șă Theoretical and Applied Economics

Volume XXVII (2020), No. 3(624), Autumn, pp. 41-54

Covid crisis: Fiscal, monetary

and macro-financial policy responses

Provash Kumer SARKER

School of Economics and Management
Wuhan University, Hubei, China
[email protected]

Abstract. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in the world is deepening a profound impact and
economic uncertainty. In essence, lockdown and social distancing measures are triggering losses in
global production, supply, trades, investments, and employment. This article, to counteract the
economic losses and macroeconomic uncertainty, explores the policy evolution of macroeconomic
effects during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has communicated different policy responses addressing
the potential economic damages in the G-7 countries and 24 emerging market economies (EMEs).
The article also illustrates the lockdown and regulatory implications and dynamic economic
interventions mandated by the governments, monetary authorities, and central banks. The study
demonstrates the potential impact of fiscal, monetary, and macro-financial policy measures on the
economic losses caused by regulatory and quarantine measures. Monetary authorities and central
banks have lowered the policy rates like repurchase agreement rate (repo), reverse repo, cash
reserve requirement (CRR) to ease the liquidity supplies to the economy. Central banks also offered
credit facilities to cater to the demand for loans and advances. The study finds that G-7 economies
and emerging market economies have implemented a comprehensive fast-track fiscal, monetary, and
macro-financial policy to counteract the pandemic's negative economic consequences. The policy
measures include the fiscal stimulus package, direct spending, loans, and credit facilities,
refinancing schemes, swap agreement, discount loan window, tax cut on credit, short term loan
extension, bridge finance, policy rate cuts, bond purchase, SMEs financing. These policy measures,
if implemented successfully, are predicted to minimize the impact of the crisis and to stabilize the
economies.

Keywords: COVID crisis; macroeconomic; impacts; policy; G-7; emerging economies.

JEL Classification: B22, E2, E6.

42 Provash Kumer Sarker

Introduction
The world is now undergoing a wave of economic pathogens released by the crisis from
COVID-19, severing the interdependent world economy. The virus outbreak emerged in
Wuhan, China, in December of 2019 and persists globally now. The novel pandemic
outbreak of coronavirus has been taking its toll on human lives and the economies. The
extensive spread has become catastrophic to the global economy, inflicting severe damage
to the global production and supply chain. The virus-containment measures have
dismantled the economic activity across the globe. The quarantining measures necessary to
contain the virus have triggered an economic downturn affecting global production and
supply, international trade, FDI flows, international financial markets, and international
tourism and travels. To lower the transmission rate of COVID-19 and to decrease the
liability on healthcare systems, almost all governments have implemented a wide range of
strict public healthcare and quarantine measures including school and factory closures,
travel restrictions, and city lockdowns (Atkeson, 2020). Consequently, the economies
started experiencing a sharp downturn. The world's largest economies (G7 and China) are
among the ones that have been most affected by the Pandemic (Baldwin and Weder di
Mauro, 2020). However, the economic consequences of the pandemic will have varying
impacts depending on several factors, containing the direct impacts of quarantine measures
to limit the spread, the required duration of the lockdown measures, and the degree of
intensity at which the direct economic effects amplify and persist.
There are three transmission measures for the pandemic that will hit the global economy
hard. First, travel restrictions at the regional and national levels will restrict the flow of
goods and services across the borders and within countries. Second, increased uncertainty
will translate into reduced spending by households and small businesses. Third, sharp
declines in global stock markets, if sustained, will hurt the real economy. Plunging markets
stoke fear and uncertainty, reduce household wealth, and therefore erode consumer
spending. The discussion in this paper significantly contributes to the financial crisis
literature (Allen and Carletti, 2010) (Jagannathan et al., 2013; Mian and Sufi, 2010; Stiglitz,
2010; Ozili, 2019). Moreover, this paper contributes to the growing literature by exhibiting
that non-financial factors and non-economic factors can initiate both a financial and
economic crisis in unprecedented ways.

1. Related literature
The literature on the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, as is the recent
phenomenon, is substantially growing. There remain only a few studies about the economic
loss due to the massive-scale epidemic of contagious diseases to date: (Schoenbaum, 1987)
is an example of an initial analysis of the economic impact of influenza. Other studies like
(Meltzer and Cox, 1999) examine the potential macroeconomic impacts of the influenza
pandemic in the US and evaluate several vaccine-based interventions. They find that at a
gross attack rate of 15-35%, the number of influenza deaths is 89-207 thousand, and an
estimated mean total economic impact for the US economy is $73.1- $166.5 billion. This
paper also sheds light on the literature on how crises impact the economy and policy
Covid crisis: Fiscal, monetary and macro-financial policy responses 43

