Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/232699 
Year of Publication: 
2020
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 13947
Publisher: 
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn
Abstract: 
Countries restrict the overall extent of international travel and migration to balance the expected costs and benefits of mobility. Given the ever-present threat of new, future pandemics, how should permanent restrictions on mobility respond? A simple theoretical framework predicts that reduced exposure to pre-pandemic international mobility causes slightly slower arrival of the pathogen. A standard epidemiological model predicts no decrease in the harm of the pathogen if travel ceases thereafter and only a slight decrease in the harm (for plausible parameters) if travel does not cease. We test these predictions across four global pandemics in three different centuries: the influenza pandemics that began in 1889, 1918, 1957, and 2009. We find that in all cases, even a draconian 50 percent reduction in pre-pandemic international mobility is associated with 1–2 weeks later arrival and no detectable reduction in final mortality. The case for permanent limits on international mobility to reduce the harm of future pandemics is weak.
Subjects: 
migration
pandemic
epidemic
disease
health
COVID-19
Coronavirus
flu
influenza
HIV
Zika
SARS
MERS
Spanish flu
Asian flu
Russian flu
Swine flu
H1N1
health systems
mortality
morbidity
mobility
movement
border
international
global
globalization
JEL: 
H23
I18
J68
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.