We investigate the diffusion of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions across OECD countries from January 2020 to March 2022 using spatial econometric methods on daily data about policy stringency and epidemic evolution. During the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers needed to make crucial decisions in a low-information environment: in such a context, the incentives to mimic the behavior of others can be quite strong. We empirically document a systematic link between a country’s stringency index and the measures adopted by its neighbors in the preceding days. Policy diffusion, however, is asymmetric: there is a robust diffusion when neighbors escalate stringency, whereas there are no discernible diffusion effects when measures are relaxed. These dynamics are more pronounced in countries with lower institutional quality. Due to this asymmetry, the repeal of some policies might have been suboptimally delayed.
AgostinelliF.DoepkeM.SorrentiG.ZilibottiF. (2022). When the great equalizer shuts down: Schools, peers, and parents in pandemic times. Journal of Public Economics, 206(3), Article 104574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104574
2.
AledortJ. E.LurieN.WassermanJ.BozzetteS. A. (2007). Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: An evaluation of the evidence base. BMC Public Health, 7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-7-208
3.
AltiparmakisA.BojarA.BrouardS.FoucaultM.KriesiH.NadeauR. (2021). Pan-demic politics: Policy evaluations of government responses to covid-19. West European Politics, 44(5-6), 1159–1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1930754
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2019). Australian health manage-ment plan for pandemic influenza.
6.
AyalaA.Villalobos DintransP.ElorrietaF.CastilloC.VargasC.MaddalenoM. (2021). Identification of covid-19 waves: Considerations for research and policy.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), Article 11058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111058
7.
BakkerR.de VriesC.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.PolkJ.RovnyJ.SteenbergenM.VachudovaM. A. (2015). Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics, 21(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068812462931
8.
BanerjeeA. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118364
9.
BarcelóJ.KubinecR.ChengC.RahnT. H.MesserschmidtL. (2022). Windows of repression: Using covid-19 policies against political dissidents?Journal of Peace Research, 59(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343321106238
10.
BayerleinM.BoeseV. A.GatesS.KaminK.MurshedS. M. (2021). Populism and covid-19: How populist governments (mis) handle the pandemic. Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, 2(3), 389–428. https://doi.org/10.1561/113.00000043
11.
BerryC. R.FowlerA.GlazerT.Handel-MeyerS.MacMillenA. (2021). Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the covid-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), Article e2019706118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019706118
12.
BickleyS. J.ChanH. F.SkaliA.StadelmannD.TorglerB. (2021). How does global-ization affect covid-19 responses?Globalization and Health, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00677-5
13.
BirnerR.BlaschkeN.BoschC.DaumT.GrafS.GüttlerD.HeniJ.KariukiJ.KatusiimeR.SeidelA.SenonZ. N.WoodeG. (2021). ‘We would rather die from covid-19 than from hunger’: Exploring lockdown stringencies in five African countries. Global Food Security, 31(7820), Article 100571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100571
14.
BöhmeltT.BoveV.NussioE. (2020). Can terrorism abroad influence migration attitudes at home?American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 437–451.
15.
BöhmeltT.EzrowL.LehrerR.WardH. (2016). Party policy diffusion. American Political Science Review, 110(2), 397–410.
16.
BrouardS.FoucaultM.MichelE.BecherM.VasilopoulosP.BonoP.-H.SormaniN. (2022). ‘Citizens’ attitudes under covid19’, a cross-country panel survey of public opinion in 11 advanced democracies. Scientific Data, 9(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01249-x
17.
Bruine de BruinW.SawH.-W.GoldmanD. P. (2020). Political polarization in US residents’ covid-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 61(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09336-3
18.
ColantoneI.StanigP. (2018). The trade origins of economic nationalism: Import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 936–953. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12358
19.
CuriniL.DanieleG.StanigP. (2025). Replication data for: Decision-making in the dark: The asymmetric spread of COVID-19 policies. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CYXVLK
20.
