Due to recent conflicts and humanitarian issues, millions of people have sought asylum in countries in Europe. The influx of asylum seekers has sparked debates about the impacts of such migratory flows on resident populations. We study how the recent migration of these forcibly displaced people into Europe affects the mental health of the receiving country residents in Switzerland and Germany. We exploit quasi-random variation in asylum seeker placement by matching settlement data with administrative health insurance data on mental health related treatments and survey data capturing self-reported mental health. Despite numerous possible mechanisms, in both countries, we find no economically meaningful effects of asylum seeker flows on residents’ mental health. 

Did the COVID-19 pandemic crowd out environmental concerns, as one might expect if “pools of worry” were finite or “moral bandwidth” was limited? We use Chancellor Angela Merkel’s address to the German nation on 18 March 2020 as the threshold in a regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) to evaluate the effects of an increase in COVID-based economic and health concerns on the climate and environmental concerns of respondents to the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). We find no evidence of crowding out – there is even some indication that environmental concerns increased, especially on the intensive margin – and show that this result survives various robustness checks. We also share some evidence that the treatment effects are heterogeneous: the concerns of older and more patient Germans, as well as those who report more social trust, increased relative to other groups. This is consistent with the absence of bandwidth constraints, but other interpretations – hierarchical or complementary concerns, for example – are also possible. 

Combining the frameworks of fundamental causes theory and diffusion of innovation, scholars had anticipated a delayed COVID-19 vaccination uptake for people in lower socioeconomic position depending on the socioeconomic context. We qualify these propositions and analyze educational differences in COVID-19 vaccination status over the first ten months of Germany’s vaccination campaign in 2021. Data from the study “Corona Monitoring Nationwide” (RKI-SOEP-2), collected between November 2021 and February 2022, is linked with district-level data of the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (GISD). We estimated the proportion of people with at least one vaccination dose stratified by educational groups and within different settings of regional socioeconomic deprivation at three time points. Logistic multilevel regression models were applied to adjust for multiple covariates and to test cross-level-interactions between educational levels and levels of area-level socioeconomic deprivation. Vaccination rates were lower among respondents with lower education. With increasing area-level socioeconomic deprivation, educational differences were larger due to particularly low vaccination rates in groups with low education levels. The analysis of vaccination timing reveals that educational gaps and gaps by area-level socioeconomic deprivation had appeared early in the vaccination campaign and did not close completely before the 4th wave of COVID-19 infections. 

In times of crises, democracies face the challenge of balancing effective interventions with civil liberties. This study examines German states’ responses during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the trade-off between civil liberties and public health. Using state-level variation in mobility restrictions, we employ a difference-in-differences design to show that stay-at-home orders notably increased satisfaction with democracy and shifted political support towards centrist parties. Stay-at-home orders increased satisfaction with democracy most among individuals who had been exposed to the authoritarian regime of the German Democratic Republic, possibly because they have gotten used to more restrictive state interventions. 

We investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-employed people’s mental health. Using representative longitudinal survey data from Germany, we reveal differential effects by gender: whereas self-employed women experienced a substantial deterioration in their mental health, self-employed men displayed no significant changes up to early 2021. Financial losses are important in explaining these differences. In addition, we find larger mental health responses among self-employed women who were directly affected by government-imposed restrictions and bore an increased childcare burden due to school and daycare closures. We also find that self-employed individuals who are more resilient coped better with the crisis.

Background: According to a recent paper by Gelfand et al., COVID-19 infection and case mortality rates are closely connected to the strength of social norms: “Tighter” cultures that abide by strict social norms are more successful in combating the pandemic than “looser” cultures that are more permissive. However, countries with similar levels of cultural tightness exhibit big differences in mortality rates. We are investigating potential explanations for this fact. Using data from Germany and Japan—two “tight” countries with very different infection and mortality rates—we examined how differences in socio-demographic and other determinants explain differences in individual preventive attitudes and behaviors.

Methods: We compared preventive attitudes and behaviors in 2020 based on real-time representative survey data and used logit regression models to study how individual attitudes and behaviors are shaped by four sets of covariates: individual socio-demographics, health, personality, and regional-level controls. Employing Blinder-Oaxaca regression techniques, we quantified the extent to which differences in averages of the covariates between Japan and Germany explain the differences in the observed preventive attitudes and behaviors.

Results: In Germany and Japan, similar proportions of the population supported mandatory vaccination, avoided travel, and avoided people with symptoms of a cold. In Germany, however, a significantly higher proportion washed their hands frequently and avoided crowds, physical contact, public transport, peak-hour shopping, and contact with the elderly. In Japan, a significantly higher proportion were willing to be vaccinated. We also show that attitudes and behaviors varied significantly more with covariates in Germany than in Japan. Differences in averages of the covariates contribute little to explaining the observed differences in preventive attitudes and behaviors between the two countries.

Conclusion: Consistent with tightness-looseness theory, the populations of Japan and Germany responded similarly to the pandemic. The observed differences in infection and fatality rates therefore cannot be explained by differences in behavior. The major difference in attitudes is the willingness to be vaccinated, which was much higher in Japan. Furthermore, the Japanese population behaved more uniformly across social groups than the German population. This difference in the degree of homogeneity has important implications for the effectiveness of policy measures during the pandemic.

We investigate how the economic consequences of the pandemic and the government-mandated measures to contain its spread affect the self-employed — particularly women — in Germany. For our analysis, we use representative, real-time survey data in which respondents were asked about their situation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings indicate that among the self-employed, who generally face a higher likelihood of income losses due to COVID-19 than employees, women are about one-third more likely to experience income losses than their male counterparts. We do not find a comparable gender gap among employees. Our results further suggest that the gender gap among the self-employed is largely explained by the fact that women disproportionately work in industries that are more severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analysis of potential mechanisms reveals that women are significantly more likely to be impacted by government-imposed restrictions, e.g., the regulation of opening hours. We conclude that future policy measures intending to mitigate the consequences of such shocks should account for this considerable variation in economic hardship.

Several vaccines against COVID-19 have now been developed and are already being rolled out around the world. The decision whether or not to get vaccinated has so far been left to the individual citizens. However, there are good reasons, both in theory as well as in practice, to believe that the willingness to get vaccinated might not be sufficiently high to achieve herd immunity. A policy of mandatory vaccination could ensure high levels of vaccination coverage, but its legitimacy is doubtful. We investigate the willingness to get vaccinated and the reasons for an acceptance (or rejection) of a policy of mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 in June and July 2020 in Germany based on a representative real time survey, a random sub-sample (SOEP-CoV) of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Our results show that about 70 percent of adults in Germany would voluntarily get vaccinated against the coronavirus if a vaccine without side effects was available. About half of residents of Germany are in favor, and half against, a policy of mandatory vaccination. The approval rate for mandatory vaccination is significantly higher among those who would get vaccinated voluntarily (around 60 percent) than among those who would not get vaccinated voluntarily (27 percent). The individual willingness to get vaccinated and acceptance of a policy of mandatory vaccination correlates systematically with socio-demographic and psychological characteristics of the respondents. We conclude that as far as people’s declared intentions are concerned, herd immunity could be reached without a policy of mandatory vaccination, but that such a policy might be found acceptable too, were it to become necessary.