”,South
African Journal of Economics, Vol. 89, pp. 3-24.
Chudik, A., Mohaddes, K. and Raissi, M. (2021), “COVID-19 fiscal support and its effectiveness”,The
Economic Research Forum, Egypt, Vol. 205, pp. 1-5.
Economics of
COVID-19
Djurovic, G., Djurovic, V. and Bojaj, M.M. (2020), “The macroeconomic effects of COVID-19 in
Montenegro: a Bayesian VARX approach”,Financial Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.
1186/s40854‑020‑00207‑z.
Donaldson, C. and Mitton, C. (2020), “Coronavirus: where has all the health economics gone?”,
International Jounal of Health Policy Management, Vol. 9, pp. 466-468.
Ehrenberg, J.P., Utzinger, J., Fontes, G., Da Rocha, E.M.M., Ehrenberg, N., Zhou, X.N. and Steinmann,
P. (2021), “Efforts to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: potential entry
points for neglected tropical diseases”,Infect Dis Poverty, Vol. 10, p. 2.
Gupta, A., Zhu, H., Doan, M.K., Michuda, A. and Majumder, B. (2020), “Economic impacts of the
COVID19 lockdown in a remittance-dependent region”.
Hayat, M.A., Ghulam, H., Batool, M., Naeem, M.Z., Ejaz, A., Spulbar, C. and Birau, R. (2021),
“Investigating the causal linkages among inflation, interest rate, and economic growth in
Pakistan under the influence of COVID-19 pandemic: a wavelet transformation approach”,
Journal of Risk and Financial Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1-22.
Hossain, S. and Rahamanv, M. (2021), “The Post COVID-19 global economy: an econometric analysis”,
Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-43, doi: 10.9790/5933-1201062243.
Iluno, C., Taylor, J., Akinmoladun, O., Aderele, O. and Ekum, M. (2021), “Modelling the effect of Covid-
19 mortality on the economy of Nigeria”,Research in Globalization, Vol. 3, pp. 5006-5015.
Islam, M.R. and Muyeed, A. (2020), “Impacts of covid-19 pandemic on global economy: a meta-analysis
approach”,International Journal of Technical Research and Science, Vol. 05, pp. 8-19.
Jackson, J.K., Weiss, M.A., Schwarzenberg, A.B. and Nelson, R.M. (2020), “Global economic effects of
COVID-19”,Congressional Research Service, Vol. 12, pp. 22-43.
Jin, H., Wang, H., Li, X., Zheng, W., Ye, S., Zhang, S., Zhou, J. and Pennington, M. (2021), “Economic
burden of COVID-19, China, January-March, 2020: a cost-of-illness study”,Bull World Health
Organ, Vol. 99, pp. 112-124.
Ke, X. and Hsiao, C. (2021), “Economic impact of the most drastic lockdown during COVID-19
pandemic—the experience of Hubei, China”,Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol 37, No 1,
pp.187-209.
Keogh-brown, M.R., Jensen, H.T., Edmunds, W.J. and Smith, R.D. (2020), “The impact of Covid-19,
associated behaviours and policies on the UK economy: a computable general equilibrium
model”,SSM Popul Health, Vol. 12, 100651.
Kolahchi, Z., DE Domenico, M., Uddin, L.Q., Cauda, V., Grossmann, I., Lacasa, L., Grancini, G.,
Mahmoudi, M. and Rezaei, N. (2021), “COVID-19 and its global economic impact”, in Rezaei, N.
(Ed.), Coronavirus Disease - COVID-19, Springer International Publishing, ISBN 978-3-030-
63761-3, Cham %@.
Li, Z., Farmanesh, P., Kirikkaleli, D. and Itani, R. (2021), “A comparative analysis of COVID-19 and
global financial crises: evidence from US economy”,Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istra
zivanja, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Lim, G., Nguyen, V., Robinson, T., Tsiaplias, S. and Wang, J. (2021), “The Australian economy in 2020-
21: the COVID-19 pandemic and prospects for economic recovery”,The Australian Economic
Review, Vol. 54, pp. 5-18.
Martin, A., Markhvida, M., Hallegatte, S. and Walsh, B. (2020), “Socio-economic impacts of COVID-19
on household consumption and poverty”,Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 1-27.
Mckibbin, W. and Fernando, R. (2020), “The global macroeconomic impacts of COVID-19: seven
scenarios”,Asian Economic Papers, Vol. 20, pp. 1-30.