responses to those crises. In the aftermath of the 2008 Great Recession, a large body of
work studied how credit supply shocks (Mian and Sufi, 2009; 2011; Mian et al., 2013) and
securitization (Keys et al., 2008; Keys et al., 2012) led to the financial crisis. Finally, this
paper joins a rapidly growing body of work studying the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic
on the economy. (Eichenbaum et al., 2020; Barro et al., 2020; Jones, 2020).
Given the span of the pandemic is just about four months, research on the economics of
COVID-19 is at an early stage and still emerging. An extensive set of papers has emerged
and is still expanding on macroeconomic issues surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. As
the evidence of economic impacts keeps emerging, research think tanks and media outlets
are in a race to publish commentaries, editorials, and analytical pieces. (Baldwin and Weder
di Mauro, 2020) complied with an ebook illustrating the impacts of general macro economy
and policy, trade, supply chain, finance, banking, travel, and regional sensitivities. There
are also many works on simulation modeling based on previous experience, real-time data,
and intuitive and policy perspectives from IMF, BIS, World Bank, OECD, UNCTAD.
Provided the aim of the article, it is worth reviewing them. (Beck, 2020) focuses on finance
and banking risks created by the pandemic and argues that the effect would depend on three
factors – the extent of the pandemic's economic effects globally, the fiscal and monetary
policy reactions to the shocks, and regulatory reactions addressing possible bank fragility.
(Mann, 2020) mentions the interlinkage between global commodity markets, financial
markets, public sentiment, and the economy is likely to make the situation worse and
challenging for policy responses. Other authors also expound that the COVID-19 pandemic
is both a demand shock and a supply shock – that are likely to slow down aggregate trade
flows significantly and that manufacturing distress and supply-side contagion are imminent
through international supply chain distortions. Based on the experiences of modeling
the economic effects of the influenza pandemic (Wren Lewis, 2020) suggests that the
COVID-19 estimates reduction in economic growth, coming as a result of reduced labor
supply, higher production cost, higher temporary inflation, and reduced social
consumption. While studying the adverse shock of the pandemic (Fornaro and Martin,
2020) mention that pandemic as an adverse shock to the growth rate in productivity
considering a standard New Keynesian representative-agent economy and endogenous
technological change with sluggish traps.
In contrast, the article focuses on new shocks to supply due to widespread lockdowns and
social distancing measures. (Faria e Castro, 2020) builds on studies different forms of fiscal
policy in a calibrated New Keynesian model. A growing number of recent papers, triggered
by the recent COVID Pandemic, make contact with epidemiological SIER or SIR models
of contagion, merging them into an economic setting(1). (Eichenbaum et al., 2020) consider
the single-sector dynamic model analysis and studies the impacts of the pandemic, taking
into account optimal rational responses by private agents. Later, they then consider the
optimal Pigouvian policy to internalize the externalities. (Alvarez et al., 2020) analyze the
optimal dynamic shutdown policy within a SIR (susceptible-infected-recovered) model.
However, none of these papers focus on demand shortages or feature multiple sectors.
(Jorda et al., 2020) show the impact on rates of return based on some time-series evidence
from historical pandemics. The pandemics are persistent, with large numbers of casualties.
44 Provash Kumer Sarker

They also find evidence that pandemics lower the inflation-adjusted rate of interest.
However, it is not clear if this is comparable to the events as the authors focus on the short-
term effects of lockdowns that respond to the pandemic. That entails behavioral measures
and policy reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Baldwin and Tomiura, 2020) explain
that the containment policies have directly and massively reduced the flow of labor to
businesses. The result has been an abrupt and sharp reduction in the output of goods and
services. (Gormsen et al., 2020) study the stock price and future dividend reactions to the
epidemic, and use these to back outgrowth expectations for a potential recession caused by
the virus. (Nikiforos, 2020) mention that the direct impact has both demand and supply
implications. As a large share of production has stopped or will stop, the output will
decrease from the supply side.
On the other hand, the uncertainty posed by the pandemic, the regulatory restrictions
imposed by the authorities, and the drop in the level of economic activity globally will have
an adverse impact on most components of aggregate demand. To get an idea of the
magnitude of pandemic effects, some preliminary Chinese data reflect that in the retail sales
decreased by 20.5 percent compared with last year. In comparison, investment and
industrial production fell by and 24.5 percent and 13.5 percent, respectively, in the first two
months of 2020 (Nikiforos, 2020). The economic effects became extreme as quarantine
measures are taken, and the severity affected various sectors of the economy with travel
bans, sporting event cancellations, the prohibition of mass gatherings (Elliot, 2020;
Horowit, 2020). International financial institutions, monetary authorities, and central banks
are seeking to mitigate the immediate impact on the real economy through extraordinary
fiscal, monetary, and macro-financial measures. Governments in many jurisdictions have
introduced extraordinary support measures to alleviate the financial and economic impact
of COVID-19.
Our contribution to this strand of literature is (1) to analyze the economic effects of the
specific non-pharmaceutical interventions relevant for virus containment and (2) to
contribute a quantitative analysis to the evaluation of COVID-19 infection externalities to
inform the policy debate better. In this paper, we intend to show how the coronavirus
outbreak led to spillovers into vital sectors of the world economy, and fast policy response
by several governments. The study continues along these lines and aims to contribute to
the economic policy debate. Our analysis defends an understanding of what is currently
going on in the economy by focusing on fiscal and monetary policy measures to counteract
the economic consequences. As the effectiveness of economic policies relies crucially on
speculative expectations, our analysis is a necessary first step in the assessment of policy
measures.
The rest parts of the paper are structured in the following way. Section 2 discusses the
methodological construct of the paper to analyze the policy measures. Section 3 illustrates
the transmission channels of the economic effects caused by the pandemic and subsequent
regulatory measures. Section 4 demonstrates and analyzes the various fast-track policy
responses initiated in the emerging market economies. Section 5 summarizes the findings
and concludes.
Covid crisis: Fiscal, monetary and macro-financial policy responses 45

