Geographies in Depth

Lives or livelihoods: Latin America and the Caribbean’s pandemic dilemma

People stand on their balconies as Latin America introduces lockdown measures.

It's hard for governments to manage the spread of COVID-19 whilst also protecting the livelihoods of citizens. Image: Unsplash/ Manuel Peris Tirado

Carlos Felipe Jaramillo
Vice President for the Latin America and the Caribbean Region, World Bank
Sergio Olivieri
Senior Economist, World Bank
Carolina Mejia-Mantilla
Senior Economist, Poverty and Equity Practice
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Geographies in Depth?
The Big Picture
Explore and monitor how COVID-19 is affecting economies, industries and global issues
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:


  • Many governments have had to make tough decisions to stem the spread of COVID-19.
  • Policies to implement lockdowns were highly effective at saving lives but cost households in terms of financial impact on livelihoods.
  • Three World Bank experts assess the relationship between stringent lockdown measures and loss of income in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Faced with this dilemma, policymakers need to aim for an elusive target that hits just the right middle ground. This involves carefully balancing measures like lockdowns or curfews with support for those suffering the most from stalled economic activity. That support comes in the form of social assistance programs like direct transfers to the most vulnerable and in need.

Finding the right balance will be essential to promoting an inclusive recovery and preventing negative future knock-on effects for the most vulnerable households. That means designing measures to contain the pandemic during times when infection rates are raging so that economic losses are minimized. Importantly, the measures should be complemented with help for firms, especially small and medium-sized ones, when possible. In addition, some businesses could continue operating under clear safety sanitary protocols.

Have you read?

Unenviable trade-off

Our recent note, Lives or Livelihoods? The Cost of Staying Healthy, outlines this trade-off clearly. Data from the initial waves of the pandemic indicate that tough containment strategies definitely help to flatten the curve. As the figure below shows, the tougher the measures, the flatter the infection rate. Lockdowns, travel restrictions, and social distancing clearly saved thousands of lives.

COVID-19 & Stringency in Latin America and the Caribbean: April – September 2020

COVID-19 & Stringency in Latin America and the Caribbean: April – September 2020
Containment strategies have helped to flatten the curve. Image: WHO, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard

The study also illustrates the immense cost that such measures have on people’s livelihoods. Data from the LAC High-Frequency Phone Survey shows that around 17% of the region’s workers lost their employment after initial containment measures were introduced back in March 2020. Not surprisingly, more stringent restrictions are associated with higher job losses, as shown in this figure.

Job Loss vs. Stringency in Latin America and the Caribbean (May 2020)

Job Loss vs. Stringency in Latin America and the Caribbean (May 2020)
More stringent restrictions are associated with higher job losses Image: Job loss data from High-Frequency Phone Surveys (HFPS)

Responses & Repercussions

Restrictions cost jobs in every country in the region, but the impact varied widely. Countries with lower informality levels and better connectivity to internet services adjusted well to teleworking. For example, job losses in Chile—of only 5%—were six times lower than the 30% seen in Colombia and Peru, despite similar lockdown policies.

Employment losses had an immediate and devastating impact on family incomes across the entire region. About two months into the pandemic, when stringency levels were at their highest, 60% to 70% of households registered a decline in total family income. Peru was one of the most affected countries, with eight out of ten households reporting lower total income compared to the beginning of the pandemic.

Most worryingly, employment losses and reduced family incomes translated into increased food insecurity. Honduras had the highest incidence in May 2020, with 53% of households reporting that they ran out of food due to lack of money or resources. This has serious consequences for long-term nutrition and human capital accumulation that may affect future productivity in the region.

Rightly, governments in the region boosted their non-health spending in 2020 to offset this chain of welfare losses, with some level of success. The additional expenditure helped to increase food security among households, but in most cases could not fully compensate the considerable income losses. Still, the results show that these targeted government interventions can indeed soften the impact on the most affected segments of the population.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:
Geographies in DepthHealth and Healthcare Systems
World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

Subscribe today

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails. For more details, review our privacy policy.

What is desertification and why is it important to understand?

Andrea Willige

April 23, 2024

About Us



Partners & Members

  • Join Us

Language Editions

Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

© 2024 World Economic Forum