WBWP Tracing

Public Disclosure Authorized
Policy Research Working Paper 10585

Tracing Pandemic Impacts in the Absence

of Regular Survey Data
What Have We Learned from the World Bank’s
High-Frequency Phone Surveys?
Ben Brunckhorst
Yeon Soo Kim
Alexandru Cojocaru
Poverty and Equity Global Practice

October 2023
Policy Research Working Paper 10585
Abstract
The World Bank’s High-Frequency Phone Surveys were survey and random digit dialing—each have pros and cons
deployed to support the monitoring of household welfare in terms of representativeness, non-response, and post-sur-
during the COVID-19 pandemic, when most of the regular vey adjustments. Second, on questionnaire design, country
household survey data collection was suspended. This paper customization needs to be carefully balanced against stan-
reviews the analytical insights gained from the High-Fre- dardization when cross-country comparisons are likely to
quency Phone Survey data, including uneven dynamics of be important. Finally, baseline metrics are critical for crisis
household welfare during the pandemic across and within monitoring; this requires more frequent welfare monitoring
countries, as well as novel applications to simulate esti- and better alignment of questions in phone surveys and
mates of poverty and intergenerational mobility following existing data sources. While phone surveys can be a reliable
the pandemic. The paper further derives lessons from the toolkit for researchers and governments, more research is
data collection experience. First, phone surveys, while needed on key questions related to the survey mode effect,
inexpensive and quick, require reliable sampling frames. and the implications of different sampling frames and ques-
The predominant sampling strategies—previous household tionnaire design.
This paper is a product of the Poverty and Equity Global Practice. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to
provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy
Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted
at ykim8@worldbank.org.
The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development
issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the
names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those
of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and
its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
Produced by the Research Support Team

Tracing Pandemic Impacts in the Absence of Regular
Survey Data: What Have We Learned from the World
Bank’s High-Frequency Phone Surveys?*
Ben Brunckhorst† ⓡ Yeon Soo Kim† ⓡ Alexandru Cojocaru†
Keywords: COVID-19, welfare, inequality, labor market, phone surveys, survey methods
JEL Codes: C83, E24, J15, J16, J21
Notes:
∗Corresponding author: Yeon Soo Kim, ykim8@worldbank.org. ⓡ indicates author names have been randomized using the
AEA author randomization tool (confirmation code: SvHgPfnDKGUU). The authors thank Aly Sanoh, Benu Bidani, Luis-
Felipe Lopez-Calva and David Newhouse for their valuable comments. This work was supported by funding from the
Umbrella Facility for Poverty and Equity. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not
necessarily represent the views of the World Bank Group and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors
of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
†Poverty and Equity Global Practice, The World Bank
The COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact worldwide. According to data from the
World Health Organization (WHO), almost 7 million people are confirmed to have lost their
lives from the disease and estimates of excess mortality are considerably higher, at least 20
million (WHO, 2023; Msemburi et al., 2023). In 2020, economic activity contracted in nine
out of ten economies – worse than during the Great Depression of the 1930s, World War II
or the global financial crisis of 2007-08. The pandemic was the largest setback to the fight
against global poverty in decades – more than 70 million people were pushed into extreme
poverty by the end of 2020 (World Bank, 2022a). Around the world, national governments
committed unprecedented resources to mitigating the health and economic impacts of the
pandemic – amounting to over US$17 trillion, or some 20 percent of global GDP in 2020 (IMF
2021).
On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. In the
months that followed, pandemic-related impacts to health and livelihoods rapidly mounted.
So too did the need to identify those most vulnerable to the spread of the virus and the effect
of local containment measures which reverberated quickly around the world. Yet, the same
contagion risk and policy response severely constrained the ability of governments to collect
the information needed to monitor welfare impacts. This information is especially crucial in
developing countries because poorer households have less capacity to absorb disruptions to
education or livelihood activities before they result in longer term scarring to human,
physical and social capital, which may trap them in poverty.
While demand for up-to-date information on the distributional impacts of the pandemic
surged, supply was constricted by interruptions to regular survey data collection. According
to the COVID-19 Survey of National Statistical Offices (NSOs) conducted by the United
Nations and the World Bank, as of October 2020 almost three out of every four NSOs had
fully or partially halted their face-to-face data collection operations, and more than half of
population and housing, agriculture, and enterprise or business census programs scheduled
for 2020 had to be postponed, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (Gonzales
Morales and Perucci, 2021).