2. Research questions
This paper aims to
1) to address the economic impacts in different sectors of the crisis-hit economy;
2) to evaluate the fiscal, monetary, and macro-financial policy measures to counteract
economic losses.
The article tries to communicate the comprehensive policy actions taken to survive the
losses by the pandemic.
2.1. Methods and data
To predict or quantify the economic damages inflicted by COVID-19 is quite early now
and requires an extensive range of assumptions, many of which may not materialize.
Therefore, this paper takes an analytic approach to study the policy responses addressing
the possible losses in the crisis-hit G-7 countries and 24 emerging market economies
(EMEs). Economies are trying many policy measures targeted to survive the effects and
restore the normalcy. The study explores the fiscal, monetary, regulatory as well as macro-
financial policy measures initiated in 31 countries. Fiscal stimulus packages targeted to
GDP-intensive sectors, changes in the policy rates to provide cash facility, credit, and
liquidity to support SMEs' measures are the three key parameters, both in the short and
long term, to reflect the quantitative changes expected to appear in the near term future.
Secondary data were taken from IMF policy tracker, World Economic Forum (WEF), ILO,
and central banks' press release.

3. Lockdown implications
The far-reaching outbreak of the novel COVID-19 has severely disrupted economic activity
through various supply and demand channels. The pandemic can also have a pervasive
economic impact by raising uncertainty. The hit to economic activity will be profound.
However, its magnitude and duration are highly uncertain and depend on the success of
public health measures to minimize the spread of the pandemic. However, adverse demand
shocks and the economic impact of supply chain disruptions will affect investment
prospects in other countries. Remittance flows are expected to fall across all regions in
2020 due to the coronavirus, most notably in Europe & Central Asia (27.5%), Sub-Saharan
Africa (23.1%), and South Asia (22.1%), meaning a loss of a vital financing line for many
vulnerable households. Moreover, remittances to low and middle-income countries
(LMICs) are forecasted to fall by 19.7 percent to USD 445 billion (World Bank, 2020). In
total, about USD 23 trillion in global market value has been destroyed since the inception
of the outbreak.
The outbreak of the novel coronavirus has severely disrupted economic activity through
various supply and demand channels. The pandemic can also have a pervasive economic
impact by raising uncertainty. The hit to economic activity will be profound. However, the
ultimate duration and magnitude are uncertain and depend on the ability of public health
capacity to control the spread of the virus, although adverse demand shocks and the impact
of global supply chain disruptions will impact investment prospects in many other
46 Provash Kumer Sarker

countries. The pandemic is severely impacting manufacturing production in developing