Natuhoyila, A.N., Nlombi, C.M., Kabangi, H.A.T., Lelo, G.M., Ngwala, P.L. and Mbenza, B.L. (2021),
“Discrimination of the socio-economic impact of the corona virus disease pandemic in Kinshasa,
in the democratic republic of the Congo: a population-based cross-sectional survey”,OALib,
Vol. 08, pp. 1-13.
JES
Ngepah, N. (2021), “Socio-economic determinants of global COVID-19 mortalities: policy lessons for
current and future pandemics”,Health Policy Plan, Vol. 36, pp. 418-434.
Page, M.J., Mckenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L.,
Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A. and Brennan, S.E. (2021), “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated
guideline for reporting systematic reviews”,Systematic Reviews, Vol. 10, pp. 1-11.
Pak, A., Adegboye, O.A., Adekunle, A.I., Rahman, K.M. and McBryde, E.S. (2020), “Economic
consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak: the need for epidemic preparedness”,Frontiers in
Public Health, Vol. 8 No. 241, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00241.
Parveen, T., Wang, W. and Hao, W. (2021), “COVID-19 pandemic outbreak: an analysis of the
healthcare, socio-economic challenges in Pakistan”,Open Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 09,
pp. 245-254.
Pinilla, J., Barber, P., Vallejo-Torres, L., Rodriguez-Mireles, S., Lopez-Valcarcel, B.G. and Serra-Majem,
L. (2021), “The economic impact of the SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic in Spain”,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 1-13.
Rasul, G., Nepal, A.K., Hussain, A., Maharjan, A., Joshi, S., Lama, A., Gurung, P., Ahmad, F., Mishra, A.
and Sharma, E. (2021), “Socio-economic implications of COVID-19 pandemic in South Asia:
emerging risks and growing challenges”,Frontiers in Sociology, Vol. 6, pp. 629-693.
Rowthorn, R. and Maciejowski, J. (2020), “A cost–benefit analysis of the COVID-19 disease”,Oxford
Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 36, Supp. 1, pp. S38-555, doi: 10.1093/oxrep/graa030v.
Roy, S. (2020), “Economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic”, Research gate net, pp. 1-29.
Sarkodie, S.A. and Owusu, P.A. (2021), “Global assessment of environment, health and economic
impact of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19)”,Environment, Development and Sustainability,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 5005-5015.
UNDP (2021), “Impact of vaccine inequity on economic recovery”, in Programme, U.N.D. (Ed.), Global
Dashboard for Vaccine Equity.
Van Der Wielen, Barrios, W. and Salvador (2021), “Economic sentiment during the COVID pandemic:
evidence from search behaviour in the EU”,Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 115, pp.
1-18.
Varona, L. and Gonzales, J.R. (2021), “Dynamics of the impact of COVID-19 on the economic activity of
Peru”,PLoS One, Vol. 16, e0244920.
Villaverde, J.F. and Jones, C.I. (2020), “Macroeconomic outcomes and COVID-19: a ProgressS report”,
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 28004, pp. 1-40.
World Health Organization (2020), WHO COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Progress Report-1
February to 30 June 2020, World Health Organization.
World Health Organization (2021), “WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard”, available at: https://
covid19.who.int/.
You, S., Wang, H., Zhang, M., Song, H., Xu, X. and Lai, Y. (2020), “Assessment of monthly economic
losses in Wuhan under the lockdown against COVID-19”,Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications, Vol. 7 No. 1, doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-00545-4.