The World Bank responded to the shortfall of household-level data at a time policy
makers urgently needed to make informed decisions by supporting high-frequency phone
surveys (HFPS) in over 90 countries, representing more than 4.5 billion people. The World
2
Bank Poverty and Equity Global Practice and the Development Data Group developed survey
tools and technical guidelines to rapidly design and implement phone survey systems to
better monitor the effects of COVID-19. These efforts were often undertaken in collaboration
with National Statistics Offices or other UN agencies. The surveys were tailored to the
evolving needs and priorities of countries to be most useful in respondents’ context, but also
designed so that many indicators could be harmonized to enable valid comparisons across
countries. The HFPS were one of very few sources of timely and broadly representative data
at the household level during the pandemic, particularly in low- and middle-income
countries. 1
The objective of this paper is two-fold. The paper first describes how the surveys were
designed and implemented. Among the surveys’ key strengths are low barriers to
implementation and high frequency of data collection which have contributed to remarkable
coverage across countries and time. Important limitations associated with the data are
discussed, including challenges to representativeness, concerns about measurement, and the
ways in which these have been addressed. Understanding these caveats is important for a
robust interpretation of the data and has implications for future collection and analysis of
phone surveys.
The paper then reviews the main findings from studies using the HFPS data to assess the
trends in a broad range of welfare indicators across countries and population groups. The
data has been used for a wide range of applications, from informing poverty and inequality
now-casts, to tracing out labor market transitions among different workers, tracking food
security among displaced persons and simulating the effect of learning losses on inter-
generational educational mobility. The synthesis paints a pandemic of uneven welfare
impacts, where few countries were able to protect the most vulnerable households, which
1 The HFPS data is available as harmonized country-level indicators for 89 countries from the COVID-19
High Frequency Monitoring Dashboard

https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2020/11/11/covid-19-high-frequency-monitoring-
dashboard. Household-level survey data before harmonization is available for 55 countries from
https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/hfps, and
https://microdata.pacificdata.org/index.php/home (for four Pacific countries).
3
threatens to worsen inequalities and further set back poverty reduction in the long run.
Overall, the HFPS data has proven exceptionally valuable by revealing the incidence of some
welfare impacts as they occurred and remains a salient reference as the world recovers and
faces crises anew.
This paper adds to previous reviews of phone surveys conducted in low- and middle-
income countries (Brück and Regassa, 2023; Dabalen et al., 2016; Dillon, 2012; Etang and
Himelein, 2020; Glazerman et al., 2020; Gourlay et al., 2021; Henderson and Rosenbaum,
2020; Zezza et al., 2023). It also expands existing reviews of welfare impacts associated with
COVID-19 in developing countries, drawing on the most recent evidence from a greater
number of countries over a longer period (Egger et al., 2021; Miguel and Mobarak, 2022).
While some of these consider a small subset of HFPS rounds, our focus is on the entire World
Bank HFPS data collection initiative, which covers many more countries and survey rounds
than previous articles. Moreover, our objective is to document how this unprecedented data
collection effort has been used to monitor household welfare during the pandemic era in the
absence of regular survey data, and what it has told us about the distributional impacts of
the pandemic while considering caveats related to the data.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section provides a brief overview of the
design and implementation of the HFPS before discussing strengths and limitations of the
data. It details efforts to address concerns around representativeness and measurement,
including validation of weighting methods and comparisons with other data such as Labor
Force Surveys (LFS). This is followed by a synthesis of the main findings from research using
the HFPS, focusing on the distribution of welfare impacts of the pandemic. The final section
concludes with lessons learned from the HFPS experience, and the initiative’s enduring
influence as phone surveys are adapted to monitor new challenges in the post-pandemic
period.
Monitoring household welfare with the HFPS
The first high-frequency phone surveys to monitor the welfare impacts of COVID-19 were
conducted in April 2020, shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with data
collection continuing into 2022 in some countries. Low barriers to implementation and low
costs of phone surveys relative to in-person surveys contributed to the impressive country
4
coverage of the HFPS. Before the end of 2020, 71 survey rounds were conducted in 21 low-
income countries (LICs) and 51 survey waves in 19 Fragile and Conflict-affected Situations
(FCS). To put the coverage in perspective, in-person representative household surveys were
conducted in only 13 of these 21 LICs, and nine of these 19 FCS over the five preceding years
from 2015 to 2019. By the end of the HFPS data collection initiative, almost 500 survey
rounds of phone survey data had been collected in 93 countries located in all six World Bank
regions. The breakdown of countries with HFPS data by income level and region is shown in
Table 1. More than half are low- and lower-middle-income countries, and a quarter are FCS.
In 14 countries, the HFPS were also conducted using a dedicated sample of forcibly displaced
populations covering refugees, Internally Displaced Populations (IDPs), and Venezuelans
Displaced Abroad (VDAs) (Kim et al., 2023).