countries because 1) demand for manufacturing goods and raw materials from high-income
countries is decreasing; 2) delays in the delivery of necessary components and supplies
from more technologically advanced countries are disrupting the value chains; 3) other
factors, restriction of movement of goods and people), inability to reach workstation or the
financial limitations, which affect the normal production process. In gauging the impact on
manufacturing, economists predicted a USD 50 billion decrease in manufacturing output,
and the IMF warns that the adverse economic effects will be “very intensive” mainly in
emerging countries that export raw materials. All these negative channels will inevitably
have an impact on exports from developing countries. The losses in export volume will be
further intensified by the decline in energy and commodity prices. UNCTAD projects that
developing countries as a whole (excluding China) will lose nearly USD 800 billion in
terms of export revenue in 2020. The pandemic is also dismantling the global workforce.
The ILO estimates that almost 38 percent of the global workforce, meaning approximately
1.25 billion workers, are employed in sectors that are now encountering a severe decline in
output and a high risk of workforce displacement. Such sectors include retail trade,
accommodation and food services, and manufacturing.
3.1. Macroeconomic effects
The macroeconomic variables subject to the direct hit of the pandemic crisis are production
and supply, international trade, global value chains (GVCs), Investments and FDI flows,
capital flight, public debt, solvency, remittance, employment, energy and finally SDGs. For
example, a negative supply shock can lead to a demand shortage that causes a decline in
output and employment, which may be larger than the supply shock itself. (Guerrieri et al.,
2020). The GDP of the crisis-hit economies are predicted to grow significantly slower than
usual. In total, about USD 23 trillion in global market value has been destroyed since the
outbreak(2). The ILO's latest summary states that the current containment measures are
affecting around 2.7 billion workers, nearly 80 percent of the global workforce. The crisis
is expected to hit workers in low- and middle-income countries particularly hard, where
the share of those working in informal sectors, and who therefore have limited access to
adequate health and social protection, is higher. To make matters worse, the expected
massive job losses among migrant workers will likely have a knock-on effect on economies
that heavily depend on remittances. Additionally, the containment measures in advanced
economies have already started impacting less developed countries through lower trade and
investment (UNIDO, 2020). Nonetheless, (UNCTAD, 2020) illustrates the net debt and
equity outflows from the major emerging economies, which amounted to USD 59 billion
in the month since the COVID-19 crisis went global (February 21 to March 24). The spread
of the pandemic and the regulatory actions necessary to control it means that we now have
to incorporate full-scale lockdowns across. The lockdown policies are having instantaneous
and subsequent effects on daily economic activity. However, the magnitude of the impact
on GDP will depend on how long the lockdowns last. Employing illustration, a two- to a
three-month crisis with a five-week 'peak stringency' national lockdown period, which
reduces GDP by 20% a day, would translate to a 7% to 8% decline in quarterly GDP (not
annualized).
Covid crisis: Fiscal, monetary and macro-financial policy responses 47

4. Policy response
To mitigate the adverse effects of public health controls on the economy and to sustain
public welfare, governments adopted economic packages, including fiscal, monetary, and
financial policy measures (Gourinchas, 2020). These economic measures targeting
households, firms, health systems, and banks vary across countries in breadth and scope
(Weder di Mauro, 2020). Monetary policies adopted by countries usually consist of
liquidity support to banks (International Monetary Fund, 2020). Typical fiscal policies
include transfers to households and businesses, the extension of social safety benefits, and
funds for the healthcare system.
The speed with which the pandemic is evolving has necessitated strict policy measures to
contain the virus and survive the damage. To look profoundly into the liquidity in an
economy, we see the pandemic shock is mounting enormous pressure on corporates cash
reserve. Last year's corporate financial statements show that 50% of the firms do not have
the required amount of cash to cover total debt servicing costs over the next years (Banerjee
et al., 2020). Business closure during the pandemic may turn the complexity into severe
insolvency. To counteract the estimated losses, policymakers introduced the following
category of policy measures around the world to cope with the coronavirus. These policies
can be divided into four categories: (1) fiscal measures, (2) monetary measures, (3) public
health measures, and (4) human control measures. This study deals with the first two
measures in the next section.
4.1. Fiscal policy measures
Table 1. Fiscal policy measures to support economic growth
Countries Direct Spending % of GDP Fiscal Support via % of GDP Remarks
Loans and Loan Guarantees
G7 countries
US USD2.8tn 11.0 USD700bn 3.3
France EUR 45bn 1.9 EUR 315bn 14.0
Germany EUR 70bn 2.0 EUR 757bn 23.0
Italy EUR 25bn 1.4 EUR 340bn 19.0
Japan Yen 88.90tn 16.0 Yen 28.3tn 5.10
UK GBP48.7bn 2.21 GBP330bn 15.0
Canada CAD 85bn 3.7 CAD 193bn 8.40
Emerging Market Economies
Argentina - - - 1.2
Bangladesh USD 588mn - Tk. 522 bn -
Brazil US$ 30.6bn - US$ 119.4bn -
Bulgaria - 1.2 BGN 3.5bn -
Chile USD 2bn 0.8 USD 9.75bn 3.83
China RMB 1.25tn 1.2 RMB 1.35tn 1.3
Colombia - - - 1.5 US$ 3.6bn
Hungary HUF 245bn 0.6 HUF 450bn 0.11
India INR 150bn 0.1 INR 1200bn 0.8
Indonesia IDR 255tn 1.6 IDR 405tn 2.6
48 Provash Kumer Sarker

Countries Direct Spending % of GDP Fiscal Support via % of GDP Remarks

Loans and Loan Guarantees
Malaysia RM 25bn 1.7 RM 6bn 0.4
Mexico Peso 180bn 0.7 Peso 50bn 0.19
Morocco - - - - 2.7% of GDP
Pakistan PKR 225bn - PKR 725bn -
Peru Soles 3.4 bn 0.4 Soles 1.1bn 0.14
Philippines PHP 200bn 1.1 PHP 27.1 billion 0.15
Poland PLN 93 billion 4.2 PLN 75 billion 3.3
Romania RON9bn 0.9 RON12.5bn 1.2
Russia RUB300bn 0.3 RUB 1800bn 1.8 .
South Africa R230bn ? R270bn
Thailand THB 1tn 5.93 THB 500bn 2.97
Turkey USD 11.6bn 1.5 USD 3.8bn 0.5
Ukraine - - - -
Vietnam VND 180 trillion 2.4 VND 106 trillion 1.1
Source: IMF Policy Tracker, KPMG reports, and Central Banks' press release.

