This paper focuses on nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to explain fertility dynamics during the pandemic, while considering countries’ institutional context. We argue that containment policies disrupted people's lives and increased their uncertainty more in countries with weak welfare support systems, while health-related and economic support NPIs mitigated such disruptions much more there, as they were less expected by citizens. We estimate monthly “excess” crude birth rates (CBRs) and find that countries with low public support—Southern Europe, East Asia, and Eastern Europe—experienced larger decreases and less of a rebound in CBRs than countries with histories of high public spending—Western, Central, and Northern Europe. However, in low support countries, NPIs are much more strongly associated with excess CBRs—containment NPIs more negatively and health and economic support NPIs more positively—with the exception of the one-month lag of containment NPIs, for which the opposite holds. When putting these coefficients into broader perspective, our findings suggest that the actual implementation of all NPIs taken together mitigated fertility declines. This is especially the case for low public support countries, whereas one might have seen a birth decline even in high support countries if the NPIs were not implemented.

中文翻译：

---

大流行前福利支持背景下的 COVID-19 政策干预和生育动态

本文侧重于非药物干预 (NPI)，以解释大流行期间的生育动态，同时考虑各国的制度背景。我们认为，在福利支持系统薄弱的国家，遏制政策扰乱了人们的生活并增加了他们的不确定性，而与健康相关和经济支持的非营利机构在这些国家减轻了更多此类破坏，因为公民对它们的期望较低。我们估算了每月的“超额”粗出生率 (CBR)，发现公共支持较低的国家（南欧、东亚和东欧）的 CBR 下降幅度和反弹幅度均低于公共支出历史较高的国家——西欧、中欧和北欧。然而，在低支持国家，NPI 与过度 CBR 的关联更为密切——遏制 NPI 的负面影响更大，健康和经济支持 NPI 的正面影响更大——但遏制 NPI 的滞后一个月除外，后者的情况正好相反。当将这些系数放在更广泛的角度来看时，我们的研究结果表明，所有 NPI 的实际实施共同缓解了生育率下降。对于公众支持度低的国家尤其如此，而如果不实施 NPI，即使在支持度高的国家，出生率也可能会下降。我们的研究结果表明，所有 NPI 的实际实施共同缓解了生育率下降。对于公众支持度低的国家尤其如此，而如果不实施 NPI，即使在支持度高的国家，出生率也可能会下降。我们的研究结果表明，所有 NPI 的实际实施共同缓解了生育率下降。对于公众支持度低的国家尤其如此，而如果不实施 NPI，即使在支持度高的国家，出生率也可能会下降。