Table 1: HFPS country coverage
Share of
HFPS
Countries population
rounds
(%)
High income 8 7 30
Upper-middle income 28 36 115
Lower-middle income 35 89 173
Low income 22 93 155
East Asia and Pacific 14 29 59

Europe and Central Asia 9 15 88
Latin America and Caribbean 24 93 90
Middle East and North Africa 9 52 35
South Asia 8 100 18
Sub-Saharan Africa 29 82 183
Fragile and Conflict-Affected 26 75 154
Total 93 57 473
One of the most attractive features of using phone surveys to monitor household welfare is
their lower costs relative to regular in-person data collection (Henderson and Rosenbaum,
2020). Zezza et al. (2023) compare cost data from HFPS in six countries in Africa with the
cost of in-person surveys used as a sampling frame in these countries. The cost of HFPS
interviews ranged between $8 and $12, or about 30 times lower than the cost of the average
in-person interview in the same countries ($314), while costs per question were between
two and six times lower. Based on data available for 38 countries in our HFPS database, an
5
interview cost between $2 and $31 per round, reflecting significant differences in country
context and questionnaires. Given the low marginal costs, the HFPS likely became more cost-
effective as more rounds were collected. 2 These figures are only illustrative of the potential
cost advantages of phone surveys, since in-person surveys can be far more extensive and are
better suited for some purposes, such as accurately measuring consumption (Abate et al.,
2023). 3 To properly assess cost-effectiveness, one must assess the value of the information
collected, considering its timeliness, intended use, and the context.
At the onset of the pandemic, there was uncertainty about the implications of relying on
phone surveys to monitor welfare in low- and middle-income contexts and the quality of data
collected (Gourlay et al., 2021). Concerns were raised about both the representativeness of
the phone survey data and measurement issues. In the remainder of this section, we assess
these issues specific to the HFPS and describe attempts to address them.
We follow the framework by Groves et al. (2011) to differentiate between two
dimensions of data quality in the HFPS – representativeness and measurement. In terms of
representativeness, we discuss (i) HFPS sampling strategies, survey coverage, respondent
selection, and response rates, and (ii) post-survey adjustments to the data that seek to
address some of these issues. In terms of measurement, we discuss (i) instrument design and
respondent effects, including recall bias in the HFPS, (ii) harmonization and data processing,
and (iii) results from comparisons with external sources of data and analysis methods that
have allowed researchers to draw robust conclusions in light of measurement limitations.
Who does the HFPS data represent?
Concerns about representativeness in the HFPS have focused on issues related to the phone
survey mode. 4 For example, who completes a phone interview depends on phone ownership
2 One recent study found phone surveys to be more cost-effective than identical online surveys using
WhatsApp, due to much lower response rates for the latter text-based surveys (Amaral et al., 2022).
3 See section 2.2, which discusses instrument design and how modal effects limit what can be accurately
measured in phone surveys.

4 The HFPS specifically used Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) to collect data.
6
or access, the availability of a representative list of phone numbers, as well as difficulties
making contact, securing consent, and breakoffs when interviewing over a phone call.
Sampling
The population that the HFPS data can reasonably represent is influenced by the type of
sampling frame used, and how a sample is drawn from this frame. The HFPS used different
sampling frames in different countries depending on feasibility. In 34 countries a recent
nationally representative household survey was used as the sampling frame. All households
that provided phone numbers were recontacted or a random subsample was selected.
Surveys in 50 countries attempted to contact a random sample of numbers selected by
Random Digit Dialing (RDD) either from the complete universe of mobile and landline
subscriptions in the country or, in some cases, an existing representative subset of phone
numbers that was available. The remaining nine countries used a combination of these
approaches or drew on existing lists of phone numbers from ongoing impact evaluations and
food security monitoring efforts.
In countries where displaced populations were independently sampled, the sampling
strategies were primarily based on RDD, preexisting surveys, and registration and
population administrative databases (e.g., UNHCR’s Profile Global Registration System, or
ProGres, database) (Kim et al., 2023). Sometimes multiple sampling frames were used. In
Kenya, for example, the phone numbers for the national population were collected from a
previous household budget survey and a list of random mobile phone numbers. The
sampling frame for refugees came from two sources, a recent household survey and UNHCR’s
ProGres database.
Phone access and HFPS coverage

Regardless of the sampling frame chosen, the HFPS could only reach those with access to a
phone. Mobile phone subscriptions per person have increased by around 50 percent in low-
and middle-income countries in the ten years to 2020 and doubled in Sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA) to more than 80 per 100 people (ITU, 2022). Yet significant segments of the population
remain uncovered, especially in some less developed countries. In most HFPS countries, the
share of households with a mobile phone is above 85 percent according to the latest
7
household surveys, but coverage in some countries can be far lower, for instance less than
one in five adults own a mobile phone in South Sudan (Demirgüç-Kunt et al., 2022).