4.2. Monetary policy responses by G-7 and emerging market economies

Monetary and Macro-Financial Policy Measures taken by the Group of Seven (G-7)
countries and Emerging Market Economies are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Monetary policy and macro-financial measures As of April 24, 2020
Countries Monetary Policy Rate Asset
Purchase Credit and liquidity Macro-Financial Measures
Cut in Current Measures
Basis rate
points (%)
G-7 Countries
US 150bp 0.25 Lowered community 1. Lowered cost of discount window lending;
bank leverage ratio to 2. Primary Dealer Credit Facility;
8%. 3. Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity
Facility;
4. Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity
Facility.
France 25bp 0 EUR 870 -
bn
Germany 25bp 0 EUR Additional purchase of -
150bn EUR 750bn from PEPP.
Italy 25bp 0 EUR Additional purchase of -
120bn EUR 750bn from PEPP.
Japan - - - Lowered 25 bp on USD -
liquidity SWAP.
UK 65bp 0.25 GBP GBP 1bn for driving -
200bn innovation and
development.
Canada 150bp 0 Credit facility CAD 65bn 1. Launching the Bankers' Acceptance
to under stress firms; Purchase Facility;
2. Extending bond buyback program across
all maturities;
3. Increasing settlement balances to $1,000
million from $250 million.
Covid crisis: Fiscal, monetary and macro-financial policy responses 49

Emerging Market Economies

Countries Rate Current Credit and liquidity Measures Macro-Financial Measures
cut rate %
Argentina - - 17% reduction of the bank debt 1. 95% reduction of employer contributions to the
tax. social security system;
2. 59% reduction of the bank credit tax;
3. Central Bank provides incentives, so banks grant
credits at preferential rates to SMEs.
1.CRR reduced from 5 to 4.5% 1.Tk 50 billion Pre-shipment Refinancing scheme to
(daily-basis); support exporters;
2. Increased ADR and IDR by 2% 2.Tk 50 billion Special Refinancing Scheme for the
to make credit available. agriculture sector;
Bangladesh 175bp 5.25 3. Tk 30 billion Refinancing Scheme to support
micro-finance;
4. Tk 150 billion refinance scheme to facilitate the
implementation of the government stimulus
package.
Brazil 50bp 3.75 Reduced RR from 25 to 17%. 1. A swap facility of US$60 billion through the
central bank;
2. 60-day extension of maturing debt liabilities for
Individuals and SMEs.
- - - 1. BGN 7bn liquidity support through banking
systems (6% of 2019 GDP);
2. Allocation of BGN 800mn to provide
Bulgaria guarantee/credit to SMEs;
3. Allocation of BGN 418mn for long-term
investment and working capital financing;
4. BGN 200mn to provide interest-free loans to
employees on unpaid leave.
- 1. Special treatment of provisions for deferred loans;
Chile 75bp 0.50 2. Use of mortgage guarantees to safeguard SME
loans.
- 1. Banks' credit extension to MSEs 1. RRR cuts by 50-100 bps for large- and medium-
(RMB 350 billion); sized banks;
China 30, 10, 2. Bond issuance by financial 2. Reduction of 100 bps for eligible joint-stock
30*bp institutions to finance SME lending; banks;
3. Provisioning higher NPLs for 3. Reduction of 100 bps for small- and medium-
loans by crisis-hit sectors and sized bank;
SMEs. 4. Interest rate cut on excess reserves from 72 to 35
bp.
Colombia 50bp 1. Lowered the RR applicable to 1. Expansion of their liquidity operations (REPOS)
savings and checking accounts allotment to 23.5 trillion;
from 11 to 8 percent; 2. COP 10tn program to purchase securities issued
2. Lowered the rate of fixed-term by credit institutions;
savings accounts (less than 18 3. COP 2tn in TES purchases in the secondary
months) from 4.5 to 3.5 percent. market.
Hungary 90bp 1.85 - 1. QE by buying government securities on the
secondary market, and the mortgage bond
purchase program;
2. Short-term loan extension to businesses until
June 30;
3. Repayment moratorium on all existing corporate
and retail loans;
4. Reduced Foreign Exchange Coverage Ratio from
15 to 10 percent.
India Repo 4.4 Exempted CRR for all retail loans 1. a three-month moratorium on loan repayments for
75bp to ease funding costs. companies;
2. Special refinance facilities for rural banks,
housing finance companies, and SMEs;
3. Ways and Means Advance limits have been
increased by 60%.
50 Provash Kumer Sarker