DellaVignaS.KimW. (2022). Policy diffusion and polarization across US states (working paper No 30142). National Bureau of Economic Research.
DikmenS.ÇiçekH. G. (2023). Fighting against corruption and bribery in public procure-ments during the covid-19 pandemic. The ethics of bribery: Theoretical and empirical studies (pp. 309–328). Springer.
23.
DöringH.HuberC.ManowP. (2022). Parliaments and governments database (parlgov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. Development Version. https://parlgov.fly.dev/.
24.
EnglerS.BrunnerP.LoviatR.Abou-ChadiT.LeemannL.GlaserA.KüblerD. (2021). Democracy in times of the pandemic: Explaining the variation of covid-19 policies across European democracies. West European Politics, 44(5–6), 1077–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1900669
25.
EngzellP.FreyA.VerhagenM. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the covid-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17), Article e2022376118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118
26.
FahmyS. (2010). Contrasting visual frames of our times: A framing analysis of English-and Arabic-language press coverage of war and terrorism. International Communication Gazette, 72(8), 695–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510380801
FosterG.FrijtersP. (2022). Hiding the elephant: The tragedy of covid policy and its economist apologists. Australian Economic Papers, 63(1), 106–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8454.12293
29.
Franzese JrR. J.HaysJ. C. (2008). Interdependence in comparative politics: Substance, theory, empirics, substance. Comparative Political Studies, 41(4-5), 742–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007313122
30.
Fuchs-SchündelnN.KruegerD.LudwigA.PopovaI. (2022). The long-term distributional and welfare effects of covid-19 school closures. The Economic Journal, 132(645), 1647–1683. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac028
GilardiF.WasserfallenF. (2019). The politics of policy diffusion. European Journal of Political Research, 58(4), 1245–1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12326
35.
GiovanniniE. (2023). I Ministri Tecnici non Esistono. Laterza.
36.
GokmenG. (2017). Clash of civilizations and the impact of cultural differences on trade. Journal of Development Economics, 127(1), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.12.008
37.
GoldhaberD.KaneT. J.McEachinA.MortonE.PattersonT.StaigerD. O. (2023). The educational consequences of remote and hybrid instruction during the pandemic. The American Economic Review: Insights, 5(3), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20220180
38.
GoudeauS.SanreyC.StanczakA.MansteadA.DarnonC. (2021). Why lockdown and distance learning during the covid-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1273–1281. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01212-7
39.
GrahamE. R.ShipanC. R.VoldenC. (2013). The diffusion of policy diffusion research in political science. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 673–701. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123412000415
40.
GutiérrezE.MeriläinenJ.RubliA. (2022). Electoral repercussions of a pandemic: Evidence from the 2009 h1n1 outbreak. The Journal of Politics, 84(4), 1899–1912. https://doi.org/10.1086/719634
41.
HaleT.AngristN.GoldszmidtR.KiraB.PetherickA.PhillipsT.WebsterS.Cameron-BlakeE.HallasL.MajumdarS.TatlowH. (2021). A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford covid-19 government response tracker). Nature Human Behaviour, 5(4), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8
42.
HallP. A.EvansG.KimS. I. (2023). Political change and electoral coalitions in Western democracies. Cambridge University Press.
43.
HeimoL.AlasuutariP.FerrerL. P.UlybinaO. (2025). Evoking ‘other countries’ in media discourses: The case of the covid-19 pandemic in six countries. Discourse, Context & Media, 63, Article 100847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2024.100847
44.
HeinzeT. (2011). Mechanism-based thinking on policy diffusion: A review of current approaches in political science. KFG Working Paper, 34.
HoughtonS.KyronM.HunterS. C.LawrenceD.HattieJ.CarrollA.ZadowC. (2022). Adolescents’ longitudinal trajectories of mental health and loneliness: The impact of covid-19 school closures. Journal of Adolescence, 94(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12017
47.
