Is Trump a Symptom or a Cause? Economic, Political and Ideological Foundations of the COVID-19 Outbreak in the United States (First Draft)

Abstract

The US is amongst the worst-performing countries at combating COVID-19. And within the US, red (Republican) states have significantly higher cases per capita than blue (Democratic) states. We use cross-country, state, and county-level data to provide a comprehensive analysis of economic, political, and psychological factors contributing to these differences. An inferior social safety net and American conservatism systematically correlate with the realization and effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing and mask wearing from April to September. Economic inequality and weak social safety nets drive the economically vulnerable to work outside their homes, increasing mobility and reducing social distancing during early stages of the pandemic. Conservative ideology, anti-intellectualism, and evangelicalism drive people to politicize social distancing and mask wearing. Both factors predict a premature reopening in many states, and have a strong correlation with the drifting of COVID-19 epicenters to red states over the course of 2020. These factors have more explanatory power than partisanship in the first half year of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. However, from October on, closer to the presidential elections, partisanship is a better predictor of anti-COVID measures and explains well the regional variances of confirmed cases across states and counties. This indicates that partisanship is not the solely important factor in determining COVID-19 response and outcome, but its impact is likely to have been magnified as time goes by.

The Political Economy of Responses to COVID-19 in the U.S.A.

“…As we noted above, the contrast between responses on mask-wearing and SIP policies is predictable on the basis of arguments made in Cui et al [16]. There we argue that SIP has a real economic cost for anyone who cannot work from home, as noted in Thunstrom et al [15].…”

“…This suggests that the factors that influence choices about enacting policies are different in the two cases, with economic factors weighing more heavily in SIP choices and political/symbolic factors more important in mask-related policies. The evidence in Cui et al [16] clearly supports this.…”

“…They suggest that preferences evolve over the course of the epidemic. Cui et al [16] also find that support for Trump is correlated with attitudes towards wearing masks and working from home.…”

“…There is no formal choice model underlying this paper. Cui et al [16] study the differences between states' responses to the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., showing the importance of political and social issues for the management of outbreaks, but with no formal model of the states' choices.…”

Mask Use Depends on the Individual, Situation, and Location—Even Without COVID-19 Transmission: An Observational Study in Shanghai

“…Although a similar mask study was carried out in Wisconsin, United States (Haischer et al, 2020), it was conducted in a situation where infection risks were extremely high (US total at the time of study: 7 million confirmed cases and over 200,000 deaths nationwide). It was also carried out where mask policies were not clear, and in some instances, people refused to adhere to health guidelines for political or personal reasons (Cui et al, 2021). Another cross-national study found collectivistic cultures were more likely to wear masks than individualistic cultures (Lu et al, 2021).…”