Corresponding author
Imalka Wasana Rathnayaka can be contacted at: u1138421@umail.usq.edu.au
Economics of
COVID-19
Appendix 1
Included studies on economics of COVID-19 pandemic
Source
Findings
Countries
examined Method Objective Main finding
Ataguba (2020)
-April
Africa Qualitative To discuss the economic burden or cost of the
COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Africa
Full economic impact of COVID-19 on the economies of
countries in Africa cannot be ascertained at the
moment as the situation unfolds
Gupta et al. (2020) - Dec India OLS To estimate the impacts of India’s COVID-19
lockdown on household income, food security,
welfare, and access to local loan markets
Weekly household local income fell by INR 1,022 (US$
13.5), an 88% drop compared to the long-term average
with another 63% reduction in remittance
Varona and Gonzales
(2021) - Jan
Peru Time Series- ARDL
Model
To analyze the dynamics of the short-term
behavior of economic activity/To explain the
causal relationships in a Pandemic context based
on the basic number of spread (Re) of COVID-19
per day
A negative and statistically significant impact of the
COVID-19 shock was found on the level of economic
activity and a long-term Cointegration relationship
with an error correction model (CEM), with the
expected sign and statistically significant at 1%
Pinilla et al. (2021)-March Spain Time Series To analyze macroeconomic impact of the COVID-
19 Pandemic in 2020 using key indicators of the
Spanish economy
Adverse impact of the COVID-19 on the GDP was
11.41% in 2020/Immediate decrease in Demand-
Families reduce consumption and began to save more,
it leads to losses of jobs and reduced activity/National
Unemployment rate increases of 11.%
Donaldson and Mitton
(2020) - May
United
Kingdom and
Canada
Qualitative To study trade-offs with respect to enhancing
health system capacity and the impact of the mix
of private-public financing
Health economics, it may be argued, should play a
much bigger role in policymaking when it comes to
current and future pandemics
Mckibbin and Fernando
(2020)- March
Multiple
Countries
General equilibrium
model
To provide guidance to policymakers regarding
the economic benefits of globally coordinated
policy responses to tame the virus
Consumer and investor confidence reinforce negative
multiplier effects in a downward spiral between labor
and output markets. The three potential “shapes”
Mckibbin and Fernando
(2020) - May
Nigeria time-series data -
ARDL
To assess the regional economic impact of the
lockdown measures ordered by the national
government to prevent the spread of COVID-19
Health expenditure has negative impact on economic
growth./The significant positive effect of life
expectancy on economic growth/Impact of death rate
on economic growth is negative and significant
Hayat et al. (2021) - April Pakistan time-series data -
ARDL - Monthly
data
To understand the impact of inflation and the
interest rate on output growth in the context of
Pakistan using the wavelet transformation
approach
Inflation growth and interest rate growth are out of
phase, indicating the negative relationship between
variables. Keeping the inflation rate at a low level is
very essential for growth in Pakistan in these tough
economic times due to the COVID-19 pandemic
(continued )
JES
Source
Findings
Countries
examined Method Objective Main finding
Burger and Calitz (2020) -
March
South Africa Markov-switching
model- Qualitative
To explore the past efforts of government to
maintain or restore fiscal sustainability by
estimating a fiscal reaction function using a
Markov-switching model
Need to establish the deficit financing, expenditure
and revenue adjustments that the government will
have to make to restore fiscal sustainability
Ngepah (2021) - Jan 196 counties Panel Data To examines the different socio-economic
determinants of the fatalities associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic globally in social
determinants of health frameworks
An improved adequate health infrastructure for both
testing and treatment is necessary, but not sufficient.
Health systems ultimately become overwhelmed and
ineffective in managing cases and reducing mortality
in the face of the rising pandemic. Complementary
social, economic, physical and environmental factors
are necessary for curbing deaths
Boissay and
Rungcharoenkitkul
(2020)
USA and Global
Economy
Descriptive
Statistics
To review studies on past epidemics, and then
turn to the latest quantitative estimates of Covid-
19’s impact on global growth
A better understanding of the transmission channels
of the Covid-19 shock to the economy, the interaction
between economic decisions and the epidemic, and the
policy trade-offs is therefore needed
Villaverde and Jones
(2020)
USA Descriptive
Statistics
To study time-varying contact rate in order to
capture behavioral and policy-induced changes
associated with social distancing
The mortality rate of SARs-CoV-2 in Spain is between
1 and 1.1%. Because many of the early deaths in the
epidemic were linked with mismanagement of care at
nursing homes in Madrid and Barcelona that could
have been avoided, we pick 1% as our benchmark
value
Djurovic et al. (2020) -
Nov
Montenegrio OLS - SVARX
model of GDP
To diagnoses, and assesses appropriate
macroeconomic policy responses of the
Montenegrin Government to the outbreak of
COVID-19
Forecasted reduction of the GDP_GAP is to3.2%
and7.0%, respectively, from January 2020 to
December 2020
Van Der Wielen et al.