Emerging Market Economies

Countries Rate Current Credit and liquidity Measures Macro-Financial Measures
cut rate %
Indonesia 50bp 4.5 Lowering reserve requirement 1. Financing the deposit insurance agency(LPS)and
ratios for banks; Purchasing government bonds in the primary
market, and for bank solvency problems;
2. Relaxed loan classification and loan restructuring
procedure.
Malaysia 25bp 2.50 Lowered the Statutory Reserve Combined measures to release approximately RM
Requirement ratio by 100 basis 30bn worth of liquidity into the banking system;
points.
Mexico 100bp 6.0 1. Provided USD liquidity to banks 1. Pesos 25 billion lendings to SMEs;
by drawing on the $60 billion swap 2. Liquidity support by development banks
line with the Fed; 3. Workers' access to loans against social security
2. Reduced the mandatory accounts;
regulatory deposit with Banxico (by 4. Swap agreement with the Fed auctioned already
50 billion pesos). US$ 5 billion to commercial banks.
Morocco 25bp 2.0 - 1. Suspension of Loan payments for SME
businesses people until June 30;
2. Government's guarantee of 95% of banks' new
short-term loans;
3. Provided FX swaps to domestic banks;
4. Increased the central bank's refinancing
operations to support banking credit to (V)SMEs.
Pakistan 425bp 9.0 1. Reduced the capital 1. Relaxed the debt burden ratio for consumer loans
conservation buffer by 100 basis from 50% to 60%;
points to 1.5%; 2. Allowed banks to defer clients' payment of
2. Increased the regulatory limit on principal on loans by one year;
an extension of credit to SMEs by 3. Relaxed regulatory criteria for
44 percent to PKRs 180 million. restructured/rescheduled loans for borrowers who
require relief.
Peru 200bp 0.25 1.Reduced reserve requirements 1. Package of 30 billion soles in liquidity assistance
2. Provided liquidity through repo to support lending and the payments chain.
operations.
Philippines 125bp 2.75 Lowered the reserve requirement 1. Temporarily relaxed the provisioning
ratio by200 bps for banks. requirements for easier access to the BSP's
rediscounting facility;
2. The temporary relaxation of requirements on
compliance reporting, penalties on required
reserves, and single borrower limits.
Poland 100bp Reduced the required reserve ratio 1. Purchased Polish Treasury securities in the
by 300 bps to 0.5%. secondary market;
2. Repealed 3% systemic risk buffer for bank capital
requirements;
3. Introduced a funding program for bank lending to
non-financial private enterprises.
Romania 50bp 2.0 Provided liquidity to credit 1. Purchasing government securities on the
institutions via repo transactions. secondary markets;
2. Facilitated operational measures to smooth the
functioning of payment settlement.
Russia 50bp 5.5 1. Sold FX reserves from the 1. A new facility of RUB 500bn for SME lending;
National Welfare Fund; 2. Reduced Deposit Insurance Fund contribution
2. Introduced temporary regulatory from 0.15 percent to 0.1%.
easing for banks to help corporate
borrowers.
South Africa 200bp 4.25 1. Increasing the number of repo 1. Purchase government securities in the secondary
auctions to provide intraday; market;
2. Cash support to clearing banks 2. Issued guidelines to provide debt relief to bank
at the policy rate. customers.
Thailand 50bp 0.75 1. Reduced the contribution from 1. Provide bridge financing up to THB 400 billion to
financial institutions to the FIDF high-quality firms;
Covid crisis: Fiscal, monetary and macro-financial policy responses 51

Emerging Market Economies

Countries Rate Current Credit and liquidity Measures Macro-Financial Measures
cut rate %
from 0.46 to 0.23% of the deposit 2. Purchased government bonds over THB 100
base. billion to ensure the functioning of the govt. bond
market;
3. Soft loans by the Bank of Thailand to financial
institutions amounting to THB 500 billion.
Turkey 200bp 8.75 1. Longer-term instruments at 1. Introduced lending facility for SMEs in the export
discounted rates; sector;
2. reduced the reserve 2. Purchases of sovereign bonds
requirements on foreign currency 3. Reduced the minimum payment for individual
deposits by 500 bps. credit cards was reduced to 20%.
Ukraine 200bp 8.0 1. Decrease the minimum LCR 1. Announce unscheduled liquidity assistance
reduce reserve requirement ratios. tenders;
2. Eliminated the tariffs for banks using electronic
payments system;
3. Interest rate swaps banks can rely on to minimize
interest rate risk.
Vietnam 100bp 1. Lowered the short term lending 1. Announced a credit line worth of VND 285 trillion;
rates cap for priority sectors by 50 2. Injected liquidity through refinancing windows.
bps;
2.Short-term deposit rates cap by
25-30 bps.
Source: IMF Policy Tracker; Central banks' press release.