In terms of HFPS data representing the national population, the concern is that those
with access to phones are systematically different from those without access, resulting in
coverage bias. Indeed, mobile phone adoption in low- and middle-income countries has been
found to be correlated with wealth, gender, remoteness, and education (Henderson and
Rosenbaum, 2020; Himelein et al., 2020). The gap in phone ownership between rural and
urban households is particularly pronounced, with household mobile phone ownership
being more than 10 percentage points higher in urban than in rural areas (World Bank,
2023). 5 Ambel et al. (2021) and Gourlay et al. (2021) compare characteristics of households
providing phone numbers in the representative survey used as a HFPS sampling frame with
the full sample for five countries in SSA. 6 They find that households with access to a phone
are, on average, significantly wealthier, more educated, and more likely to earn income from
wage employment or a non-farm enterprise (compared to being rural and working in
agriculture). However, they find no significant differences by the gender of household heads
or household size.
Respondent selection
Most HFPS questions collected information on welfare at the household level. Individual-
level outcomes such as those related to employment were typically only collected for the
respondent, although in some countries, they were collected for all household members.
These individual-level outcomes could be biased if respondents are not representative of the
population even if households are. Respondent selection within households varied across
5 Based on data from the World Bank’s Global Monitoring Database (GMD), a repository of multitopic
income and expenditure household surveys. The household survey data are typically collected by national
statistical offices in each country, and then compiled, processed, and harmonized by the Data for Goals (D4G)
team in the Poverty Global Practice.
6 Households could provide the phone number of a reference person to facilitate contact. The shares of
HFPS respondents who were ultimately reached through reference person contact information in these five
countries ranged from 7 percent in Burkina Faso to 20 percent in Malawi, and were higher for rural households
(Zezza et al., 2023).
8
HFPS countries and sampling frames. Most RDD surveys interviewed the randomly selected
adult answering the phone, whereas respondents in households sampled from a previous in-
person survey were typically the household head who had provided contact details. Hence,
RDD surveys are expected to select a more representative sample of individuals in the
population with a phone. Indeed, respondents were more balanced by gender in LAC and
ECA where RDD surveys were used.
In contrast, the sample of respondents in five African countries that used a previous
survey as sampling frame had higher rates of household heads, more educated respondents
and those owning a non-farm enterprise than among adults in general, such that the sample
was not representative of the population at large without adjustments (Brubaker et al., 2021;
Kugler et al., 2023). Kugler et al. (2023) show this non-random selection of individuals
causes employment levels to be overestimated in these countries, even when using sampling
weights. Respondents who were household heads, male and older were also typically, but
not always, overrepresented in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and East Asia
and Pacific HFPS which may be due to higher phone ownership among these groups or a
higher possibility of getting selected as respondent (Kim et al., 2021; World Bank, 2021a;
World Bank, 2022b).
One way to improve representation of women is to have the phone passed to them, as
shown in a recent RCT in Kenya, for example (Glazerman et al., 2023). For HFPS in eight
South Asian countries, half of respondents who picked up the phone were randomly asked
to pass it to an adult female household member during the call introduction (World Bank,
2022b). The share of female respondents completing HFPS interviews in these countries
ultimately ranged between 28 percent (India) and 49 percent (Sri Lanka). In some countries,
post-survey adjustments, described in Section 2.1.5, are used to help attenuate sample bias
separately for either individual- or household-level analysis.
Non-response
Representativeness is a particular concern in phone surveys because refusal rates tend to be
higher over the phone than in-person, phone numbers can be disconnected, and unreliable
network coverage or access to electricity can hinder connections (Himelein et al., 2020).
Since poorer and rural areas have less reliable infrastructure providing network coverage
9
and electricity, non-response for these reasons would likely skew the sample toward urban
and richer areas.
In the HFPS database, the choice of sampling frame clearly mattered for non-response
and attrition. On average, the first round of HFPS using a survey-based sampling frame had
response rates of 73 percent compared to 36 percent in RDD surveys. The difference in
response rates narrowed but continued to be substantial when considering only recontacted
households in subsequent rounds. The average recontact rate was 89 percent for households
sampled from a previous in-person household survey in the second round, compared to 62
percent for recontacted households from an RDD sample. After three rounds the average
attrition rate remained much higher for RDD samples (Table A2). One reason that recontact
rates continue to be higher for a survey-based sampling frame may be because the previous
process of completing a lengthy in-person survey has pre-selected more cooperative
households relative to recontacts initially selected by RDD who completed only a brief phone
survey. There was substantial variation in response rates within regions and sampling
frames (Figure A1).
There is some evidence that non-responding households in LSMS-supported HFPS
appear to be different from responding households, but similar to households without phone
ownerships. Ambel et al. (2021) find that households that could not be contacted are poorer,
less educated, more rural and depend more on agriculture than interviewed households.
Meanwhile, differences by gender of household heads were not significant, and observed
sample bias due to the non-interview of successfully contacted households (i.e., refusal or
breakoff) was minimal. Overall, non-responding households appeared to have
characteristics similar to households without access to a phone such that non-response bias
adds to coverage bias.
