A Survey on the Impact of Covid-19 on the Labor Market — The Journal of Social Sciences Research (2023)

Summary

Article by Ali Zarifhonarvar, a Ph.D. student in economics at Indiana University, in The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 1-10, with the publication date printed as 13 January, 2023. The abstract says the paper performs a survey on the effects of Covid-19 on labor markets and divides the literature into general impact studies, such as labor demand and supply, unemployment and effects on different groups and ages, and Covid-specific topics such as work from home, remote working, lockdowns and social distancing. The introduction states that by February 2021, there were 8.5 million fewer employees in the United States than there were in February 2020.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“A Survey on the Impact of Covid-19 on the Labor Market — The Journal of Social Sciences Research (2023).” Original at arpgweb.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/a-survey-on-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-labor-market-961cb4c6e4/, SHA-256 426f9e85f31943b609488f08754fa27534b22969e64cdef86919979cce05cc69.

Full text

The Journal of Social Sciences Research
ISSN(e): 2411-9458, ISSN(p): 2413-6670
Vol. 9, Issue. 1, pp: 1-10, 2023 Academic Research Publishing
URL: https://arpgweb.com/journal/journal/7 Group
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32861/jssr.91.1.10

Original Research Open Access

A Survey on the Impact of Covid-19 on the Labor Market
Ali Zarifhonarvar Article History
Received: 24 October, 2022
Ph.D. Student in Economics, Indiana University
Revised: 28 December, 2022
Email: alizarif@iu.edu
Accepted: 9 January, 2023
Published: 13 January, 2023

Copyright © 2023 ARPG &
Author
This work is licensed under
the Creative Commons
Attribution International
CC BY: Creative
Commons Attribution License
4.0

Abstract
The consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic had numerous social, political, and economic consequences. However,
many studies suggest the labor market is the most aﬀected area compared to the others. This is because some of the
workers were forced to quit due to the presence of the pandemic at their places of employment. This particular paper
focuses on performing a comprehensive survey on the eﬀects of Covid-19 on labor markets. It is well known that the
Covid pandemic has led to widespread job losses and a decrease in labor force participation. The unemployment rate had
risen signiﬁcantly, and the number of people out of work increased by millions. The labor market was also being aﬀected
by decreased working hours and increased temporary layoﬀs. The literature on labor economics is divided into two
distinct areas of the eﬀect of the pandemic. On one side, there are papers conducted on the general impact of the
pandemic on the labor market, including demand and supply of labor, unemployment, and the heterogeneous eﬀect of
Covid on diﬀerent groups and ages. On the other side, some studies are related to the Covid speciﬁc topics which are new
to the literature of labor economics, such as work from home, remote working, lockdowns, and social distancing. One
other evolving part is the Post Covid era and the recovery phase.
Keywords: Covid-19; Unemployment; Social distancing; Work from home; Inequality.

1. Introduction
Economists have experienced the same signiﬁcant disruptions caused by Covid-19 as the rest of the population,
and they are motivated by the economic eﬀects of Covid. Since the beginning of the pandemic, economists have
utilized their skills to attempt to comprehend current occurrences and examine policy solutions. The Covid-19
outbreak raises theoretical and empirical questions in various areas of economics, including but not limited to health,
industrial organization, macroeconomics, ﬁnance, history, development, inequality, political economy, public
ﬁnance, and labor economics.
Before Covid-19, the study of pandemic economics was relatively new. Pandemics was mostly a ﬁeld of study
within the medical and biological sciences, although there was some research on the economics of pandemics. As a
result of economists‟ surprising interest in pandemics, a nearly new ﬁeld of study has emerged, largely ignoring
previous studies. Both theoretically and empirically, rapid advancement has been made. This new ﬁeld emerged
from the economics of Covid and became Covid Economics.
The Covid-19 outbreak has numerous implications for the economy and the daily lives of individuals. Following
the pandemic, labor markets in both developed and developing nations saw signiﬁcant adjustments. The pandemic
caused one of the worst employment crises to aﬀect the world since the Great Depression. Governments were
obligated to take all necessary measures to solve labor market challenges. While some nations have recovered from
the pandemic, others are still struggling to restore their former status (Anderton et al., 2021).
The labor market was hit by a massive wave that caused the unemployment rate to jump and forced many
workers to quit their jobs (Eichhorst et al., 2020). According to estimates, women experienced signiﬁcantly higher
unemployment rates than men. Young people, those with less education, immigrants, and minorities all experienced
substantial employment losses. In addition, the pandemic led to an increase in the inequality gap and poverty. By
February 2021, there were 8.5 million fewer employees in the United States than there were in February 2020. It is
suggested that it could take three years to recover from the kind of severe loss that was experienced. If eﬀorts are
made to boost the employment rate and the number of work opportunities, there is a probability that the recovery
will go more quickly. Similarly, it is believed that in order to improve the prospects of recovery, better policies will
need to be put in place to address the economic eﬀects of the pandemic in diﬀerent areas.
There are a few literature review articles that discuss the research in the ﬁeld of economics of Covid, such as
Brodeur et al. (2021); Padhan and Prabheesh (2021); however, their approach is diﬀerent in terms of both

1
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

categorizing research studies and the diversity of publications. In addition to that, they completed a broader analysis
of the literature; conversely, this survey is focused on studies conducted within the ﬁeld of labor economics.
This paper aims to explore and clarify the inﬂuence of Covid-19 on labor markets in a few important
dimensions. The research on Covid and labor economics can be broken down into two categories, each addressing a
diﬀerent aspect of the pandemic‟s impact. On the one hand, there are articles that have been written on the broad
impact that the pandemic has had on the labor market. These papers include topics on the demand and supply of
labor, unemployment, and the heterogeneous eﬀect that Covid has had on various ages and groups. On the other
hand, there are studies centered on Covid speciﬁc themes that are new to the literature of labor economics. These
subjects include work from home policies, lockdowns, and social distancing. The structure of the literature on the
eﬀect of Covid on the labor market has shown in 1.

