Skip to main content
Menu

Main navigation

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact
    LOADING...
  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit
    LOADING...
  • Publications
    • Studies
    • Commentary
    • Books
    • Reviews and Journals
    • Public Filings
    LOADING...
  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving
    • Meet the Development Team

Issues

  • Constitution and Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Criminal Justice
    • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Economics
    • Banking and Finance
    • Monetary Policy
    • Regulation
    • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Politics and Society
    • Education
    • Government and Politics
    • Health Care
    • Poverty and Social Welfare
    • Technology and Privacy
  • International
    • Defense and Foreign Policy
    • Global Freedom
    • Immigration
    • Trade Policy
Live Now

Cato at Liberty


  • Blog Home
  • RSS

Email Signup

Sign up to have blog posts delivered straight to your inbox!

Topics
  • Banking and Finance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Justice
  • Defense and Foreign Policy
  • Education
  • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Global Freedom
  • Government and Politics
  • Health Care
  • Immigration
  • Monetary Policy
  • Poverty and Social Welfare
  • Regulation
  • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Technology and Privacy
  • Trade Policy
Archives
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • Show More
March 16, 2021 12:47PM

A Cost‐​Benefit Analysis of a Lockdown Is Very Difficult To Do Well

By Ryan Bourne

SHARE

In an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Philippe Lemoine writes (with my emphasis):

The coronavirus lockdowns constitute the most extensive attacks on individual freedom in the West since World War II. Yet not a single government has published a cost-benefit analysis to justify lockdown policies—something policy makers are often required to do while making far less consequential decisions. If my arguments are wrong and lockdown policies are cost-effective, a government document should be able to demonstrate that. No government has produced such a document, perhaps because officials know what it would show.

There is a more charitable explanation for their reticence: doing a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of a lockdown is actually incredibly difficult, especially before the lockdown is implemented. Libertarians, in particular, would appreciate all the uncertainties, knowledge problems, and difficulties in aggregating very subjective values at play.

To be clear: these are not reasons to avoid doing a cost-benefit analysis of a lockdown. I think given the consequential nature of the policies, an attempt, even with a bunch of uncertainties and caveats, would have been clarifying about the trade-offs incumbent in any major decision. But we should not pretend such a task was straightforward.

In my forthcoming book, Economics In One Virus, I try to delineate all the issues that would need to be addressed to do a cost-benefit analysis of a lockdown well. There are major challenges on both the benefit and cost sides, and indeed in using the results to inform policy.

On the benefits side, one would have to:

  • Place a value on the reductions of the statistical risk of dying from COVID-19. Economists commonly use the “value of a statistical life” for this, but these values tend to be derived from labor market studies assessing very minor risks facing working-age people at work. These are unlikely to be appropriate for older people facing much higher fatality risks from COVID-19, and whom are likely to have more varied preferences on how much they would pay to avoid death risks.
  • Estimate how many lives would be saved by lockdown policies. “Defining the counterfactual” here is hard. The alternative to lockdowns wasn’t normality, but quite a lot of voluntary social distancing that already saved lives. And as Lemoine writes in the op-ed, people’s behavior tends to tighten further when the disease prevalence is high, ending the exponential spread and resulting in waves of cases and deaths. The problem is that within countries there appears little consistency about when that behavioral tightening will occur. So assessing the difference between the disease patterns in lockdowns and without them in advance is near impossible. Of course, depending on when the lockdown was planned to take place, at least some of the COVID-19 “deaths avoided” would be deaths delayed until the next outbreak too.
  • Account for the value of the reduction in non-fatality risks. A lot of people value avoiding getting sick or the worry that their family members will become ill. It therefore stands to reason that there are economic welfare benefits from lockdowns reducing these non-fatality risks too. Some economists have even concluded these benefits may be of a similar aggregate value to that of reduced deaths, simply because the number of COVID-19 cases avoided from any lockdown restriction vastly exceeds the number of deaths avoided.

As if accounting for all that wasn’t difficult enough, the “costs” side is murkier still. One would have to:

  • Assess lost economic output relative to a realistic counterfactual. This would likewise have to take into account the voluntary social distancing we would otherwise see and its economic impact. It would also need to incorporate the dynamic effects of the possible faster spread of COVID-19 absent lockdowns bringing sharper retrenchments from economic activity later. Again, a lot of the impacts would be sensitive to when the lockdowns were applied too—we’d expect over time that more businesses would find ways to operate COVID-safely, for example. This would make lockdowns that ban such activity grow in cost with their duration.
  • Account for the lost value of eliminated non-market activity. Stay-at-home orders and other COVID-19 interventions ban a lot of non-market activity too, some of which would have extremely high value to individuals. How much would an individual value being able to attend a family member’s funeral? Or being able to see a close friend who is going through a difficult time? Or even the ability to travel across state to stay at another home with more space? Constrictions on these non-market actions have big economic welfare costs too. But their precise values are incredible subjective and difficult to assess or aggregate.
  • Consider longer-term scarring impacts. Who knows what the extent of school closures will be on the lifetime earning potential of kids? Or how much less human interaction during lockdowns will affect innovation and longer-term growth? Or the knock-on impact of lockdowns on other health outcomes? The uncertainties over what could be the most consequential “scarring” impacts are huge, especially when compared to the social distancing we’d see voluntarily.

So, totting up the costs and benefits of any given lockdown is, in reality, very difficult. But there are also limits to using such analysis to inform decisions.

First, given the huge uncertainties, policymakers would be looking at a range of potential outcomes. Inevitably the central scenarios would be reported, but it might be the tail risk that keeps policymakers up at night. If you’re told there’s a 10 percent chance your hospital system might be overwhelmed absent a lockdown, that might be enough to push you into action, even if on the most likely scenarios the costs and benefits of lockdowns look well-balanced, or even unfavorable.

Second, while a simple cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns can in theory inform us whether a set of policies should even be considered, this doesn’t tell us what is the “best” approach. In reality, lockdowns are a bundle of different regulations, some of which might pass a cost-benefit test on the margin, but some of which would not. Finding the “best” approach would in reality mean running very many cost-benefit analyses, including comparing lockdowns to completely different approaches, such as guidance, or no lockdown but mask mandates, or widespread testing, or fitting riskier places with ventilation equipment or a whole range or combination of other less intrusive measures.

Given all these difficulties (and others I'm sure I have missed), I suspect we will only fully appreciate either the wisdom or futility of lockdowns through careful retrospective analysis. In the meantime, all these difficulties highlight some reasons why we are ordinarily wise to oppose government control over our everyday lives and choices.

--

For more on the economics of COVID-19, you can pre-order my book, Economics In One Virus (U.S.) The UK pre-order site is here.

Related Tags
Economics, COVID-19, Economic Impact of COVID-19

Stay Connected to Cato

Sign up for the newsletter to receive periodic updates on Cato research, events, and publications.

View All Newsletters

1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
202-842-0200
Contact Us
Privacy

Footer 1

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact
  • Podcasts

Footer 2

  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit

Footer 3

  • Publications
    • Books
    • Cato Journal
    • Regulation
    • Cato Policy Report
    • Cato Supreme Court Review
    • Cato’s Letter
    • Human Freedom Index
    • Economic Freedom of the World
    • Cato Handbook for Policymakers

Footer 4

  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving
Also from Cato Institute:
Libertarianism.org
|
Humanprogress.org
|
Downsizinggovernment.org