We find evidence in the HFPS that attrition was nonrandom. Differential attrition within
population subgroups could threaten representativeness and the effectiveness of sample
weighting methods. We analyzed how the representativeness of HFPS changed over time by
looking at who dropped out of the phone survey sample in up to 60 countries that collected
panel data. Urban households and those with respondents who were female, less educated,
and not the household head were more likely to drop out of surveys over time. Apart from
location, most of these characteristics are consistent with the observed differences in
10
coverage and non-response and can be partially addressed using post-survey adjustments
(Ambel et al., 2021; Brubaker et al., 2021).
Importantly, attrition also appears to be correlated with vulnerability to the pandemic
shock. This is significant because it could give a false impression of recovery if households
suffering greater and longer lasting impacts dropped out of the sample before follow-up
survey rounds and were not replaced. There is indeed evidence to suggest this might be the
case: households reporting high food insecurity were significantly more likely to exit the
sample based on data from panel surveys in 42 countries and controlling for other household
characteristics. We find low-educated workers who stopped working were more likely to
drop out of HFPS than low-educated workers who did not lose jobs. Hence, recovery
observed in the HFPS data could in fact be overstated because the HFPS sample appears to
become less representative of vulnerable households over time.
Ultimately, sample bias, whether from systematic differences in non-response or
coverage, will lead to misleading estimates of welfare impacts only if the unobserved
outcomes of interest for excluded households within the target population differ from those
interviewed. Post-survey adjustments have been used in all HFPS analysis to help address
total sample bias based on observed characteristics in each survey round, but these do not
guarantee estimates are representative of the population.
Post-survey adjustments to address representativeness issues

The choice of sampling frame affects the extent to which post-survey adjustments can
improve the representativeness of estimates based on survey data ex-post. HFPS using
phone numbers provided in previous in-person surveys have an advantage because detailed
household and individual information is available for both reached and unreached
households. This information can be used to improve representativeness by weighting
observations in a way that negates directly observed selection biases (Ambel et al., 2021;
11
Brubaker et al., 2021). 7 Ambel et al. (2021) show that applying weights based on information
from representative surveys substantially reduces selection bias that could compromise the
representativeness of HFPS estimates at the household level, but does not fully eliminate it.
In comparison, the lack of a priori information on potential respondents for each phone
number when using RDD or list-based sampling frames prevents direct analysis of non-
responders and limits post-survey weighting techniques to counteract selection bias
(Himelein et al., 2020). RDD post-survey adjustments instead rely on comparing variables
characterizing the sample that could be collected over the phone with corresponding
representative statistics estimated from a different underlying sample, such as a previous
survey or census.
Household sampling weights were calculated for all HFPS rounds to help improve the
representativeness of households, though reweighting methods and components varied
across countries. The most common method was propensity score adjustments that predict
the probability each household was interviewed given its characteristics (such as location,
education, wealth). 8 Weights are adjusted by the inverse probability of selection so that less
represented types of households are more highly weighted in estimates. Location variables
were used in sampling weight calculations for over 90 percent of countries. Gender and age
group variables were also frequently included, whereas education and wealth components
were used in about half of HFPS countries (Table A2). To the extent that observable factors
account for systematic non-response and coverage in phone surveys, sampling weights can
help recover appropriate and representative statistics (Abay et al., 2023).
Meanwhile, addressing the non-representative selection of individuals poses a greater
challenge to generating statistics that are representative of individual-level outcomes such
as engagement in the labor market. Brubaker et al. (2021) find selection biases to be more
7 While using a recent in-person household survey is generally preferable, there are tradeoffs. For
example, the clustered design of in-person survey samples is imported into the phone survey sample and can
increase the variance of estimates relative to a simple random sample of the same size drawn using RDD.
8 Himelein (2014) provides details of the propensity score adjustment method. Other techniques include
weighting class adjustments, rim or rake reweighting and calibration of non-response. Himelein et al. (2020)
and Ambel et al. (2021) discuss HFPS sample reweighting methods in more detail.
12
pronounced at the individual level than at the household level in the same countries, such
that reweighting is relatively less successful in overcoming these biases. Obtaining more
representative individual-level data may require a probability-based or randomized
respondent selection protocol, such as employed in RDD surveys.
Kugler et al. (2023) find non-RDD surveys overstate employment rates for the full
population in five countries where employment information was collected for all household
members even once sampling weights are used. Nonetheless, they show that HFPS track
disparities across gender, education, and urban/rural groups reasonably well without being
affected by selection biases, including over time. For age group comparisons the bias was
greater, suggesting more caution should be used interpreting estimates of welfare impacts
based on HFPS disaggregated by age. As a consequence, the HFPS data seems best suited for
the timely monitoring of group differences in welfare during the pandemic across gender,
education and urban/rural dimensions.
