No abstract

Background In low-income countries, vaccination campaigns are lagging, and evidence on vaccine acceptance, a crucial public health planning input, remains scant. This is the first study that reports willingness to take COVID-19 vaccines and its socio-demographic correlates in Ethiopia, Africa’s second most populous country. Methods The analysis is based on a nationally representative survey data of 2,317 households conducted in the informal economy in November 2020. It employs two logistic regression models where the two outcome variables are (i) a household head’s willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine or not, and (ii) if yes if they would also hypothetically pay (an unspecified amount) for it or not. Predictors include age, gender, education, marital status, income category, health insurance coverage, sickness due to COVID-19, chronic illness, trust in government, prior participation in voluntary activities, urban residence. Results Willingness to take the vaccine was high (88%) and significantly associated with COVID-19 cases in the family, trust in government and pro-social behavior. All other predictors such as gender, education, income, health insurance, chronic illness, urban residence did not significantly predict vaccine willingness at the 5% level. Among those willing to take the vaccine, 33% also answered that they would hypothetically pay (an unspecified amount) for it, an answer that is significantly associated with trust in government, health insurance coverage and income. Conclusion The results highlight both opportunities and challenges. There is little evidence of vaccine hesitancy in Ethiopia among household heads operating in the informal economy. The role played by trust in government and pro-social behavior in motivating this outcome suggests that policy makers need to consider these factors in the planning of COVID-19 vaccine campaigns in order to foster vaccine uptake. At the same time, as the willingness to hypothetically pay for a COVID-19 vaccine seems to be small, fairly-priced vaccines along with financial support are also needed to ensure further uptake of COVID-19 vaccines.

In developing countries and in particular in sub-Saharan Africa, social protection schemes tend to operate in silos. However, schemes targeting the same geographical areas may have synergies that have not yet been examined, and which are worth scrutinising. This paper contributes to this knowledge gap by examining the joint impacts of two social protection programmes in Ethiopia, that is, the Productive Safety Net Programme and a Community Based Health Insurance Scheme. Based on three rounds of individual level panel data and several rounds of qualitative interviews, we find that individuals covered by both programmes, as opposed to neither or only one of the two programmes, provide greater labour supply, have larger livestock holdings, and have a lower amount of outstanding loans. Furthermore, joint participation is associated with greater use of modern health care facilities as compared to participating only in the safety net programme. These results show that bundling of interventions enhances protection against multiple risks and that linking social protection schemes yields more than the sum of their individual effects.

Social protection and revenue collection are often regarded as potential drivers of social cohesion. The article joins this debate, providing three main contributions. First, we carefully discuss the concept of social cohesion and endorse one specific definition. Second, we propose using the concept of the "fiscal contract" as the key theoretical lens to understand the often neglected potential joint effects of social protection and revenue collection policies on social cohesion. Third, we illustrate three main mechanisms through which these policies can have positive or negative impacts on the different components of social cohesion and highlight the relevance of these for policy-makers deliberations.

Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.