OECD Webinar — Understanding and addressing the social impact of COVID-19 through Open Data Infrastructure

LISS panel — Results and Experiences

Labour market:
- Small effects on extensive margin
- Hours of work took deep dive, back up quickly
- Early support programmes worked well
- No rise in inequality
Mental well-being:
- Strong reduction in mental health score in March
- Back up to ≈normal levels by May
- Very different for parents depending on who buffers shock

Gaudecker, H.-M. von, Holler, R., Janys, L., Siflinger, B. M., & Zimpelmann, C. (2020). Labour Supply during Lockdown and a “New Normal”: The Case of the Netherlands. IZA DP 13623.
Siflinger, B., Paffenholz, M., Seitz, S., Mendel, M., Gaudecker, H.-M. von (2021). The CoViD-19 Pandemic and Mental Health: Distentangling Crucial Channels. CRC 224 DP 271.

Best short-term measure for labour market activity in presence of
- firing restrictions
- employment subsidies
Interpretation as labour demand / direct restrictions seems fine
- e.g., see below that no add’l effect for parents
Measurement before CoViD-19 likely a bit too high

NOW: Labour subsidies scheme
- Loss in firm revenue ≥ 20% ⟶ Reimbursement of 30% of wage bill
- Cannot fire workers
- No other strings attached
TOZO: Income support measure for self-employed
TOGS: One-time payment for entrepeneurs in directly affected sectors

5-item mental health inventory (MHI-5) — anxiety/depression
Questions referring to past 4 weeks, e.g. “I felt calm and peaceful”
6 point scales, add up to indicator with scale
- 100 “perfect” mental health
- 0 worst possible outcome
Pre-clinical screening: Scores below 60 warrant further investigation
Focus on working age population

Shock to labour markets reasonably well buffered so far. Likely combination of
- Firing restrictions
- Generous STW scheme, support for small self-employed
- Existing infrastructure for welfare payments
Work hours of women (relatively) well preserved
- Consequence of highly subsidised daycare with comparably short hours?
- Short school closures (≅2-3 months) very likely key
Mental health
- Huge short-term drop initially in lockdown, quickly back
- Drop largest in families where men took on initial burden
- Large roles for infection risk, labour market risk, loneliness

LISS: Online Panel in the Netherlands, running since 2007
- Similar efforts: ALP, UAS, CentERpanel, GIP, GESIS Online Panel
Based on probability sample
Can follow-up in the long run
- LISS background questionnaires
- ≈85% of respondents can be linked to administrative microdata
Prior working relationship

Six waves of CoViD-19 surveys
- March 20-31, April, May, June, September, December
- Broad range of things relevant in pandemic
- See https://liss-covid-19-questionnaires-documentation.readthedocs.io/
Time use & consumption
- April (only past 30 days)
- November (as usual)
Funding: DFG via ECONtribute and CRC/TR 224, NWO, IZA, CPB, Tilburg U, CentERdata

Adams-Prassl, Boneva, Golin, Rauh: Inequality in the Impact of the Coronavirus Shock: Evidence from Real Time Surveys, JPubE 2020:

34% on short-time work in April 2020
SOEP-CoV-Study:

17% on short-time work in April 2020
Invite access panel, stop at N=4,000 paid for, then weight to get “representativeness”?
Similar points for U.K. in Crossley, Fisher, Low: The Heterogeneous and Regressive Consequences of COVID-19: Evidence from High Quality Panel Data, JPubE 2020

Country barrier still important – “monitoring”-style output only on hours of work together with CPB
Hard to get a sense of what is important in neighbouring country in real time
Long-run usability important
Speed: Some mechanism for short-term funds?
Real-time admin data possible?