Factors motivating the timing of COVID-19 shelter in place orders by U.S. governors

Abstract

This article is an effort to isolate and estimate the impact of political party control of state government on the length of time it took U.S. states to issue shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs) in an effort to control the spread of COVID-19. We adopt a two-step process to isolate the effect of politics. First, we measure the number of days between the date that state-level cases first exceeded one case per 100,000 population and state issuance of a SIPO. This permits us to compare governor's choices in similar contextswhen the disease is known to be present in the community. Second, we use a statistical toolsurvival analysisto differentiate between state characteristics that might be associated with higher risks of uncontrolled spread and the impact of political party control. We find that the timing of disease progression was remarkably similar across states, suggesting that many states reached the 1:100,000 benchmark at about the same time. By contrast, we find that, even after controlling for a variety of factors, a Republican governor coupled with a Republican majority in the state senate predicts delays in the implementation of SIPOs delays on the order of two days for Republican states that did act, but no action by more than one-third of those states after more than two months above 1:100,000. In contrast, potentially important decision-making factors such as urbanization, elderly population, hospital beds, extent of chronic diseases, and budget capacity of the state government serve, at best, as poor predictors of SIPO timing.

We Want You Back: Uncovering the Effects on In-Person Instructional Operations in Fall 2020

“…Finally, we found State Sociopolitical Features ( β = .33) were positively correlated with State Revenue Changes, meaning state features that predict Republican leadership and below bachelor’s education were associated with smaller declines in tax revenue. This outcome makes sense, as states with Republican governors were generally less likely than Democratic governors to employ COVID-19 mitigation tactics which may lead to more severe state revenue declines, such as restricting mobility (Akovali & Yilmaz, 2020 ) or enforcing lockdowns (Corder et al, 2020 ; Tellis et al, 2020 ). Similar to State Sociopolitical Features, County Political Preferences ( β = .12) were positively correlated with State Revenue Changes, though the magnitude of the coefficient is nearly 3 times smaller.…”

“…That is, institutions may exhibit behaviors more aligned with the “in-group” to maintain benefits and avoid negative sentiments associated with being part of the “out-group” (see Billig & Tajfel, 1973 for more about “in” and “out” group dynamics) rather than behaving based on their own (non-sociopolitical) policy preferences. Institutions are potentially weighing the short- and long-term risks of opposing current power structures or are already partisan themselves and want to avoid the scrutiny of being part of the “out-group.” Given that the Democratic and Republican parties hold partisan preferences around both the state of higher education in the United States (Parker, 2019 ) and policy responses to COVID-19 (Corder et al, 2020 ; Holman et al, 2020 ), we might expect differential responses to COVID-19 based on the political characteristics of an institution’s locale (see Collier et al, 2020b ; Felson & Adamczyk, 2021 ).…”

“…State revenue from taxes was tabulated at the beginning of the pandemic (from March to May 2020) and compared to the same timeframe in 2019 to provide a change statistic (National Public Radio, 2020 ). Research suggests that lockdowns were influenced by politics, in that Democratic governors were three times more likely than Republican governors to impose a lockdown (Tellis et al, 2020 ) and were more likely to engage in a lockdown sooner (Corder et al, 2020 ). States won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 experienced higher per capita infection rates than states won by Donald Trump in March through June 2020.…”

“…By October, 27% of institutions offered in-person instruction (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2020 ). Emergent research suggests that political power structures and budget concerns were more strongly linked to offering in-person instruction than was the severity of the pandemic (Collier et al, 2020b ; Felson & Adamczyk, 2021 ), and these associations were not unique to higher education (Corder et al, 2020 ; Holman et al, 2020 ). While choosing in-person instruction may have been necessary to satisfy budget pressures, legislators, and families, doing so came at the consequence of increasing the spread of the COVID-19.…”

Comparing Motivations for Including Enforcement in US COVID-19 State Executive Orders

“…However, given the politicization of the pandemic, compliance has become a political statement rather than a necessary response to a deadly virus. This has been seen in the use of masks (Lyu and Wehby 2020), the adoption of stay-at-home orders (Corder et al 2020), and even the speed with which states responded to the pandemic (Fowler et al 2020b). Despite the politicization of these policies, compliance is a necessary condition for the orders to work, which means that enforcement mechanisms may be adopted to alter the costs associated with noncompliance.…”