(2021)- Nov
27 EU members Panel Data To document the changes in households’
economic sentiment in the EU following the
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing
lockdown
The labour market impact of this crisis is more
pervasive, at least in the people’s minds
Ke and Hsiao (2021) -
August
China Panel Data To evolute the economic consequences of the
drastic lockdown policy in the epicenter of
COVID-19 —the Hubei Province of China during
worldwide curbs on economic activity
The total GDP decreased 37% in 2020./Private
components of GDP, investment, consumption, export,
and import lost 82%, 30%, 36%, and 25% of their
respective counterfactual values
(continued )
Economics of
COVID-19
Source
Findings
Countries
examined Method Objective Main finding
Rasul et al. (2021) - Feb South Asia Descriptive
Statistics
To analyse existing and prospective impacts,
risks and challenges of Covid-19 on key social and
economic sectors including migration, tourism,
informal sector, agriculture and rural livelihoods
COVID-19 affected to economic growth, increase of
fiscal deficit and monetary burden, increase the risks
of macroeconomic instability, decrease migration and
remittance, reduce income from travel and tourism,
and result in dwindling micro-small and medium
industries and informal businesses. This is likely to
deepen poverty and increase unemployment and the
risks of hunger and food insecurity
Binder (2020) - Oct USA OLS To study the formation of consumer expectations
and response to information or Fed
communication
The possible increases in consumer inflation
expectations in the next few months of the COVID-19
crisis might best be interpreted as increases in
pessimism rather than as improved expectations of
aggregate demand
Sarkodie and Owusu
(2021) - May
Global Descriptive
Statistics
To analyse global environmental, health and
economic dimension of the effect of COVID-19
using qualitative and empirical assessments
COVID-19 global pandemic uncertaintyFootnote1
ranks the UK (128.36 index) as the country with the
highest uncertainty level among 143 countries
towards COVID-19 pandemic.The highest total
economic stimulus occurs in Bahrain (31.30% of GDP)
across 162 countries
Martin et al. (2020) - May Global Descriptive
Statistics
To analyse the socio-economic impacts of the
COVID-19 containment at the household level
Household savings and consumption drop
significantly, The long recovery time after the crisis
will be further exacerbated by a general decrease in
demand, people’s change in consumption behavior,
and general slowdown of economic activities
Keogh-brown et al. (2020)
- April
UK Sensitivity analysis To assess the potential macroeconomic impact of
COVID-19, together with policies to mitigate or
suppress the pandemic
The total cost to the economy is £308bn (13.5% of
GDP); £66bn (2.9% of GDP) of which is attributable to
labour lost from working parents during school
closures, and £201bn (8.8% of GDP) of which is
attributable to business closures
Iluno et al. (2021) - March Nigeria Regression
Analysis
To model the effect of COVID-19 mortality per
population, a proxy for COVID-19 on the GDP per
capita per COVID-19 cases
There is a non-linear relationship between COVID-19
mortality and the economic wellbeing of Nigerians
(continued )
JES
Source
Findings
Countries
examined Method Objective Main finding
B
eland et al. (2020) -
April
USA OLS To explore the short-term economic
consequences of COVID19 on employment and
wages in the United States
COVID-19 increased the unemployment rate,
decreased hours of work and labor force participation
and had no significant impacts on wages. The negative
impacts on labor market outcomes are larger for men,
younger workers, Hispanics and lesseducated workers
Bitanihirwe and
Ssewanyana (2021) -
April
Sub-Saharan
Africa
Qualitative To analyse health and economic burden
associated with COVID-19 in SSA
Sub-Saharan Africa, remain tenuous and will require
context-appropriate interventions. Control measures
to tackle COVID-19 in SSA should therefore be
informed through lessons learned from past outbreaks
and emergencies on the continent
(Li et al., 2021) - April USA Descriptive
Statistics
To examine the impact of the global financial
crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic on the
macroeconomic variables of the US economy
The impact of the crisis on the recession probabilities
in the current pandemic is lower than that at the time
of the global financial crisis
Lim et al. (2021) - April Australia Descriptive
Statistics
To describe the economic growth and labour
market ramifications associated with COVID-19,
and the fiscal and monetary policies implemented
to help counter its effects
COVID-19 lockdowns and the closure of borders have
had a massive negative and pervasive impact of
Australia’s performance in 2020
Islam and Muyeed (2020)
- March
Global Descriptive
Statistics
To find out the crucial impacts of Coronavirus
pandemic on the global economy and predicting
the scenario which will face the world economy
30%–40% foreign investment has been decreased and
unemployment rate will rose to more than 25% all over
the world. This crisis could cost 2.7 Trillion US dollar
which is about 3.06% of the global GDP
Amewu et al. (2020) -May Ghana Social Accounting
Matrix (SAM)
multiplier models
To estimate the economic costs of COVID-19