Figure1. Eﬀect of Covid and diﬀerent aspect of Labor Economics

2. General Impact on the Labor Market
2.1. Supply and Demand of Labor
The initial collection of studies on Covid-19‟s impact on the labor market focused on how it aﬀected the labor
supply and demand. Although there is some theoretical work in this area, the main focus of these works is to
examine the data to determine how the pandemic aﬀected ﬁrms‟ decisions on hiring and the participation of
individuals in the workforce.
One of few theoretical work which is incorporating the SIR model1 of pandemics into the DMP2 model of the
labor market, Bradley et al. (2021) constructs a choice theoretic equilibrium model of the labor market in the face of
a pandemic. In examining the eﬀects of lockdown regulations, their article underlines the signiﬁcance of population
and employee variability. They use the fact that worker and company behavior alters in the presence of the virus,
which has equilibrium related eﬀects on the infection rate. They calibrated the model to the United Kingdom and
examined hypothetical lockdown measures. In both the evolution of the virus and the labor market, they discover a
diﬀerent response to lockdown policies. A laissez faire strategy results in loss of life and a negative economic shock.
In the absence of alternative interventions, a lockdown strategy will lower the number of lives lost but increase the
cost burden. Consistent with recent evidence, they show that individuals with the lowest incomes are
disproportionately aﬀected by the economic consequences of a lockdown. Another work that develops a macro
model is Bredemeier et al. (2020) and it studies the ability of ﬁscal policy to stabilize employment by occupation
and industry during the Covid-19 crisis. They use a multi sector, multi occupation macroeconomic model and
investigate diﬀerent ﬁscal policy instruments that help the economy recover faster. They show that ﬁscal stimuli
foster job growth for hardhit pink collar workers, whereas stimulating blue collar job creation is more challenging.
They show that a cut in labor taxes performs best in stabilizing total employment and employment composition.
In the family of macro models, Chaar and Bromwich (2021) estimate a Bayesian structural vector auto
regression (SVAR) using monthly statistics of hours worked and real earnings in order to measure labor demand and
supply shocks at the sector level around the Covid-19 outbreak. These shocks are measured in relation to the Covid-
19 outbreak. They demonstrate that the majority of sectors were hit by signiﬁcant negative labor supply and demand
shocks in March and April of 2020, with a signiﬁcant amount of variation in the magnitude of shocks between
sectors. According to their calculations, labor supply is responsible for accounting for around two thirds of the
slowdown in the overall growth rate of hours that occurred between March and April of 2020.
Transitioning from macro models, there are a few research that uses online job posting data as a very useful way
to analyze the eﬀect of Covid on the labor market. Campos-Vazquez et al. (2021), examine the impact of the
pandemic on labor demand in Mexico by scraping job postings from the most popular job search website. They
demonstrate that, similar to the U.S., the number of vacancies in Mexico decreased signiﬁcantly during the shutdown

2
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

(38 percent). In April 2020, there was a shift in the composition of labor demand, which resulted in a decrease in
wages. By May, however, both pay distribution and job ad distribution by occupation had returned to prepandemic
levels. Also, they show that there was a momentary increase in the demand for low skilled workers. It is surprising
that contrary to expectations, telecommuting opportunities decreased throughout the pandemic. They claim that there
is no evidence of a large or permanent change in labor demand during the Covid based on Mexico‟s data.
Also, using data from the online jobs portal Glassdoor3, Marinescu et al. (2021) predict the impact of Federal
Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) on job applications and openings from March to July 2020. They
found that a 10% increase in unemployment beneﬁts resulted in a 3.6% decrease in applications but had no eﬀect on
the creation of vacancies; hence, FPUC increased labor market tightness (vacancies/applications). Their ﬁndings
suggest that the beneﬁcial eﬀect of FPUC on tightness was likely welfare improving: FPUC reduced candidate
competition at a time when jobs were exceptionally scarce. Their ﬁndings also help to explain reports indicating that
FPUC did not harm employment.
Another research is Campello et al. (2020) that employs big data on job listings to demonstrate that enterprises
have reduced postings for high skill jobs more than for low skill jobs, with small businesses essentially halting all
new hiring. In addition, they claim that layoﬀs are more severe in unionized industries and the non tradable sector.
Access to credit inﬂuences business hiring, with credit constrained companies posting fewer job openings.
Government policies related to the pandemic are another important aspect of research and Bennedsen et al.
(2020) examines the inﬂuence of the Covid-19 pandemic and government policies on the employment decisions of
businesses. They collect survey data from 10,642 small, medium, and large Danish businesses, as well as
administrative accounting data and government records of all aid supported furloughed workers during the
pandemic. Compared to a typical year, 30 percent more businesses have seen revenue decreases. By comparing
employers‟ actual layoﬀ and furlough decisions to their reported counterfactual options in the absence of assistance,
they estimate that 81,000 fewer workers were laid oﬀ and 285,000 workers were furloughed.
Bennedsen et al. (2020) ﬁndings indicate that the aid policy was effective in preserving job matching at the
outbreak‟s onset. In comparison to enterprises that did not accept government aid, those that did were more likely to
grant furloughs and less likely to lay oﬀ employees. In general, among enterprises getting assistance, the proportion
of workers on furlough rises as the ﬁrm‟s income declines, indicating that the policy is having the desired eﬀect. The
proportion of employees laid oﬀ by aid accepting companies appears to be substantially independent of the revenue
loss. Companies that did not accept aid implement more layoﬀs than furloughs when revenue declines by more than
50 percent, but the diﬀerence is not statistically signiﬁcant at lower levels of ﬁnancial distress. Sweden as one of the
countries whose government chose a diﬀerent approach is also interesting and Juranek et al. (2021) examines Covid
19 pandemic non pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on labor markets. They focus on the Nordic countries, which
had one of the biggest variations in NPIs despite having similar community spread of Covid-19 at the start of the
pandemic: Denmark, Finland, and Norway imposed rigorous measures („lockdowns‟), while Sweden chose lighter
restrictions. They compare Sweden‟s labor market outcomes with its neighbors using novel administrative data on
weekly new unemployment and furlough spells from all 56 Nordic areas. Their data reveals that the pandemic
signiﬁcantly impacted all labor markets, with Sweden performing slightly better. The Swedish labor market
worsened 2 to 3 weeks later than the other Nordic nations, and its cumulative aggregate of new unemployment and
furlough spells remained much lower (20–25%) over their research (up to week 21 of 2020).
Finally, an interesting way to look at the labor market is how new jobs are aﬀected by Covid pandemic.
Kuhlmann et al. (2020), assert that the shock of the Covid-19 pandemic spearheaded development within the public
health professionals that many individuals have advocated for. In the wake of the pandemic, many employment
opportunities were created for healthcare professionals. It is because the population of individuals aﬀected by the
pandemic was shooting day after day. Countries subjected to lockdown measures viewed healthcare employees as
heroes in all their endeavors. There was no option left but to conﬁne the professionals to recover from the pandemic.
Therefore, even though the pandemic resulted in the loss of employment in most areas, which aﬀected the economy,
the healthcare sector demanded a lot of employees more than those even there.

