Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 350

What are the possible economic effects of COVID-19 on the world economy?

Introduction

The outbreak of coronavirus, or COVID-19, has spread globally. The evolution of the disease and its economic impact are highly uncertain which makes it difficult for policymakers to formulate an appropriate macroeconomic policy response. 

The scenarios in this research demonstrate that even a contained outbreak could significantly impact the global economy in the short run. 

Poverty kills poor people, but the outbreak of COVID-19 shows that if diseases are generated in poor countries due to overcrowding, poor public health and interaction with wild animals, these diseases can kill people of any socioeconomic group in any society. There needs to be vastly more investment in public health and development in the richest but also, and especially, in the poorest countries. This study indicates the possible costs that can be avoided through global cooperative investment in public health in all countries. We have known this critical policy intervention for decades, yet politicians continue to ignore the scientific evidence on the role of public health in improving the quality of life and as a driver of economic growth.

Warwick McKibbin maintains a large economic model of the world economy, known as G-Cubed, that is widely used by governments and companies. He has estimated the economic effects of the COVID-19 virus under seven scenarios. His analysis, “Global Macroeconomic Implications of COVID-19: Seven Scenarios,” is posted HERE.

Here is a Q&A with him about his research.

Q: How does COVID-19 differ from past episodes, such as SARS in 2003 and the Avian flu in 1997? How do the economic risks differ?

SARS was also a coronavirus but had a much higher case-mortality rate (10%) compared with COVID-19 (between 2%-4%) and a much lower case-mortality rate than the Avian flu (60%); on the other hand, COVID-19 may be more contagious than SARS and more similar in contagion to Avian flu. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about COVID-19 which is what makes it very concerning.

Another similarity is that these outbreaks all began in China. China, of course, is a much bigger part of and much more integrated in the world economy than it was 15 years ago, so economic disruption there has much larger spillover effect than it used to.

Q: You have seven scenarios for the COVID-19 virus. In the first three, the virus is contained to China; in the most extreme, a mild pandemic recurs each year for the foreseeable future. Let’s focus on your fourth scenario. Describe that.

In scenario four, we assume that COVID-19 eventually affects all countries, but this pandemic is a one-time event and its severity is low. For China, we assume a 10% attack rate (10% of all people fall ill) and a 2% case fatality rate (2% of those who are ill subsequently die). We then use an Index of Vulnerability for each country, basically calibrating how much it is like or different from China, to estimate the effects of the virus in other countries. These assumptions are fed into the model to determine the severity of the outbreak in each country.

Q: In this scenario, you assume that 10% of the Chinese population get the virus, and 2% of those Chinese die. What are the comparable numbers for the U.S.?

The total mortality rate from the virus is the product of the attack rate and the case-fatality rate. In the fourth scenario, 0.2% of the population in China dies as a result of the virus; the assumed mortality rate for the US is 0.07%. (Editor's note: that is about 230,000 people in the US).

Q: What are the global economic costs of that scenario? What are the costs to the U.S. economy?

The loss of real GDP, relative to what would have been the model prediction in 2020 without the virus, is approximately $US2.3 trillion for the world, which is 2% lower than the baseline. Of that, the US economy loses $US420 billion in 2020, or about 2% less than the pre-virus baseline. Of course, if the virus spreads more widely or turns out to be more severe, the costs would be larger.

Q: The direct costs of a pandemic are, of course, deaths and sickness that prevent people from working. Your model adds indirect effects. What are they, and how do you estimate their effects on the economy?

In the modeling exercise, we reduce the labor supply by the number of people who die, the hours lost due to sickness, and the hours lost due to people caring for family members who are sick. We also make assumptions about the rising cost of doing business in each sector, including disruption of production networks in each country; shifts in consumption as a result of changes in household preferences; and the expected rise in equity risk premia on companies in each sector in each country (based on exposure to the disease).

Q: When you make your projections, what do you assume that fiscal and monetary policymakers will do in reaction to the virus? How potent do you think fiscal and monetary policy are in ameliorating the economic damage of COVID-19?