How the HFPS data is analyzed and interpreted is crucial for the extent to which sample
bias might sway conclusions about the welfare implications of COVID-19. When the focus of
the analysis is on describing the differences in welfare impacts across population groups,
what matters is the degree to which welfare outcomes are correlated with phone access or
non-response within the subpopulation of interest. For instance, coverage bias might be less
pervasive when considering the difference in welfare outcomes across rural and urban
households because what is important is whether households that were interviewed over
the phone experienced different impacts compared to households who were not interviewed
in the same group. Ambel et al. (2021) show that when the HFPS sample for Ethiopia is
disaggregated into rural and urban domains, coverage bias observed by comparing
household characteristics with the pre-pandemic survey largely disappears, even before
post-survey adjustments. They show the extent to which non-response that introduces
sample bias is also reduced when looking within the rural and urban samples.
Similarly, analysis comparing differential impacts over time may be less vulnerable to
sample bias because any time-invariant sources of selection bias (e.g. phone access) within
population groups are likely to be canceled out by taking the difference. This approach to
interpreting the HFPS data also allows for more robust conclusions about welfare dynamics
13
in the presence of time-invariant measurement errors such as potentially confounding recall
bias, as discussed in more detail below.
Furthermore, we find that estimates of country and population group welfare using
HFPS data are, in general, largely insensitive to post-survey adjustments. When results are
aggregated across countries, as in most studies reviewed, the estimated extent of
employment loss within gender, education and location subgroups is similar whether using
household-level sampling weights, individual-level weights or no post-survey adjustments
(Tables A3, A4 and A5). Likewise, differences are small when estimating gaps between
population groups and trends over time. At the country level, almost all estimates of the
share of households experiencing employment loss using sampling weights are within two
percentage points of estimates without using any weights (Figures A2 and A3). 9 The
comparisons imply that any unresolved sample bias would likely have little influence on
results, since when validation was possible post-survey adjustments largely resolved
observed sample bias across the main population groups of interest (Ambel et al., 2021;
Kugler et al., 2023).
It is important not to assume the HFPS reached a representative sample of the
population because coverage and non-response bias are likely to exclude certain groups,
particularly those more rural and poorer. Nonetheless, post-survey adjustments are shown
to be effective at reducing these biases, particularly for household-level analysis. Moreover,
we find that representativeness issues in the HFPS are unlikely to lead to incorrect
conclusions about the distributional impacts of the pandemic in existing analysis and when
care is taken to interpret results with an appropriate level of precision.
What does the HFPS data measure?
The data collected in HFPS covers a wide range of topics, allowing policy makers and
researchers to quickly assess how welfare evolved during the pandemic. One of the key
9Post-survey adjustments tend to have more influence on estimates from RDD surveys compared to HFPS
using a survey frame. This may reflect the fact that sampling weights are required to overcome greater threats
to representativeness stemming from higher non-response and attrition rates for RDD surveys.
14
features of the phone surveys was their modular nature, and the possibility for
customization to capture the heterogeneity of pandemic circumstances and experiences
across different countries. For example, HFPS in five SSA countries included a round
targeting youth, which collected individual-level information on youth employment,
aspirations, skills, and mental health.
Since questionnaires differed across countries and across survey waves, responses were
harmonized into an internationally comparable dataset with more than half a million
observations. 10 Overall, the HFPS initiative allowed the World Bank to collect data on more
than 150 harmonized indicators covering 15 topics, including assets and services, health,
education, labor, food security, access to safety nets, subjective well-being, coping strategies,
income, housing, as well as coronavirus-related knowledge, preventative behaviors, and
vaccine hesitancy.
Phone survey mode and instrument design effects

While all surveys are subject to measurement error, some types of measurement error
can be more pronounced in phone surveys which could affect the quality of HFPS data. For
example, survey fatigue can occur early in phone surveys measuring consumption, but not
in face-to-face surveys, which can result in overestimating poverty rates (Abate et al., 2023).
Delaying questions about dietary diversity is found to cause substantial measurement error
in phone surveys on account of respondent fatigue, highlighting tradeoffs between the
volume of data collected and data quality (Abay et al., 2022). There is further evidence that
survey fatigue increases the probability of skipping a question even in phone surveys
familiar to respondents (Jeong et al., 2023).
When phone surveys are kept short, such measurement errors are less of a concern. For
example, using phone rather than in-person surveys to collect limited high-frequency data
from firms has been shown not to affect data quality (Garlick et al., 2020). General guidelines
recommend phone interviews should not exceed 20 minutes (Glazerman et al., 2020). Based
10Previous papers using the HFPS describe the harmonization process and dataset in more detail
(Bundervoet et al. 2022; Khamis et al. 2021; Kugler et al. 2023).