2.2. Unemployment
It goes without saying that the most important indicator of the labor market is unemployment. Because of that
one of the main areas of research on the eﬀect of Covid is to see how this variable responded. One of the early works
on the eﬀect of Covid on the labor market is Coibion et al. (2021) and they utilize a large scale survey of households
to characterize how the Covid-19 epidemic is aﬀecting labor markets. In this work, they describe several facts. First,
job loss has been substantially greater than suggested by actual unemployment claims: they anticipate 20 million lost
jobs by April 6, 2020, which is signiﬁcantly higher than the number of jobs lost over the entirety of the Great
Recession. Second, many of the unemployed are not actively seeking new employment. Consequently, they expect
that the increase in the unemployment rate during the same time will be a relatively small 2 percentage points. Third,
workforce participation has decreased by seven percentage points, an unprecedented loss that surpasses the three
percentage point cumulative decline from 2008 to 2016.
Khamis et al. (2021), suppose that, according to preliminary evidence drawn from the survey conducted by the
World Bank in 39 developing nations, signiﬁcant work disruption was witnessed in the second quarter of 2020.
According to the research, 36% of individuals stated that they had left their work in the wake of the pandemic, 20%
claimed that their employers were subjecting them to partial payment and 9% of the individuals claimed that they
had left their jobs and picked other jobs. It is deemed that countries all over the world, including the United States,

3
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

have been making eﬀorts to recover from the pandemic. There has been a partial but remarkable recovery from the
pandemic, and there is hope that the countries will be in their rightful places by the end of 2022.
Utilizing job vacancy data, initial unemployment insurance (UI) claims, and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
employment data, Forsythe et al. (2020) examine the eﬀect of Covid-19 on the labor market. They found that the
number of open jobs dropped dramatically in the second half of March 2020. By late April, numbers had decreased
by approximately 40 percent. They suggest that this economic downturn aﬀected all U.S. states, irrespective of the
timing of stay at home regulations. They demonstrate that UI claims and BLS employment statistics also generally
correspond to similar patterns. They imply that the recession was not caused exclusively by the stay at home rules
and hence cannot be reversed by removing them.
Longitudinal Labour Force Survey is a very comprehensive source of data that is used in Guven et al. (2020) to
estimate person ﬁxed eﬀects models to investigate the shortterm labor market consequences of Covid 19 and the
Australian lockdown. Covid-19 decreased labor force participation (LFP) by 2.1%, increased unemployment by
1.1%, and decreased weekly working hours by 1.1. LFP dropped 3.3%, unemployment rose 1.7%, and weekly
working hours dropped 2.5. The lockdown increased working fewer hours, being on leave, working shifts, not
having enough work, and losing jobs, while Friday work declined by 10%. The outbreak and shutdown boosted
underemployment and job seeking activities. Their data showed that those with up to high school education had
greater LFP and working hour reductions. However, immigrants and those with shorter job tenure or jobs unsuitable
for remote work were severely hurt by unemployment.
Seeing the future eﬀect of the pandemic is also very crucial. Bui et al. (2020), address potential future
consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak and recession on the employment outcomes of older employees in the United
States and highlight some of the early eﬀects. Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data, they assess the early
eﬀects of the Covid-19 pandemic and recession on employment and unemployment rates by age group and gender.
They calculate employment and unemployment rates in diﬀerent ways to account for the complexity of the labor
market and the possibility of survey inaccuracy. In April 2020, the unemployment rate for individuals aged 65 and
above grew to 15.43%, compared to 12.99% for those aged 2544. In addition, they ﬁnd that Covid-19 and the
recession have disproportionately impacted women, with women reaching higher unemployment rates than males
across all age groups.
A country speciﬁc research is Betcherman et al. (2021) that assesses the shortterm eﬀects of the Covid-19
lockdown on the Greek labor market and its unemployment trends. Findings indicate that ﬂows into unemployment
have not increased; in fact, separations were lower than expected given trends over the past few years. Moreover, by
the end of June 2020, employment was around 12 percent lower than it would have been without the epidemic. Their
methodologies, which include interrupted time series and diﬀerence indiﬀerences estimations, imply that this was
owing to a signiﬁcant slowdown in hiring during months when job creation generally peaks in normal years,
particularly in the tourism industry.
A good way to look at the labor market is by asking about the workers and their perception of the pandemic.
Baert et al. (2021), assess the perceived impact of Covid on people by surveying Belgian employees under 65 years
old. They show that about 21% of them are worried about losing their employment as a result of the economic crisis,
and 14% are concerned about losing their employment in the near future. In addition, 26% anticipate not receiving
promotions they would have received if the Covid-19 problem had not occurred. This fear is more prevalent among
vulnerable groups, such as migrants. In addition, they note that many individuals anticipate they will view the labor
market and their work related priorities diﬀerently in the future.

2.3. Heterogeneous Eﬀects of Covid
The one crucial aspect of studies on the job market and the Covid pandemic is how the impact of Covid varies
among groups and ages. According to the overall reviewed literature, it may be assumed that those who are most
vulnerable are also the most severely aﬀected. For example, Croda and Grossbard (2021) shows that when compared
to men, women have paid more, and Kochhar and Bennett (2021) implies that the Covid-19 pandemic had many
negative implications on the minority races compared to the majority races.
Bluedorn et al. (2021), presents evidence that the pandemic has varied eﬀects on men and women. Using a
quarterly sample of 38 advanced and emerging market economies, the authors demonstrate that there is a high degree
of variation across nations, with over half to two thirds demonstrating greater decreases in women‟s employment
rates than men. On average, these gender variations in the duration of Covid-19‟s eﬀects only last a quarter or two.
They also demonstrate a substantial relationship between this issue and Covid-19‟s eﬀects on gender ratios in
employment within sectors.
Also, Casarico and Lattanzio (2022) explores the shortterm eﬀects of Covid-19 on labor market ﬂows and how
labor market policy aﬀects these outcomes. Using Italian data between 2009 and the second quarter of 2020, they
demonstrate that, prior to the pandemic, a higher percentage of female workers than male workers, younger workers
than older workers, and less educated workers than highly educated workers were engaged in nonessential activities.
When examining the change in hirings and separations beginning in the ninth week of 2020 the time when the ﬁrst
cases and deaths attributable to Covid-19 were reported a signiﬁcant decline in hirings and terminations of ﬁxed term
contracts is observed. As a result of government action, the number of layoﬀs and quits increases after the ninth
week and then declines dramatically. The removal of the lockdown initiates a gradual recovery of labor market
ﬂows. Young workers, those with temporary contracts, low educated workers, those employed in the South, and
those without work from home options experience a greater decline in separation likelihood, indicating that