We model the policy response of central banks in each economy. Some central banks, such as the US Federal Reserve, adjust nominal interest rates in order to target an inflation outcome, while attempting to minimize the loss of output across the economy. For other countries, like China, central banks also target the exchange rates. Fiscal authorities are assumed to change government spending by an amount related to the health and other intervention costs associated with the virus outbreak, and budget deficits increase automatically in response to the economic downturn.

Both monetary and fiscal policies help, but because a significant part of the shock is a disruption to supply, demand management policies, such as fiscal and monetary policies, go only part of the way to stabilizing the economy. In countries that follow a monetary policy rule which does not only focus on output, the response of monetary policy can make the outcome worse. This would be the case for China, for example; by continuing to try to prevent an exchange rate depreciation relative to the US dollar, the Chinese central bank would need to tighten monetary policy or change the exchange rate target.

We construct a series of indexes that attempt to quantify how one would adjust the Chinese numbers (or US numbers where that is relevant to calculating changes in financial variables such as risk). For example, the Index of Vulnerability is constructed by aggregating an Index of Geography and an Index of Health Policy. The Index of Geography is the average of two indexes. The first is the urban population density of countries divided by the share of urban in total population. This is expressed relative to China. The second sub index is an index of openness to tourism relative to China. The Index of Health Policy also consists of two components: the Global Health Security Index and Health Expenditure per Capita relative to China. The Global Health Security Index assigns scores to countries according to six criteria, which includes the ability to prevent, detect, and respond to epidemics.

Q: In part, your projections are based on what we learned from the SARS episode in 2003 and on what we’ve seen in China so far. You then build projections based on how countries resemble or differ from China. How do you do that? What’s the rationale for this approach?

Ideally, from a modeling perspective, we would have enough pandemics and long enough data samples to estimate, using statistical techniques, how important each index has been in explaining past disease outbreaks. Fortunately, we haven’t had enough pandemics, so we have to use what is really an informed guess on what we think is important. This is all that we can do given the reality of the data that is available. The alternative of not attempting any quantification at all is less information for policymakers.

Q: What lessons do you want policymakers to draw from your scenarios?

The cost of a pandemic can be very large. The response should be large enough to reduce the effects of the pandemic once it emerges. Low-cost actions such as promoting good hygiene practices are a good place to start, but other actions such as quarantine and other interventions as advocated by epidemiologists, although disruptive, are probably cost effective.

It is far better to invest substantial amounts to reduce the likelihood of a pandemic emerging. This requires investment not only in developed countries’ public health systems, but, more importantly, in the public health systems of poor countries. Even with a low and uncertain probability of a serious pandemic with very large costs, the scenarios in the paper imply much larger expenditure than is currently planned by national governments.

It may well be that, despite the scientifically-based warnings of epidemiologists, a future pandemic does not emerge. Even in that case, the money invested in improving public health systems would not have been wasted; it would improve the quality of life for all citizens.

 

Professor Warwick J. McKibbin is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution, Director of the Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis in the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy, and Director of Policy Engagement in the ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Aging Research (CEPAR).

This article is republished with permission from The Brookings Institution, a non-profit public policy organization based in Washington, DC, and Warwick McKibbin.

 

5 Comments
Peter S
March 26, 2020

I have been following Scenario 6 of Warwick's paper.

Table 11 shows the US may be required to spend $9Trillion on a Global GDP aggregate of what I understand is $88 Trillion. 10% of world GDP... yikes.

Philip
March 26, 2020

The experience to date suggests that the fatalities from COVID-19 are greater among the elderly and the unhealthy members of our society. These persons are less likely to be in the workforce and in many cases to be retired. If these factors were taken into account the economic consequences of the pandemic may be less than suggested by you.