15
on pilot questionnaires in India, Mathur (2020) suggests an ideal survey length of around
10–15 minutes to consistently complete interviews. The target length of the COVID-19 HFPS
was 20 minutes, but actual interview durations ranged from 8 minutes to 35 minutes in
round one, based on data available. Subsequent survey rounds were generally shorter in
length because not all baseline questions were repeated, and recontacted respondents were
likely familiar with the format.
The HFPS tended to measure welfare rather coarsely as a tradeoff of reducing the
number and complexity of questions to limit bias from respondent fatigue and other sources.
For example, questions about income typically only captured whether income from a
particular source had decreased, stayed the same or increased since the reference period.
The tradeoff depended on how much detailed information was collected at a country level,
in addition to the core questionnaire and can be accentuated in the harmonized database
which relied on a minimum set of questions which were most commonly found across
surveys.
Changes in labor market outcomes were very useful in understanding the welfare impact
in the context of the pandemic, however, due to limitations in survey length, only a small
number of questions were included. Questions about employment typically only captured
whether a respondent was working and their job type or sector. The small number of
questions were often not sufficient to define employment consistent with standard ILO
definitions, which made interpretation and comparisons difficult—both cross-country
comparisons and within-country comparisons to pre-crisis estimates from standard labor
force surveys.
Concerns about recall bias

While HFPS data in principle allow estimates of the share of employed adults both pre-
pandemic and in each subsequent HFPS round, comparisons are made difficult by the fact
that current and pre-pandemic employment are queried differently, and thus may not be
strictly comparable. In particular, the HFPS estimates of pre-pandemic employment may
overestimate actual employment on account of recall bias. Recall length is also known to
affect data quality by imposing a cognitive burden (Beegle et al., 2012; Wollburg et al., 2020).
The absolute levels of job losses estimated using HFPS data should therefore be interpreted
16
with caution, as the magnitude of any recall bias associated with the framing of the pre-
pandemic employment question in the HFPS is unknown. 11 Efforts to understand and
address concerns about recall bias, and comparisons with LFS data are outlined below.
Harmonization and data processing

Harmonization of the HFPS data is a crucial step to enable valid cross-country analysis and
comparisons of household welfare during the pandemic. This process sometimes entailed
some loss in measurement precision because the detailed welfare indicators collected in
country surveys were mapped to more general variable definitions. Most harmonized
indicators are either binary, or take a limited number of values to ensure comparability and
minimize measurement error. This influences the type of conclusions that can be made about
pandemic era welfare impacts based on cross country HFPS data. As described in Section 3,
the HFPS data is more amenable to capturing extensive margin impacts such as job losses
rather than effects at the intensive margin such as how much income was lost or how many
fewer wage hours were worked.
Despite these limitations, some studies have leveraged the wide scope of indicators to
paint a more detailed picture of the extent of welfare impacts. For example, Brunckhorst et
al. (2023) show that food insecurity in HFPS data is positively correlated with outcomes that
can be plausibly attributed to the pandemic, such as job changes, income losses, and the use
of adverse coping strategies since the pandemic started. Aggregating these basic indicators
across households was particularly useful to describe how widespread impacts were within
different groups of the population over time, as summarized in Section 3, though it remains
the case that the HFPS data says less about how intense those impacts were.
11 One estimate of recall bias is possible by comparing the HFPS estimate based on recall with
prepandemic LFS data. This is likely to be an upper bound estimate because sample bias and differences in
survey timing and questions are expected to add to any recall bias when making this comparison. The
prepandemic employment recall bias is estimated to be up to 6 percentage points using this upper bound LFS
comparison (Brunckhorst et al., 2023). This remains smaller than HFPS estimates of employment loss
persisting in 2021 for 16 out of 21 countries with both data sources, suggesting conclusions that employment
had not recovered are quite robust.
17
External validation of HFPS estimates
The latest global analysis of employment losses using HFPS data focuses on net employment
changes (losses and gains), computed in terms of differences between the employment
status (working or not working) reported by the respondents in each survey round and their
pre-pandemic recall (Brunckhorst et al., 2023). While pre-pandemic employment levels may
be subject to a recall bias, internally valid comparisons can still be made by comparing
estimates of the net change in employment across survey rounds, assuming recall bias in the
baseline measure is constant over time. 12 Since pre-pandemic employment was queried in
multiple survey rounds, it is straightforward to validate the constant recall bias assumption
(Brunckhorst et al., 2023).