4
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

government policy partially covered them from the eﬀects of the recession on the labor market. The probability of
separation decreases more slowly for women than for males.
Another important work on the Italian economy as the ﬁrst European country hit by Covid is Del Boca et al.
(2020) and it starts by saying the fact that recessions tend to have a higher impact on male dominated sectors.
The Covid-19 pandemic has had widespread economic, health, and social impacts. They examine the eﬀects of
Covid-19related working arrangements on housework, childcare, and homeschooling in couples where both partners
work using April 2020 survey data from a representative sample of Italian women.
These ﬁndings reveal that women do most of the Covid-19related housework and childcare, but couples share
childcare more than house work. They found that women‟s emergency housework does not depend on their partners‟
work schedules. All women questioned spend more time on housework than previously, save those who continue to
work. Men spend more time on housework if their partners continue to work at their regular workplace. If they work
away from home, more women and men spend less time with their children. Finally, they show that Covid-19 makes
worklife balance harder for working women with children under 5. Another country speciﬁc research is Farre et al.
(2021) that examines Spain, as one of Europe‟s toughest Covid-19 lockdowns, and shows during the lockout,
”quarantined” and ”nonessential” sectors with no remote work lost many jobs. Low ereducated people suﬀered
disproportionately from temporary job losses. Women were more likely to work from home and lose their jobs than
men. Since schools were closed and outsourced, the lockdown increased childcare and housework. Men did more
house work and childcare, but women did most of it before the lockdown. They conclude by saying that, in the short
run, the Covid-19 pandemic appears to have worsened gender inequality in paid and unpaid employment. One of the
research that has a surprising result is Hupkau and Petrongolo (2020) which investigates the consequences of the
Covid-19 crisis and related economic activity constraints on paid and unpaid labor for men and women in the United
Kingdom. They discover evidence that the labor market outcomes for men and women were nearly equally
inﬂuenced at the extensive margin, as assessed by the frequency of job loss and furloughing. In contrast, women
experienced lesser losses at the intensive edge, as their hours and wages changed marginally less. Also, they show in
the typical family, women provided a greater proportion of increasing childcare demands, but in a signiﬁcant
proportion of households, fathers became the primary childcare providers.
In contrast to Hupkau and Petrongolo (2020) there are papers like Reichelt et al. (2021) that show a diﬀerent
outcome. They use a representative sample of respondents in the U.S., Germany, and Singapore and ﬁnd that women
have more often transitioned to unemployment, reduced working hours, and working from home than males. They
also show that among couples who were employed before the pandemic, men express more egalitarian gender role
attitudes if they became unemployed but their partners remained employed, whereas women express more traditional
attitudes. These ﬁndings suggest gender role beliefs may change with life. They argue that as economies recover,
how men and women change their employment relationships will determine the long term effects.
In the same group of researchers, using a triple diﬀerences method that takes advantage of diﬀerences between
states, between times, and between women who did and did not have young children, Russell and Sun (2020)
evaluate the results of state level policies that forced the closure of child care institutions or imposed class size
restrictions. They show that both measures are associated with an increase in the shortterm unemployment rate of
mothers of young children. Also, they ﬁnd, as expected of a persistent side eﬀect on the availability of child care, the
impact of mandated closures on unemployment grows with time and continues even after states stop closings.
Montenovo et al. (2020), present a number of improvements to the understanding of the sociodemographic
disparity in labor market responses to the Covid-19 outbreak and associated policies, using two prior recessions as a
baseline. First, they show that monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) statistics indicate that Hispanics, younger
workers, and those with a high school diploma and some college will experience higher job drops in April and May
2020 compared to February. Between April and May, employment was restored by all demographic segments. With
the exception of Blacks, who experienced a smaller bounce, the rate of reemployment in May was roughly
proportionate to the rate of decline in April.
In addition, they demonstrate that, compared to the 2001 recession and the Great Recession, employment losses
in the early Covid-19 recession were smaller for people with very low or very high education (as opposed to medium
education). Furthermore, they demonstrate that occupations requiring more human contact and those that cannot be
performed remotely lost more jobs. Additionally, they ﬁnd that the pre Covid-19 sorting of workers into occupations
and industries along demographic lines can account for a substantial percentage of the gender, racial, and ethnic
disparities in new unemployment.
For instance, despite the fact that women suﬀered more job losses than males, their disproportionate
prepandemic sorting into occupations compatible with remote labor protected them from what would have been even
greater employment losses during the epidemic. Nevertheless, considerable disparities in employment losses
between groups persist that cannot be explained by socioeconomic diﬀerences. When they incorporate the
”employed but absent from work” measure present in the CPS in addition to the more typical employment and
unemployment measures, they discover bigger gaps in labor market eﬀects.
Kochhar and Bennett (2021), argue that during the wake of the pandemic, a high number of women quit the
work market during the initial year of the pandemic. According to statistics, it is deemed that from February 2020 to
2021, 2.4 million women left their work compared to 1.8 million men. Therefore, women accounted for a signiﬁcant
employee decrease within the labor market. It is asserted that during the Covid-19 pandemic, women were aﬀected
the most compared to the case during the Great Recession, where men were the ones who got aﬀected the most. It is
deemed that from 2007 to 2009, the number of women who ditched their work was 84,000, while on the other end,
the number of men who ditched their job was 929,000.

