IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cesifo/v66yi4p376-393..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

COVID: Not a Great Equalizer

Author

Listed:
  • Vincenzo Galasso

Abstract

Coronavirus has been portrayed as the ‘great equalizer’. None seems immune to the virus and to the economic consequences of the lockdown measures imposed to contain its diffusion. We exploit novel data from two real-time surveys to study the early impact on the labor market of the lockdown in Italy—one of the two countries, with China, hit hard and early. We find that low-educated workers, blue collars, and low-income service workers were more likely to have stopped working both 3-week and 6-week after the lockdown. Low-educated workers were less likely to work from home. Blue collars worked more from their regular workplace, but not from home. Low-income service workers were instead less likely to work from the regular workplace. For both blue collars and low-income service workers, the monthly labor income dropped already in March. Some positive adjustments took place between the 3rd and the 6th week from the lockdown: the share of idle workers dropped, as the proportion of individuals working at home and from their regular workplace increased. However, these adjustments benefited mostly highly educated workers and white collars. Overall, low-income individuals faced worse labor market outcomes and suffered higher psychological costs. (JEL codes: J21, I24, and H12)

Suggested Citation

  • Vincenzo Galasso, 0. "COVID: Not a Great Equalizer," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 66(4), pages 376-393.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cesifo:v:66:y::i:4:p:376-393.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cesifo/ifaa019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ainaa, Carmen & Brunetti, Irene & Mussida, Chiara & Scicchitano, Sergio, 2021. "Who lost the most? Distributive effects of COVID-19 pandemic," GLO Discussion Paper Series 829, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    2. Naomi Morishita-Steffen & Rémi Alberola & Baptiste Mougeot & Étienne Vignali & Camilla Wikström & Uwe Montag & Emmanuel Gastaud & Brigitte Lutz & Gerhard Hartmann & Franz Xaver Pfaffenbichler & Ali Ha, 2021. "Smarter Together: Progressing Smart Data Platforms in Lyon, Munich, and Vienna," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-25, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    inequality; labor market; COVID;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J21 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure
    • I24 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Education and Inequality
    • H12 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Crisis Management

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cesifo:v:66:y::i:4:p:376-393.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.