policies and external shocks in a developing
country context, with a focus on agri-food system
impacts
Heavy economic costs will impose. National GDP is
estimated to fall by 27.9% while agri-food system GDP
losses are estimated at 19.8%
Rowthorn and
Maciejowski (2020)
United
Kingdom
SIR Model To quantify the benefits of early intervention to
control the disease and examine how the
government’s valuation of life influences the
optimal path
Under the Baseline scenario, the value of life is £2m
and the optimal lockdown lasts for 5.3 weeks. Holding
other parameters constant, it becomes optimal to
dispense with the lockdown altogether once the value
of life drops below £1.68 m
Natuhoyila et al. (2021) Congo cross-sectional To measure the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on the living conditions of households
Approximately 85% households surveyed had a
significantly socioeconomic impact due to the
pandemic which highlights the need for more
longitudinal studies to be conducted on this age group
(continued )
Economics of
COVID-19
Source
Findings
Countries
examined Method Objective Main finding
Parveen et al. (2021) Pakistan Descriptive
Statistics
To examine the medical, socio-economic
challenges facing during the COVID-19 pandemic
Due to health, social, economic and political structure,
the Pakistani government will not be able to take any
action against COVID-19
Argente et al. (2022) South Korea SIR Model To quantify the effect of public disclosure on the
transmission of the virus and economic losses in
Seoul
The daily economic welfare loss for the young (old) is
0.04 (0.05) percent under partial disclosure and 0.14
(0.17) percent under no disclosure
JES
Appendix 2
Validity assessments with JBI critical appraisal check list after adjudication
Index Index
Yes No
1. Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated? 78 22
2. Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question? 79 21
3. Was the search strategy appropriate? 67 33
4. Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate? 74 26
5. Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate? 70 30
6. Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently? 100 0
7. Were there methods to minimise errors in data extraction? 66 34
8. Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate? 65 35
9. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? 19 81
10. Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data? 85 15
11. Were the specific directives for new research appropriate? 93 7
Note(s): JBI: Joanna Briggs Institute
Economics of
COVID-19
Appendix 3
Methodological quality assessment and depth of reporting
Background/
Rational Objective Setting
Eligibility
of the
participants Variables
Data sources/
measurement
Study
size
Quantitative
variables
Statistical
methods
with
Sensitivity
analysis
Participant
number
Descriptive
data
Main
results
Category of
continuous
variables
Key
results Limitations Interpretation
Funding.
Items
Ataguba (2020) y y y y y y yn y n y n yn yy y y
Gupta et al. (2020) y y y n/a y y n y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Varona and
Gonzales (2021)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Pinilla et al. (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Donaldson and
Mitton (2020)
y y y n/a y y y n y n n/a n y n y y y y
McKibbin and
Fernando (2020)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Alhassan et al.
(2020)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Hayat et al. (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Burger and Calitz
(2020)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Ngepah (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Boissay and
Rungcharoenkitkul
(2020)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Villaverde and
Jones (2020)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Djurovic et al. (2020) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Van Der Wielen
et al. (2021)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Ke and Hsiao (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Rasul et al. (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Binder (2020) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Sarkodie and
Owusu (2021)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Martin et al. (2020) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Keogh-Brown et al.
(2020)
y y y n/a y y y y y y n/a n y y y y y y
Iluno et al. (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
B
eland et al. (2020) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Bitanihirwe and
Ssewanyana (2021)
y y y n/a y y y n y n n/a n y n y y y y
Li et al. (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Lim et al. (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Islam and Muyeed
(2020)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Amewu et al. (2020) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Rowthorn and
Maciejowski (2020)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Natuhoyila et al.
(2021)
y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
Parveen et al. (2021) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a y y y y y y y
Argente et al. (2022) y y y n/a y y y y y n n/a n y y y y y y
100 100 100 3 100 100 97 90 100 0 3 3 29 100 90 100 100 100
Note(s): y: present n: not present n/a: not applicable
Source(s): Rana et al. (2020)
JES