5
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

Kochhar and Bennett (2021), further argue that the Black and Hispanic women happened to comprise the larger
population of the women that quit their places of work. Therefore, in tandem with this statement, it is evident that the
Covid-19 pandemic had many negative implications on the minority races compared to the majority races.
According to statistics, of all the women who left their jobs during the pandemic within one year, 582,000 were
Hispanic women, while 511,000 were black women. In general, Black and Hispanic women were 46% of the entire
population of women that left their jobs.
According to Queisser (2021), the Covid-19 pandemic aﬀects men and women to various degrees. For instance,
women as caregivers minimize their working hours or decide to change their work and take on other opportunities
that may have much ﬂexibility and minimal time for commuting. It is equally explained that women happened to be
signiﬁcantly aﬀected during the pandemic compared to men because of inequality issues within the places of work. It
is because in certain areas when it came to reducing the number of employees to ease the payment of salaries, the
women were the ones who got laid oﬀ from their jobs ﬁrst.
In addition to analyzing the eﬀect of the pandemic, seeing how minorities are aﬀected by Covid is also very
crucial. Couch et al. (2020), shows early Covid-19 pandemic eﬀects on minority unemployment in the US. After
states adopted social distancing measures in March, unemployment jumped to 14.5% but 24.4%. Using the oﬃcial
criteria, African American unemployment grew by less than expected (to 16.6%) in April 2020, and Latinx
unemployment (18.2%) surged for the ﬁrst time to the highest among signiﬁcant groups.
Moreover, diﬀerence indiﬀerence estimates of Couch et al. (2020) show that the initial unemployment disparity
between whites and blacks in April was similar to prepandemic levels, but the gap widened as white unemployment
fell in the next two months while black unemployment remained unchanged. Whites and Latinx had identical
unemployment rates in May and June, despite April‟s big gap. Nonlinear decomposition demonstrates that a
favorable industry distribution somewhat preserved black employment during the early pandemic, but an
unfavorable occupational distribution and lower average skills levels put them at higher risk of job losses. As trying
to hire increased, the Latinxwhite unemployment gap narrowed. They point out a very important thing and say these
ﬁndings of disproportionate minority unemployment raise worries about lost incomes and wealth and the pandemic‟s
longterm eﬀects on US racial inequality.
Also, Borjas and Cassidy (2021) use the CPS data and show that immigrants were hit hardest by the
employment decrease resulting from the Covid outbreak. The immigrant men had more jobs than native men, how
ever, Covid-19 wiped out immigrant employment advantages and by April 2020, immigrant men were less employed
than native men. Immigrants were less likely to work in remote jobs and suﬀered uneven employment outcomes as
the lockdown allowed individuals with ”remotable” abilities to work from home. Also, they show that
undocumented men lost more jobs than legal immigrants during the pandemic.
Mongey et al. (2021), creates two measures of an occupation‟s potential exposure to social distancing measures
using O*NET data4 and they use them to examine the characteristics of workers in various types of jobs. Their
ﬁndings indicate that workers in low work from home and high physical proximity occupations are more
economically vulnerable across a range of measures derived from the CPS5 and PSID6: they are less educated, have
lower incomes, possess fewer liquid assets relative to income, and are more likely to be renters. Consistent with the
hypothesis that high physical closeness or low work-from-home occupations were more sensitive to the Coronavirus
shock, they demonstrate that the sorts of employees projected to be employed in these occupations saw larger
employment decreases throughout the pandemic. In the ﬁnal result, by comparing the aggregate employment losses
in these occupations to their employment losses during the 2008 recession, they ﬁnd evidence that these occupations
were disproportionately subject to the pandemic shock, and were not just comprised of more cyclically sensitive
individuals.
Finally, Lee et al. (2020) posit that the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a worldwide crisis in terms of its poverty
related consequences. The crisis went further or transformed into a labor market and economic shock, which led to
massive labor challenges. The authors claim that recovery in the labor market during and after the pandemic
happened to be much slower and more painful, which aﬀected the economy‟s recovery. It is equally deemed that the
pandemic had massive implications on the income and living of the informal workers. Worldwide, it was
approximated that the pandemic would drag the relative poverty levels among casual and informal workers from
26% to 59%. In other regions, it is deemed that the challenge might shoot up to 80%.

3. Covid-19 Speciﬁc Topics
3.1. Work from Home (WFH)
The impact of working from home on the labor market relies on a number of variables, including the sort of
work being done, the industry in which it is being done, and the location of the workers. Working from home,
according to some experts, can boost the labor market by expanding the pool of potential workers, cutting the
expense of commuting, and giving both companies and employees more ﬂexibility. Working from home has a
number of drawbacks as well, such as being isolated from coworkers, dealing with distractions at home, and lacking
discipline, and time management. We can say working from home has become the new normal for many people
since the outbreak of Covid-19 and there are many studies in the ﬁeld of labor economics to analyze the eﬀect of this
new phenomenon. For example, Delaporte and Pena (2020), estimates the proportion of employment that can be
completed at home in 23 Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) nations and investigates the characteristics of
workers associated with such jobs. To conduct this study, this paper employs extensive household surveys and gives
two tele work ability indices. The percentage of people who can work from home ranges from 7% in Guatemala to