HoustonD. J.AitalievaN. R.MorelockA. L.ShultsC. A. (2016). Citizen trust in civil servants: A cross-national examination. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(14), 1203–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1156696
48.
IoannidisJ. P.TezelA.JagsiR. (2021). Overall and covid-19-specific citation impact of highly visible covid-19 media experts: Bibliometric analysis. BMJ Open, 11(10), Article e052856. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052856
49.
KandoganY. (2012). An improvement to Kogut and Singh measure of cultural distance considering the relationship among different dimensions of culture. Research in International Business and Finance, 26(2), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2011.11.001
50.
KaufmannD.KraayA.MastruzziM. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues1. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1876404511200046
51.
KavakliK. C. (2020). Did populist leaders respond to the covid-19 pandemic more slowly? Evidence from a global sample. Working Paper.
52.
KerrJ.PanagopoulosC.Van Der LindenS. (2021). Political polarization on covid-19 pandemic response in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, Article 110892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110892
53.
KogutB.SinghH. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490394
KoopmansR.VliegenthartR. (2011). Media attention as the outcome of a diffusion pro-cess—a theoretical framework and cross-national evidence on earthquake coverage. European Sociological Review, 27(5), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq032
56.
KwonK. H.ChadhaM.PellizzaroK. (2017). Proximity and terrorism news in social media: A construal-level theoretical approach to networked framing of terrorism in Twitter. Mass Communication & Society, 20(6), 869–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1369545
57.
LaCombeS. J.BoehmkeF. J. (2020). The Sage handbook of research methods in political science and international relations. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486387
LeeN. (2022). Do policy makers listen to experts? Evidence from a national survey of local and state policy makers. American Political Science Review, 116(2), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000800
61.
LehmannP.BurstT.MatthießT.RegelS.VolkensA.WeßelsB.ZehnterL. (2022). The manifesto data collection. manifesto project (mrg/cmp/marpor). version 2022a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2022a
62.
LoayzaN. (2020). Costs and trade-offs in the fight against the covid-19 pandemic: A developing country perspective. World Bank Research and Policy Briefs. Report No. 148535.
LoweW.BenoitK.MikhaylovS.LaverM. (2011). Scaling policy positions from coded units of political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 123–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2010.00006.x
65.
MahaseE. (2021). Covid-19: Experts condemn UK “freedom day” as dangerous and unethical. BMJ, 374, n1829. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1829
66.
MaorM.HowlettM. (2020). Explaining variations in state covid-19 responses: Psychological, institutional, and strategic factors in governance and public policy-making. Policy Design and Practice, 3(3), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1824379
MassadE.AmakuM.CovasD. T.LopezL. F.CoutinhoF. A. B. (2021). Estimating the effects of reopening of schools on the course of the epidemic of covid-19. Epidemiology and Infection, 149, Article e86.
69.
McCartneyM. (2020). We need better evidence on non-drug interventions for covid-19. BMJ, 370, m3473. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3473
70.
MerowC.UrbanM. C. (2020). Seasonality and uncertainty in global covid-19 growth rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(44), 27456–27464. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008590117
71.
MeseguerC.GilardiF. (2009). What is new in the study of policy diffusion?Review of International Political Economy, 16(3), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290802409236
72.
MiconiA.PezzanoS.RisiE. (2023). Framing pandemic news: Empirical research on covid-19 representation in the Italian tv news. Iluminace, 35(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.58193/ilu.1752
73.
MummoloJ.PetersonE. (2018). Improving the interpretation of fixed effects regression results. Political Science Research and Methods, 6(4), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.44
74.
OlsonM. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. Yale University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nprdd
75.
PachecoJ. (2012). The social contagion model: Exploring the role of public opinion on the diffusion of antismoking legislation across the American states. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381611001241
76.
Pandemic Influenza Expert Group (2008). Pandemic influenza preparedness for Ireland.
77.
Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Team. (2011). UK influenza pandemic preparedness strategy 2011: Strategy for consultation. Department of Health.
