000			02129nab a2200265 c 4500
999			_c147359 _d147359
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20230426143203.0
007			ta
008			230426t2023 us ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_970529 _aAlbrecht, Brian C.
245		0	_aInframarginal externalities _bCOVID-19, vaccines and universal mandates _c Brian C. Albrecht, Shruti Rajagopalan
500			_aResumen.
504			_aBibliografía.
520			_aCOVID-19 vaccine mandates are in place or being debated across the world. Standard neoclassical economics argues that the marginal social benefit from vaccination exceeds the marginal private benefit; everyone vaccinated against a given infectious disease protects others by not transmitting the disease. Consequently, private levels of vaccination will be lower than the socially optimal levels due to free-riding, which requires mandates to overcome the problem. We argue that universal mandates based on free-riding are less compelling for COVID-19. We argue that because the virus can be transmitted even after receiving the vaccine, most of the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine are internalized: vaccinated individuals are protected from the worst effects of the disease. Therefore, any positive externality may be inframarginal or policy irrelevant. Even when all the benefits are not internalized by the individual, the externalities mainly are local, mostly affecting family and closely associated individuals, requiring local institutional (private and civil society) arrangements to boost vaccine rates, even in a global pandemic. Economists and politicians must justify such universal vaccine mandates on some basis other than free-riding.
650		4	_942967 _aECONOMIA DE LA SALUD
650		4	_948340 _aSALUD PUBLICA
650		4	_948069 _aPOLITICA SANITARIA
650		4	_aPANDEMIAS _967998
650		4	_aCORONAVIRUS _967999
650		4	_944179 _aEXTERNALIDADES
700	1		_970530 _aRajagopalan, Shruti
773	0		_9169159 _oOP 1443/2023/195/1/2 _tPublic Choice _w(IEF)124378 _x 0048-5829 _g v. 195, n. 1-2, April 2023, p. 55-72
942			_cART