6
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

16% in the Bahamas, according to the researchers. They reveal substantial heterogeneity in the ability to work from
home among jobs, industries, geographies, and socioeconomic characteristics of workers. Their ﬁndings indicate that
some individuals are better equipped than others to deal with Covid circumstances.
Another important question is the type of work that can be done remotely. Dingel and Neiman (2020), classify
the feasibility of working from home for all occupations and combine this classiﬁcation with employment statistics
by occupation. 37% of employment in the United States can be completed fully at home, with signiﬁcant variance
across cities and industries. These jobs often oﬀer higher compensation than those that cannot be performed at home
and account for 46% of all U.S. wages. The application of their occupational classiﬁcation to 85 other nations
demonstrates that economies with lower incomes have a lower proportion of jobs that can be performed at home.
Mongey and Weinberg (2020), categorize jobs by the likelihood of working from home and low workplace
proximity. They show that low work from home workers are less likely to be white, have a college degree, or have
employer provided healthcare, more likely to be in the bottom half of the income distribution, and more likely to
rent. Single, non US born workers are less likely to use informal insurance channels. They are also more likely to
have been unemployed in the past year, less likely to work fulltime, and less likely to work in large companies.
Females are more likely to work in high work from home and high physical proximity occupations, suggesting that
wide social distancing measures may have fewer employment eﬀects on women but make later economic integration
harder. Brynjolfsson et al. (2020), found that roughly half of the population works from home, including 35.2%
who previously commuted but have lately transitioned to working from home. In addition, 10.1% have been laid oﬀ
or given unpaid leave since the beginning of Covid-19. There is a substantial negative correlation between the
proportion of a state‟s work force that commutes to work and the proportion that works from home. They discover
that the proportion of persons transferring to remote work may be predicted by the incidence of Covid-19 and that
younger individuals are more likely to make the switch. Moreover, states with a greater proportion of employment in
information work, which includes managerial, professional, and related industries, were more likely to transition to
ward working from home and had fewer individuals laid oﬀ or furloughed. Gottlieb et al. (2020), examines how the
share of jobs that can be performed from home ﬂuctuates in relation to national wealth. They ﬁnd that in urban areas,
this proportion is approximately 20% lower in poor countries than in wealthy ones (almost 40% vs. 20%). This result
is driven by selfemployed workers: in poor countries, their proportion of the labor force is high, and their
occupational structure is not conducive to working from home. The proportion of employment in poor countries that
can be performed from home, relative to rich ones, is conditional on the ability of farmers to work from home on a
national scale. This result comes from the high proportion of agricultural workers in developing nations.
One important aspect of WFH is its eﬀect on health measures and Boeri et al. (2020) indicates that the share of
jobs that can be performed without exposing workers to the danger of developing Covid-19 is limited and likely falls
short of 50 percent. Notably, the proportion is not larger in strategic industries that provide services to the health
sector. Therefore, there appears to be room for automation in many businesses, particularly those that require
capacity expansion. Young employees could be mobilized in these industries because they are less in danger from
Covid-19, but they are underrepresented in unsafe jobs and overrepresented in jobs that can be completed through
smart working. This mismatch could be remedied by reclassifying young people into part time employment or
temporary unemployment beneﬁts. They could also be productively deployed in the event of labor shortages in
enterprises that have changed production lines to produce health sector requested strategic equipment.
Understanding the productivity of working from home is also very critical. UK survey data is used in Etheridge
and Spantig (2022) to investigate home workers‟ self reported productivity under lockdown. Workers report being as
productive as before the outbreak. However, these average hides signiﬁcant variability across industries, working
romhome intensities, and worker characteristics. According to objective metrics, workers in industries and
occupations ideal for WFH7 are more productive. While those who always worked from home report productivity
reductions, those who have increased their intensity of working from home claim productivity rises. Women and
those in low paying jobs had the worst productivity reductions. They demonstrate a causal relationship between
productivity and wellbeing using stated explanations for productivity declines. Also, Bartik et al. (2020) presents
survey data from small and big ﬁrms on remote work prevalence, productivity, and predictions for its continuation
beyond the Covid-19 pandemic. They poll 1770 small business CEOs and 70 business economists. The summary of
their ﬁndings is as follows: First, remote work is high but varies by industry. They think remote labor in many
businesses is diﬃcult. Second, remote labor is more common in higherpaid, bettereducated businesses. Third, in the
wider study, employers believe remote workers in highereducated and higherpaid industries lose less productivity.
Fourth, more than one third of companies that switched to remote work expect it to continue after the Covid-19
pandemic.
Morikawa (2020), investigates the practice of working from home (WFH) during the COVID-19 pandemic in
Japan, including its frequency, prevalence, and productivity. It shows that approximately 32% of employees,
according to the ﬁndings, practiced WFH. WFH arrangements accounted for almost 19% of all working hours in
terms of labor input. The average WFH productivity was between 60% and 70% of what it would have been at the
typical workplace, and it was lower for workers who began WFH practices only after the Covid-19 pandemic had
begun to spread. While longdistance commuters and those with high education levels tended to show a relatively
slight decline in WFH productivity.
Finally, Mueller-Langer and Gomez-Herrera (2020) examines the implications of Covidrelated mobility
constraints on the demand, supply, and employment outcomes for remote versus onsite jobs. They gain from the fact
that countrybycountry, timebytime, and levelbylevel implementation of stayathome rules vary. They utilize company
data from a substantial online European labor market. Their ﬁndings indicate that stayathome rules beneﬁt the

7
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

demand, supply, and hiring of remote labor compared to onsite jobs. Furthermore, they ﬁnd that the impact of stay at
home regulations on the demand, supply, and hiring of remote employment relative to onsite work varies
signiﬁcantly over time. Additional research indicates that the stay at home eﬀect is nonlinear for the demand and
supply of remote work but linear for the hiring of remote workers. Overall, these ﬁndings show that the adaptability
of online labor markets may promote adapting labor demand and supply to unpredictable, mobility restricted
conditions.

3.2. Social Distancing
Because Covid-19 can spread from person to person, social distancing8 restrictions were one of the earliest
ways to stop the pandemic and protect people. Because social distancing had direct implications on people‟s
interaction in the workplace it is one of the Covid related topics integrated into labor economics.
Using a panel threshold model with highfrequency data on unemployment across U.S. states and allowing for
heteroscedasticity,Dreger and Gros (2021) assesses the shortterm impact of social distancing measures on the labor
market. Labor is a fundamental factor in production and a good indicator of the status of the economy. The authors
found that changes in the strictness of required social distancing, as measured by the Oxford Stringency Index, have
a signiﬁcant eﬀect on unemployment. The majority of unemployment‟s response to a change in social distancing
limits does not occur immediately but with a delay of two to four weeks. Moreover, the impact is asymmetrical. The
unemployment rate rises more rapidly and has a greater absolute value if the government adopts stricter laws than if
it adopts a looser policy. The pandemic‟s status is a minor factor, as measured by the number of new infections and
fatalities. Another work is Aum et al. (2021) that uses a diﬀerence in diﬀerence (DiD) method to examine the
causal eﬀect of the Covid-19 outbreak on the labor market. Unlike many other countries, Korea did not put a
lockdown on the economy and performed testing and tracing to combat the pandemic. Until the summer of 2020,
only one region had a signiﬁcant number of infections, and it allowed them to estimate the causal eﬀect of the
outbreak on the labor market. They ﬁnd that a one per thousand increase in the number of infections caused a 2 to 3
percent drop in local employment. They explain the reasons that caused employment losses by local outbreaks in the
absence of lockdowns as follows:
 Due to reduced hiring by small establishments
 Concentrated on jobs in the accommodation/food, education, real estate, and transportation industries
 The damages are worst for vulnerable workers who are less educated, young, in low wage occupations, and
on temporary contracts
Aum et al. (2021), argue that these patterns are similar to what they ob served in the US and UK. It means that
the unequal eﬀects of Covid-19 were the same with or without lockdowns. Their ﬁndings are consistent with the
lifting of lockdowns having led to only modest employment recoveries in the US and UK, absent larger drops in
infection rates. The intuition behind these results could be the fear of Covid itself had the same result as lockdowns.
To see the eﬀect of lifting social distancing restrictions, Avdiu and Nayyar (2020) analyzes the vulnerability of
jobs to social distancing by measuring the importance of face to face interactions with consumers. They use the fact
that as lockdowns ease, activities intensive in facetoface interactions with consumers will likely be slower to recover
as people continue to exercise social distancing precautions. This paper uses data on 900 job titles from the
Occupational Information Network database for the United States to demonstrate substantial heterogeneity in the
importance of facetoface interactions across industries, income groups, and gender. They show that:
 First, industries vary in whether they emphasize facetoface interactions and home based work; the two do
not always go hand in hand.
 Second, occupations that are more intensive in face to face interactions are primarily concentrated among
lower wage deciles.
 Third, a larger share of women‟s employment is accounted for by occupations that are intensive in
facetoface interactions.
Also, they ﬁnd that the diﬃculty of doing home based work and the importance of face to face interactions with
consumers diverges in some industries, so it is essential to distinguish between the two. For example, while neither
accommodation and food services nor construction activity can be performed from home, the latter does not involve
face to face inter actions with consumers and is therefore likely to resume earlier as home based work, those with
low face to face interactions with consumers, such as in manufacturing, might see workers return to their jobs more
easily as lockdown restrictions ease.
Finally, using O*NET and Irish Census data, Crowley et al. (2020) estimate the variability of people who
engage in remote work and social distancing. Despite having a relatively high potential for remote work, persons
who commute by car are less likely to be able to engage in social distancing in the workplace. While this may be
detrimental to employment chances in the short term, it may have favorable short and long term environmental
consequences.