Carlos
March 26, 2020

China has a lot to answer for their handling of the initial Wuhan cases. I hope the world can find rightful economic punishments for their bungling. https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/china-can-t-escape-responsibility-for-wuhan-flu-20200325-p54dsn.html

Mike West
April 01, 2020

No one has thought about the theory that this is Covid 19, what about if another Virus Covid 20 "emerges" from China say next year or the year after? Most "Western countries" would be bankrupted, and another country could buy up distressed companies. We need to learn from this. Get our universities to not rely on foreign students, educate our own, govern and educate for Australia only, have our own essential pharmaceutical and petroleum and telecommunication industries and no more immigration until we have no debt!!!.

Frank
March 26, 2020

It's time to bring out the old saying, 'The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a freight train coming'.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

The green lining of COVID-19: a time for change

Rob Arnott on flattening the virus curve, not the economy

Your adverse Covid effects and post-pandemic consequences

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

My lessons from five decades of investing

As she retires after 47 years as a portfolio manager, Claudia Huntington explains the art rather than the science of investing, the value of a great leader and culture, and the insights she gives to new colleagues.

20k now or 50k later? What’s driving decisions to withdraw super?

The amount of retirement savings withdrawn under the Superannuation Early Release Scheme has surprised many. This comprehensive survey of thousands of Cbus members explains their motivations.

Have the rules of retirement investing changed?

In retirement, we still want to reduce stock volatility while generating cash flows. The two needs have not changed, but the reward expected in the old days from interest payments has gone. What should we do?

One last hurrah for the 60/40 portfolio?

The 60/40 diversified portfolio has been the mainstay of the superannuation industry for decades. But it is built on a fundamental principle of defensive bond returns, and its time is nigh.

YourSuper will save $17.9 billion! Surely you’re joshing

In Budget 2020, Josh Frydenberg announced a performance comparison tool and fund stapling to save Australians $17.9 billion over 10 years. But too many moving parts make results highly cyclical.

The elusive 12%: is superannuation at a turning point?

Such is the concern among unions and Labor about Government plans to undermine superannuation that an 'Emergency Summit' was called this week, and pioneer Bill Kelty evoked a social commitment.

Latest Updates

Weekly Editorial

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 379

It is trite and obvious to say the future is uncertain, and while COVID-19 brings extra risks, markets are always unpredictable. However, investing conditions are now more difficult than ever, mainly because the defensive options for portfolios produce little income. We explore whether investing rules have changed with new input from Howard Marks.

  • 15 October 2020
  • 6
Retirement

Have the rules of retirement investing changed?

In retirement, we still want to reduce stock volatility while generating cash flows. The two needs have not changed, but the reward expected in the old days from interest payments has gone. What should we do?

Shares

Tech continues to run on rising prices not profits

The global tech run paused in September but the boom is driven by rising prices rather than actual profits. It will end when global confidence in the prospect of endless monetary and fiscal stimulus runs out.

Investment strategies

When defensive assets become indefensible, turn to tech

During COVID-19 and the economic recession, we are seeing a surprising new entrant to the defensive sector grouping. Technology shares have been behaving a lot like defensive shares such as food and utilities.

Interest rates

10 reasons low interest rates may limit growth

Ultra low interest rates could be counterproductive for economic growth. Policymakers need to rely less on monetary stimulus and be mindful of the side effects they are creating, especially for retirees and savers.

Financial planning

What the RC, Budget and Keating mean for aged care

Although the Aged Care Royal Commission (with Paul Keating) and Budget announcements gave the aged care sector high profile, the welcome 'granny flat' changes came with inadequate extra Home Care Packages.

Investment strategies

Is currency exposure an unwanted risk or source of returns?

As more Australians invest overseas, currency exposure represents a new risk. 50% hedged, 50% unhedged was once a popular ‘least regret’ approach, but there's a move to currency as a return source.

Shares

High growth and low rates incompatible with current share prices

The unrealistic value creation through lowering discount rates while assuming high growth shows a sensible link is critical. Interest rate assumptions need as much valuation focus as the cash flows of the business.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use.
Any general advice or class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.