What went wrong, what we’ve learned, and how to prepare for the next time
The third great crisis of the 21st century has already inflicted a greater toll in lives lost and economic hardship than 9/11 and the 2008 financial collapse combined. And just as the COVID-19 pandemic has upended our daily lives, it has transformed the political landscape, with governments at all levels exercising emergency powers rarely seen outside the context of total war. With so much at risk, what’s needed now is sober, realistic assessment of the choices ahead—a guide to policies that can stem the damage while avoiding permanent transformation of American life and law. The Cato Institute aims to meet that need with its new series, Pandemics and Policy.
Of course, there are those who see the current crisis as an opportunity for radical change to American institutions. They insist that “there are no libertarians in a pandemic” and that there shouldn’t be.
We beg to differ. While a once‐in‐a‐century pandemic presents challenges for any political philosophy, the botched response to COVID-19 hardly represents an indictment of the American heritage of limited government. From the massive regulatory failures that stifled test provision to archaic restrictions that kept caregivers from patients, government overreach has compounded this disaster. Where they were left free to do so, the institutions of civil society have met the COVID-19 challenge with resilience, adaptability, and old‐fashioned American ingenuity.
In the coming months, the Pandemics and Policy series will provide policymakers with an actionable guide to policies that can harness that ingenuity and foster a resilient society capable of meeting the challenges ahead.
Rather than give the federal government more things to do, we should ask it to do fewer things better. A good start would be to improve the federal government’s ability to respond to epidemics and pandemics.
Whatever one’s opinion of the federal and state government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the virus and associated “shelter at home” orders clearly had a devastating impact on the U.S. economy.
State and local officials have broad power to govern for public health and safety, but there are limits—for example, on the powers themselves and who exercises them.
Economists tend to oppose price controls at the best of times, but the public’s willingness to allow market‐set prices appears to diminish when emergencies hit.
As COVID-19 cases—and fears—spread in March 2020, schools across the country increasingly faced a problem: how, if at all, would they deliver education if children could not physically attend?
The COVID-19 pandemic made state and federal lawmakers acutely aware of how state‐based regulation of clinicians contributes to the overall shortage of health care providers and obstructs their rapid response to public health emergencies.
The essential problem with the role of science in public policy is that some scientists, most politicians, and the public want science to do more than it can.
International trade and cross‐border investment produce some degree of reliance and risk, but in policymakers’ rush to indict trade and globalization, they dismiss the enormous benefits that Americans get from participating in the global economy as workers, consumers, producers, and investors.
Because contact tracing technologies analyze sensitive information about citizens’ locations, they raise civil liberties concerns. Here’s how lawmakers can make them effective and protective of sensitive data.
Society faces a tradeoff between greater health versus higher gross domestic product and greater freedom in choosing how much, and what kind of, social distancing policies to impose.
“Helicopter money” is a fascinating theoretical construct that has proven useful in advancing economists’ understanding of various subtle points of monetary theory. But it risks undermining both Congress’s power of the purse and the Federal Reserve System’s already tenuous independence.
The COVID-19 pandemic presents the United States and the world with a challenge it has not seen in generations. Advances in public health and medicine have given many in the developed world a sense that we are invulnerable. Of course, we are not.