4. Conclusions
The most signiﬁcant workplace disruptions prior to Covid-19 were caused by emerging technologies and trade
relations. For the ﬁrst time, Covid-19 has increased the signiﬁcance of the physical aspect of labor. As a result, a new
component inﬂuencing labor economics research is the physical aspect of employment, which health and safety
concerns have brought to light. This line of research includes the eﬀect of working from home, remote working,

8
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

social distancing, etc., on the labor market. These changes are likely to have varying eﬀects on countries and the
workplace, and they also create additional challenges for ﬁrms.
Furthermore, the implications of Covid on labor market issues such as supply and demand, unemployment, and
so on will continue, with a focus on long term impacts. Additionally, there is a developing part of the literature that
explores post Covid economies and how labor market policies and recovery strategies are progressing.
Finally, standard deﬁnitions of the labor market may not be adequate to properly reﬂect labor market dynamics
during and after the pandemic, according to the disruptions resulting from the crisis. Variations in unemployment,
for instance, may be misleading given the many mobility limitations and social distancing mechanisms already in
place. International Labor Organization (ILO) 9 demonstrates how some countries have experienced issues with data
collection and data interpretation. To address diﬃculties linked to low response rates and nonrandom patterns,
modiﬁcations to survey instruments, data collection techniques, and weighting schemes are now required.

Author Contributions
The author is responsible for the entirety of the submitted paper.
The author read and approved the ﬁnal manuscript.

Availability of Data and Materials
None

Acknowledgments
None

Declarations
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.

References
Anderton, R., Botelho, V., Consolo, A., Da Silva, A. D., Foroni, C. and Mohr, M. (2021). The impact of the COVID-
19 pandemic on the euro area labour market. Economic Bulletin Articles, 8. Publisher: European Central
Bank.
Aum, S., Lee, S. Y. T. and Shin, Y. (2021). Covid-19 doesn‟t need lockdowns to destroy jobs: The eﬀect of local
outbreaks in Korea. Labour Economics, 70: 101993.
Avdiu, B. and Nayyar, G. (2020). When face-to-face interactions become an occupational hazard: Jobs in the time
of covid-19. Economics Let-ters.
Baert, S., Lippens, L., Moens, E., Sterkens, P. and Weytjens, J. (2021). How do we think the covid-19 crisis will
aﬀect our careers (if any re-main)? SSRN Electronic Journal.
Bartik, A., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M. and Stanton, C. (2020). What jobs are being done at home during the
covid-19 crisis? evidence from ﬁrm-level surveys. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Bennedsen, M., Larsen, B., Schmutte, I. and Scur, D. (2020). Preserving job matches during the covid-19 pandemic:
ﬁrm-level evidence on the role of government aid. Working paper, pages 1–30.
Betcherman, G., Giannakopoulos, N., Laliotis, I., Pantelaiou, I., Tes-taverde, M. and Tzimas, G. (2021). Reacting
quickly and protecting jobs: The short-term impacts of the covid-19 lockdown on the greek labor market.
SSRN Electronic Journal.
Bluedorn, J., Hansen, N.-J., Shibata, I., Caselli, F. and Tavares, M. M. (2021). Gender and employment in the covid-
19 recession: Evidence on “she-cessions”. IMF Working Papers. 1.
Boeri, T., Caiumi, A. and Paccagnella, M. (2020). Mitigating the work- safety. Covid economics. Vetted and Real-
Time Papers, 2(2): 60–66.
Borjas, G. J. and Cassidy, H. (2021). The adverse eﬀect of the covid- 19 labor market shock on immigrant
employment. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Bradley, J., Ruggieri, A. and Spencer, A. H. (2021). Twin peaks: Covid-19 and the labor market. European
Economic Review, 138: 103828.
Bredemeier, C., Juessen, F. and Winkler, R. (2020). Bringing back the jobs lost to covid-19: The role of ﬁscal
policy. Covid Economics Vetted and Real-Time Papers, 29: 99-140.
Brodeur, A., Gray, D., Islam, A. and Bhuiyan, S. (2021). A literature review of the economics of covid-19. Journal
of Economic Surveys, 35(4): 1007–44.
Brynjolfsson, E., Horton, J. J., Ozimek, A., Rock, D., Sharma, G. and TuYe, H.-Y. (2020). Covid-19 and remote
work: An early look at us data. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bui, T. T. M., Button, P. and Picciotti, E. G. (2020). Early Evidence on the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) and the Recession on Older Workers. Public Policy and Aging Report, 30(4): 154–59.
Campello, M., Kankanhalli, G. and Muthukrishnan, P. (2020). Corporate hiring under covid-19: Labor market
concentration, downskilling, and income inequality. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Campos-Vazquez, R. M., Esquivel, G. R. and Badillo, R. Y. (2021). How has labor demand been aﬀected by the
covid-19 pandemic? evidence from job ads in mexico. Latin American Economic Review, 30(1): 1–42.