PulejoM.QuerubínP. (2021). Electoral concerns reduce restrictive measures during the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 198(1), Article 104387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104387
RitchieH.MathieuE.Rodés-GuiraoL.AppelC.GiattinoC.Ortiz-OspinaE.HasellJ.MacdonaldB.BeltekianD.RoserM. (2020). Coronavirus pandemic (covid-19). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
85.
RodríguezI.RodonT.UnanA.HerbigL.KlüverH.KuhnT. (2025). Benchmarking pandemic response: How the UK’s covid-19 vaccine rollout impacted diffuse and specific support for the EU. British Journal of Political Science, 55, Article e35.
ScherlingJ.FoltzA. (2024). The age of the expert—covid-19, expertise, and conflicts of interest in Austrian media reporting. Journalism and Media, 5(1), 163–188. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5010012
88.
SchmelzK. (2021). Enforcement may crowd out voluntary support for covid-19 policies, espe-cially where trust in government is weak and in a liberal society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(1), Article e2016385118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016385118
89.
SebhatuA.WennbergK.Arora-JonssonS.LindbergS. I. (2020). Explaining the homo-geneous diffusion of covid-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions across heterogeneous countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(35), 21201–21208. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010625117
90.
ShillerR. J. (1995). Conversation, information, and herd behavior. The American Economic Review, 85(2), 181–185.
ShipanC. R.VoldenC. (2021). Why bad policies spread (and good ones don’t). Cambridge University Press.
94.
SimmonsB. A.ElkinsZ. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404001078
StageH. B.ShingletonJ.GhoshS.ScarabelF.PellisL.FinnieT. (2021). Shut and re-open: The role of schools in the spread of covid-19 in Europe. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1829), Article 20200277. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0277
ThomannE.MarconiF.ZhelyazkovaA. (2023). Did pandemic responses trigger corruption in public procurement? Comparing Italy and Germany. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(9), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2241879
100.
ToshkovD.CarrollB.YesilkagitK. (2022). Government capacity, societal trust or party preferences: What accounts for the variety of national policy responses to the covid-19 pan-demic in Europe?Journal of European Public Policy, 29(7), 1009–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1928270
101.
UtzS.GaiserF.WolfersL. N. (2022). Guidance in the chaos: Effects of science com-munication by virologists during the covid-19 crisis in Germany and the role of parasocial phenomena. Public Understanding of Science, 31(6), 799–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221093194
102.
Van LanckerW.ParolinZ. (2020). Covid-19, school closures, and child poverty: A social crisis in the making. The Lancet Public Health, 5(5), e243–e244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30084-0
103.
VinerR.RussellS.SaulleR.CrokerH.StansfieldC.PackerJ.NichollsD.GoddingsA.-L.BonellC.HudsonL.HopeS.WardJ.SchwalbeN.MorganA.MinozziS. (2022). School closures during social lockdown and mental health, health behaviors, and well-being among children and adolescents during the first covid-19 wave: A systematic review. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(4), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5840
104.
VoldenC.TingM. M.CarpenterD. P. (2008). A formal model of learning and policy diffusion. American Political Science Review, 102(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055408080271
105.
WimpyC.WhittenG. D.WilliamsL. K. (2021). X marks the spot: Unlocking the treasure of spatial-x models. The Journal of Politics, 83(2), 722–739. https://doi.org/10.1086/710089
106.
World Health Organization. (2019). Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza: Annex: Report of systematic literature reviews. Technical report.
107.
WormerH. (2020). German media and coronavirus: Exceptional communication—or just a catalyst for existing tendencies?Media and Communication, 8(2), 467–470. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3242
108.
YanB.ZhangX.WuL.ZhuH.ChenB. (2020). Why do countries respond differently to covid-19? A comparative study of Sweden, China, France, and Japan. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7), 762–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942445
109.
ZhangJ.LiH.YangK. (2022). A meta-analysis of the government performance—trust link: Taking cultural and methodological factors into account. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13439
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
