2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jjie.2020.101117
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Who suffers from the COVID-19 shocks? Labor market heterogeneity and welfare consequences in Japan

Abstract: Effects of the COVID-19 shocks in the Japanese labor market vary across people of different age groups, genders, employment types, education levels, occupations, and industries. We document heterogeneous changes in employment and earnings in response to the COVID-19 shocks, observed in various data sources during the initial months after onset of the pandemic in Japan. We then feed these shocks into a life-cycle model of heterogeneous agents to quantify welfare consequences of the COVID-19 shocks. In each dime… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

6
91
1
3

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 127 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
6
91
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Our work contributes to the recent and growing literature examining the labor market impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic around the world. Most analysis of early labor market impacts has focused on high-income countries, including Australia (Guven, Sotirakopoulos and Ulker, 2020), Austria (Bamieh and Ziegler, 2020;Gulyas and Pytka, 2020), Italy (Casarico and Lattanzio, 2020), Canada (Jones, Lange, Riddell and Warman, 2020), Denmark (Mattana, Smeets and Warzynski, 2020), the European Union (Pouliakas and Branka, 2020), Germany (Alipour, Falck and Schu¨ller, 2020), Greece (Betcherman et al, 2020), Israel (Miaari, Sabbah-Karkabi and Loewenthal, 2020), Japan (Kikuchi, Kitao and Mikoshiba, 2020;Morikawa, 2020), the Netherlands (Hassink, Kalb and Meekes, 2020;von Gaudecker et al, 2020a,b), the Republic of Korea (Aum, Lee and Shin, 2020), Singapore (Kim, Koh and Zhang, 2020), Sweden (Hensvik, Barbanchon and Rathelot, 2020a;Juranek, Paetzold, Winner and Zoutman, 2020), the United Kingdom (Costa Dias et al, 2020;Crossley, Fisher and Low, 2021;Etheridge, Tang and Wang, 2020;Wadsworth, 2020), and the United States (Adams-Prassl, Boneva, Golin and Rauh, 2020;Angelucci et al, 2020;Avdiu and Nayyar, 2020;Baek, McCrory, Messer and Mui, 2021;Bartik et al, 2020a,b;Beland, Brodeur and Wright, 2020;Cheng et al, 2020;Chetty et al, 2020;Coibion, Gorodnichenko and Weber, 2020;Cowan, 2020;Dalton, Handwerker and Loewenstein, 2020;Dingel and Neiman, 2020;Forsythe, Kahn, Lange and Wiczer, 2020;Gallant, Kroft, Lange and Notowidigdo...…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our work contributes to the recent and growing literature examining the labor market impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic around the world. Most analysis of early labor market impacts has focused on high-income countries, including Australia (Guven, Sotirakopoulos and Ulker, 2020), Austria (Bamieh and Ziegler, 2020;Gulyas and Pytka, 2020), Italy (Casarico and Lattanzio, 2020), Canada (Jones, Lange, Riddell and Warman, 2020), Denmark (Mattana, Smeets and Warzynski, 2020), the European Union (Pouliakas and Branka, 2020), Germany (Alipour, Falck and Schu¨ller, 2020), Greece (Betcherman et al, 2020), Israel (Miaari, Sabbah-Karkabi and Loewenthal, 2020), Japan (Kikuchi, Kitao and Mikoshiba, 2020;Morikawa, 2020), the Netherlands (Hassink, Kalb and Meekes, 2020;von Gaudecker et al, 2020a,b), the Republic of Korea (Aum, Lee and Shin, 2020), Singapore (Kim, Koh and Zhang, 2020), Sweden (Hensvik, Barbanchon and Rathelot, 2020a;Juranek, Paetzold, Winner and Zoutman, 2020), the United Kingdom (Costa Dias et al, 2020;Crossley, Fisher and Low, 2021;Etheridge, Tang and Wang, 2020;Wadsworth, 2020), and the United States (Adams-Prassl, Boneva, Golin and Rauh, 2020;Angelucci et al, 2020;Avdiu and Nayyar, 2020;Baek, McCrory, Messer and Mui, 2021;Bartik et al, 2020a,b;Beland, Brodeur and Wright, 2020;Cheng et al, 2020;Chetty et al, 2020;Coibion, Gorodnichenko and Weber, 2020;Cowan, 2020;Dalton, Handwerker and Loewenstein, 2020;Dingel and Neiman, 2020;Forsythe, Kahn, Lange and Wiczer, 2020;Gallant, Kroft, Lange and Notowidigdo...…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, why do we observe the positive impact of employment-rate shock on only male, not female, suicides? One possible explanation is that, although the COVID-19 employment shock itself is larger for female workers than male workers (Kikuchi et al 2020), a persistent decrease in female employment in the COVID-19 pandemic is largely due to the job loss of part-time or married female workers who may not be breadwinners in their households. 9 The financial and psychological distress of job loss or temporary job retirement for this female cohort may thus have been milder than that of male workers who have lost their jobs in the COVID-19 crisis, at least on average.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some authors comment on labor market development in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic as a gigantic crisis and predict its growing polarization to high-paid work and a group of jobs that disappear because they are uninteresting or poorly valued (pp. 40-43, [5]) (p. 2, [6]).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%