9
The Journal of Social Sciences Research

Casarico, A. and Lattanzio, S. (2022). The heterogeneous eﬀects of covid- 19 on labor market ﬂows: evidence from
administrative data. Journal of Economic Inequality, 20(3): 537–58.
Chaar, T. and Bromwich, C. (2021). Measuring labor supply and demand shocks during covid-19. 49 vols. Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Research Division.
Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y. and Weber, M. (2021). Labor markets during the covid-19 crisis: A preliminary
view. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Couch, K. A., Fairlie, R. W. and Xu, H. (2020). Early evidence of the impacts of COVID-19 on minority
unemployment. Journal of Public Economics, 192: 104287.
Croda, E. and Grossbard, S. (2021). Women pay the price of covid-19 more than men. Review of Economics of the
Household, 19.
Crowley, F., Daly, H., Doran, J. and Ryan, G. (2020). Covid-19, so- cial distancing, remote work and transport
choice. Covid Economics. 63.
Del Boca, D., Oggero, N., Profeta, P. and Rossi, M. (2020). Women‟s and men‟s work, housework and childcare,
before and during COVID-19. Review of Economics of the Household, 18(4): 1001–17.
Delaporte, I. and Pena, W. W. (2020). Working from home under COVID-19: Who Is Affected? Evidence from
Latin American and Caribbean Countries. GLO Discussion Paper, 528(14): 1–30.
Dingel, J. I. and Neiman, B. (2020). How many jobs can be done at home? Journal of Public Economics, 189:
104235.
Dreger, C. and Gros, D. (2021). Lockdowns and the us unemployment crisis. Economics of Disasters and Climate
Change, 5(3): 449–63.
Eichhorst, W., Marx, P. and Rinne, U. (2020). Manoeuvring through the crisis: Labour market and social policies
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Publisher: Springer. Intereconomics, 5(6): 375–80.
Etheridge, B. and Spantig, L. (2022). The gender gap in mental well-being at the onset of the covid-19 pandemic:
Evidence from the UK. European Economic Review, 145: 145.
Farre, L., Fawaz, Y., Gonzalez, L. and Graves, J. (2021). How the covid- 19 lockdown aﬀected gender inequality in
paid and unpaid work in Spain. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Forsythe, E., Kahn, L. B., Lange, F. and Wiczer, D. (2020). Labor demand in the time of covid-19: Evidence from
vacancy postings and Ui Claims. Journal of Public Economics, 189: 104238.
Gottlieb, C., Grobovˇsek, J. and Poschke, M. (2020). Working from home across countries. Covid Economics, 8(8):
70–91.
Guven, C., Sotirakopoulos, P. and Ulker, A. (2020). Short-term labour market eﬀects of covid-19 and the associated
national lockdown in aus- tralia: Evidence from longitudinal labour force survey. GLO Discussion Paper.
Hupkau, C. and Petrongolo, B. (2020). Work, care and gender during the covid-19 crisis. Fiscal Studies, 41(3): 623–
51.
Juranek, S., Paetzold, J., Winner, H. and Zoutman, F. (2021). Labor market eﬀects of covid-19 in sweden and its
neighbors: Evidence from administrative data. Kyklos, 74(4): 512–26.
Khamis, M., Prinz, D., Newhouse, D., Palacios-Lopez, A., Pape, U. and Weber, M. (2021). The early labor market
impacts of covid-19 in de- veloping countries. World Bank: Washington, DC.
Kochhar, R. and Bennett, J. (2021). US labor market inches back from the COVID-19 shock, but recovery is far
from complete. Pew Research Center.
Kuhlmann, E., Dussault, G. and Wismar, M. (2020). Health labour mar- kets and the „human face‟of the health
workforce: resilience beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. The European Journal of Public Health:
Lee, K., Sahai, H., Baylis, P. and Greenstone, M. (2020). Job loss and behavioral change: The unprecedented eﬀects
of the india lockdown in Delhi. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Marinescu, I., Skandalis, D. and Zhao, D. (2021). The impact of the fed- eral pandemic unemployment
compensation on job search and vacancy creation. Journal of Public Economics, 200: 104471.
Mongey, S. and Weinberg, A. (2020). Characteristics of workers in low work-from-home and high personal-
proximity occupations. Becker Friedman Institute for Economic White Paper.
Mongey, S., Pilossoph, L. and Weinberg, A. (2021). Which workers bear the burden of social distancing? The
Journal of Economic Inequality, 19(3): 509–26.
Montenovo, L., Jiang, X., Rojas, F. L., Schmutte, I. M., Simon, K. I., Weinberg, B. A. and Wing, C. (2020).
Determinants of disparities in covid-19 job losses.
Morikawa, M. (2020). Productivity of working from home during the covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from an
employee survey. Covid Eco-Nomics, 49: 123–39.
Mueller-Langer, F. and Gomez-Herrera, E. (2020). Mobility restrictions and remote work: empirical evidence on
demand and supply on a European online labour market. COVID Economics: 1.
Padhan, R. and Prabheesh, K. (2021). The economics of covid-19 pandemic: A survey. Economic Analysis and
Policy, 70: 220-37.
Queisser, M. (2021). Covid-19 and oecd labour markets: What impact on gender gaps? Intereconomics, 56(5): 249–
53.
Reichelt, M., Makovi, K. and Sargsyan, A. (2021). The impact of covid- 19 on gender inequality in the labor market
and gender-role attitudes. European Societies, 23(1): S228-S45.
Russell, L. and Sun, C. (2020). The eﬀect of mandatory child care cen- ter closures on women‟s labor market
outcomes during the covid-19 pandemic.

File and source

File: a-survey-on-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-labor-market-426f9e85.pdf
Size: 743,220 bytes
SHA-256: 426f9e85f31943b609488f08754fa27534b22969e64cdef86919979cce05cc69
Our copy: a-survey-on-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-labor-market-426f9e85.pdf
Original: arpgweb.com

A Survey on the Impact of Covid-19 on the Labor Market — The Journal of Social Sciences Research (2023)

Summary

Cite this document

Full text

File and source

Related records