All of the 31 developed and emerging market economies except Argentina and Bulgaria
primarily resorted to lowering the policy rates, where the highest cut was 425 basis points
by State Bank of Pakistan. The lowest cut is at least 50 basis points. The cut in the
repurchase agreement rate (Repo rate) can help banking with increased liquidity through
the financial system. Many central banks also lowered the reverse repo rates by at least 20
basis points to ease the liquidity pressure during the pandemic. Lowering the reserve
requirements (CRR and SLR) is also another policy decision that is helping the economies
to cope up with the transaction demand of cash. Some governments initiated foreign
exchange operation (FXO) to supply more local currencies to the market. Besides, interest
rate SWAP, purchase of sovereign bonds, long term lending facilities for SME and export
sectors, relaxation of regulatory criteria for restructured/rescheduled loans, special
refinance facilities, bridge financing, and other quantitative easing policies are also put into
practice to counteract the economic shock. However, there are also some other fiscal and
accommodating policies to materialize targeting the inflicted damages to the world
economy.

Conclusion
In this paper, the article demonstrated the fiscal, monetary, and macro-financial policy
responses addressing the economic damages inflicted by the lockdown in the emerging
market economies. The study analyzed the direct impacts of the regulatory measures
taken by the governments to contain the virus spread. In addition to the human toll, the
(COVID-19) pandemic is causing far-reaching economic disruption, including in
developing countries. Central banks and govt are deploying fast-track financing to help
keep companies in business and preserve jobs. The findings suggest that the concerned
52 Provash Kumer Sarker

monetary authorities and governments shall address the GDP-intensive sectors to ensure
liquidity and credit support. Governments, to foster the economy in the long run, shall
consider the fiscal stimulus to support SMEs, retail and service sectors, transports and
aviation, and tourism. Social safety net facilities shall also be introduced to keep the
marginal people fed and the consumer trend afloat. The export-oriented industries shall be
facilitated with lower interest loan programs and credit support.
In addition to the human toll, the coronavirus pandemic is causing far-reaching economic
disruption, including in developing countries. Central banks and govt need to deploy
dynamic fast-track financing to help keep companies in business and preserve jobs.

Notes
(1)
Of course, a more substantial prior literature in history, health, and development economics
studied pandemics, and just to name a few recent examples, Philipson (1999), Greenwood et al.
(2019), and Fogli and Veldkamp (2020).
(2)
See The Economist, “Covid carnage”, March 21, 2020.

References

Allen, F. and Carletti, E., 2010. An overview of the crisis: Causes, consequences, and solutions.
International Review of Finance, pp. 1-26.
Alvarez, F., David, A. and Francesco, L., 2020. A Simple Planning Problem for COVID-19
Lockdown. Mimeo.
Atkeson, A., 2020. What Will Be the Economic Impact of COVID-19 in the US? Rough estimates
of Disease Scenarios. NBER working paper series, No. w26867.
Baldwin, R. and Tomiura, E., 2020. Thinking Ahead about the Trade Impact of COVID-19. CEPR
Press.
Baldwin, R. and Weder di Mauro, B., 2020. Economics in the Time of COVID-19. A VoxEU.org
Book. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research. Retrieved from
<https://voxeu.org/system/files/epublication/COVID-19.pdf>
Baldwin, R. and Weder di Mauro, B., 2020. Introduction. In Baldwin, R. and Weder di Mauro, B.
(Eds.). Economics in the Time of COVID-19, London, UK: CEPR Press.
Banerjee, R., Illes, A., Kharroubi, E. and Serena, J.-M., 2020. COVID-19 and corporate sector
liquidity. BIS Bulletin 10.
Barro, R.J., Ursua, J.F. and Weng, J., 2020. The Coronavirus and the Great Influenza.
Beck, T., 2020. Finance in the times of coronavirus. A VoxEU.org Book, Centre for Economic Policy
Research, London. London: <https://voxeu.org/system/files/epublication/COVID-19>
Eichenbaum, S, M., Rebel, S. and Trabandt, M., 2020. The Macroeconomics of Pandemics. National
Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 26882, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Eichenbaum, S, M., Rebelo, S. and Trabandt, a. M., 2020. The Macroeconomics of Epidemics:
Technical Report. NBER.
Covid crisis: Fiscal, monetary and macro-financial policy responses 53

Elliot, L., 2020. Prepare for the coronavirus global recession. The Guardian. Retrieved from
Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/15/prepare-for-the-
coronavirus-global-recession>
Faria e Castro, M., 2020. Fiscal Policy during a Pandemic. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Fornaro, L. and Martin, W., 2020. Covid-19 Coronavirus and Macroeconomic Policy, Technical
Report. CEPR.
Gormsen, J.N. and Koijen, R.S., 2020. Coronavirus: Impact on Stock Prices and Growth
Expectations. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working
Paper.
Gourinchas, P.-O., 2020. Flattening the Pandemic and Recession Curves. Mitigating the Covid
Economic Crisis: Act Fast and Do Whatever. 31. London, UK: CEPR Press.
Guerrieri, V., Lorenzoni, G., Straub, L. and Werning, a. I., 2020. Macroeconomic
implications of COVID-19: can negative supply shocks cause demand shortages?
National bureau of economic research, NBER Working Paper No. 26918. Retrieved from
<http://www.nber.org/papers/w26918>
Horowit, J., 2020. The global coronavirus recession is beginning. CNN. Media report. Retrieved
from Available at <https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/16/economy/global-recession-
coronavirus/ index.html>
International Monetary Fund, 2020. May 31. <www.imf.org>. Retrieved from 2002: International
Monetary Fund, 2002. Retrieved from <https://www.imf.org/en/Topic>
Jagannathan, R., Kapoor, M. and Schaumburg, E., 2013. Causes of the great recession of 2007–
2009: The financial crisis was the symptom, not the disease. Journal of Financial
Intermediation, pp. 4-29.
Jones, C.T., 2020. Optimal Mitigation Policies in a Pandemic. NBER Working paper series.
Jorda, Oscar, Singh, S.S. and Taylor, A.M., 2020. Longer-run economic consequences of
pandemics. Mimeo.
Keys, B.J., Seru, A. and Vig, V., 2012. Lender Screening and the Role of Securitization: Evidence
from Prime and Subprime Mortgage Markets. Review of Financial Studies, 25(7),
pp. 2071-2108.
Keys, B.J., Mukherjee, T., Seru, A. and Vig, V., 2008. Did Securitization Lead to Lax Screening?
Evidence from Subprime Loans. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125 (1), pp. 307-362.
Mann, C., 2020. Real and financial lenses to assess the economic consequences of COVID-19.
London: A VoxEU.org Book, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London. Retrieved from
<https://voxeu.org/system/files/epublication/COVID-19.pdf>
Meltzer, M.I. and NJ. Cox, e.a., 1999. The economic impact of pandemic influenza in the United
States: priorities for intervention. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5(5), pp. 659-71.
Mian, A. and Sufi, A., 2009. The Consequences of Mortgage Credit Expansion: Evidence from the
US Mortgage Default Crisis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124 (4), pp. 9-49.
Mian, A. and Sufi, A., 2010. The great recession: Lessons from microeconomic data. American
Economic Review, pp. 51-56.
Mian, A. and Sufi, A., 2011. House Prices, Home Equity-Based Borrowing and the US Household
Leverage Crisis. American Economic Review, 101 (5), pp. 2132-56.
Mian, S., Rao, K. and Sufi, a. A., 2013. Household Balance Sheets, Consumption and the Economic
Slump. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128 (4), pp. 1687-1726.
54 Provash Kumer Sarker

Nikiforos, M., 2020. When Two Minskyan Processes Meet a Large Shock: The Economic
Implications of the Pandemic. The Levy Economics Institute.
Ozili, P.K., 2019. 100 Quotes from the Global Financial Crisis: Lessons for the future. Retrieved
from Available at SSRN 3500921.
Schoenbaum, S.C., 1987. Economic impact of influenza. The individual's perspective. American
Journal of Medicine, 82(6A), pp. 26-30.
Stiglitz, J.E., 2010. Interpreting the Causes of the Great Recession of 2008. Financial system and
macroeconomic resilience: revisited. Bank for International Settlements.
UNCTAD, 2020. May 03. The Covid-19 Shock to Developing Countries: Towards a "whatever it
takes" programme for the two-thirds of the world's population being left behind. NY:
UNCTAD. Retrieved May 03, 2020, from <https://www.unido.org>; <https://unctad.org/en/
PublicationsLibrary/gds_tdr2019_covid2_en.pdf?user=1653>
UNIDO, 2020. May 02. Coronavirus: the economic impact. Retrieved from
<https://www.unido.org/> <https://www.unido.org/stories/coronavirus-economic-impact>
Weder di Mauro, B., 2020. Macroeconomics of the flu. In Baldwin, R. and Weder di Mauro, B.
(Eds.). Economics in the Time of COVID-19, CEFR Press.
World Bank, 2020. May 02. World Bank Predicts Sharpest Decline of Remittances in Recent
History. Retrieved from <www.worldbankb.org> <https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/
press-release/2020/04/22/world-bank-predicts-sharpest-decline-of-remittances-in-recent-
history?cid=ECR_TT_worldbank_EN_EXT>
Wren Lewis, S., 2020. The economic effects of a pandemic. In Baldwin, R. and Weder di Mauro,
B. (Eds.). Economics in the Time of COVID-19. London: A VoxEU.org Book, Centre for
Economic Policy Research. Retrieved from <https://voxeu.org/system/files/epublication/
COVID-19.pdf>
Copyright of Theoretical & Applied Economics is the property of General Association of
Economists in Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.