A cross-check on employment estimates from HFPS data can be provided by
comparisons with labor force survey (LFS) data, primarily in UMICs that continued to collect
LFS after initial interruptions due to the pandemic. It should be noted that employment
estimates from the two sources are not meant to be comparable in a strict sense, since any
variation may be the result of several factors, including how much the HFPS departed from
standard LFS questions that resulted in differences in the number, sequence and wording of
questions, differences in the timing of surveys, and important distinctions between the
populations represented, as well as the recall bias highlighted. The analysis suggests that
despite some differences in levels, the HFPS and LFS capture similar employment dynamics
in most countries with overlapping data. The share of respondents currently working in the
HFPS is strongly correlated with the employment population rate reported in the ILO
database. 13 Furthermore, discrepancies in terms of how closely employment trends mirror
each other at the country level appear less consequential in country group or population
group aggregates. Employment gaps by location, gender, and employment type show similar
12 Time invariant recall bias, and other sources of measurement error, are subtracted out when comparing
the difference in employment changes across time periods.
13 The R2 value is 0.869 controlling for country fixed effects.
18
trends during the pandemic across the two sources of data, even though they are not strictly
comparable and each subject to measurement error (Figure A4).
HFPS welfare estimates are also shown to be correlated with real-time indicators that
were used to assess the COVID-19-related shock on the economy. For example, trends in
employment and income loss and recovery in HFPS data reflect changes in the strictness of
containment policies measured by the Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker
(OxCGRT) stringency index, and visits to workplaces measured by Google Community
Mobility data (Bundervoet et al., 2022; Brunckhorst et al., 2023).
Household welfare outcomes estimated from the HFPS data are also strongly associated
with time matched pandemic effects on firms estimated from Business Pulse Surveys (BPS)
conducted by the World Bank in 51 countries. For example, income loss among households
based on the HFPS was more widespread where firms reported larger reductions in sales,
and food insecurity was more common where more firms fired workers (World Bank,
2022a) (Figure A5).
The HFPS data continue to be one of the few available sources of information about
household welfare throughout the pandemic for many developing countries. In fact, this
limits the scope for rigorous validation of the welfare impacts measured using HFPS.
Nonetheless, the comparisons that are feasible suggest that estimates using the HFPS data
do a reasonable job at tracing out welfare dynamics across different population groups
during the pandemic. Overall, efforts to address representativeness and measurement
concerns have shed light on how the HFPS data should be used and reinforced the value of
phone survey data collection. Careful analysis in light of data limitations offers insights that
are meaningful, robust and useful for policy.
Welfare impacts across countries and population groups: What we have learned from
the HFPS data
This section reviews the main findings from studies relying on the HFPS data. While the HPFS
data only allow for partial examination of certain welfare impacts during the COVID-19
pandemic, they still provide a wealth of information on important impact channels related
to initial work stoppages, subsequent recovery of employment, as well as income dynamics
and broader non-monetary welfare outcomes such as children’s education during the period
19
of school closures. They also provide some insights into households’ coping strategies, their
experience with assistance programs deployed by governments, and the extent to which
such measures have been able to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic.
We focus primarily on cross-country studies that use harmonized data to track welfare
across different population groups during the pandemic period. We include global, regional
and other multi-country studies published by the World Bank or other external outlets. We
also highlight the different ways the HFPS data has been triangulated with other data sources
to inform poverty now-casts and estimates of global inequality impacts or simulate the effect
of learning loss due to school closures on inter-generational education mobility, among
others.
Conceptually, we draw on the framework proposed in Hill and Narayan (2020) that
distinguishes between the crisis phase and the recovery phase of the pandemic to highlight
important heterogeneity in both the crisis impacts, and in the recovery patterns, across
population groups, where larger initial shocks for some groups may or may not be
compounded by slower recovery, which may have longer-term implications for inequality.
We similarly highlight the multiplicity of pandemic impacts, including extensive- and
intensive-margin labor market impacts, as well as broader welfare impacts related to
incomes, food security and access to education, as well as the mitigating measures that were
deployed by governments in response to the crisis.
The evolution of welfare and employment during the pandemic
The pandemic-induced restrictions to mobility and economic activities caused

unprecedented disruptions to people’s lives around the world. Early studies that examined
the impact of the pandemic on welfare losses focused on measuring short-term employment
and income losses following restrictions to mobility and economic activity. Between April
and June 2020, over a third of respondents who had a job before the pandemic had stopped
working, with two-thirds of households experiencing income losses (Bundervoet et al.,
2022). The timing of large and sudden job losses corresponded with the peak stringency of
containment measures (Narayan et al., 2022, Brunckhorst et al., 2023), which is consistent
with job loss patterns found in the Gallup World Poll data (Rothwell et al., 2023). A large
20
share of workers also reportedly did not receive payment for work performed (Khamis et al.,
2021a). Following the initial shock at the beginning of the pandemic, employment rates
partially recovered later in 2020, with greater gains for those groups that had borne the
brunt of the early jobs losses (Kugler et al., 2023). However, the recovery was interrupted in
the last quarter (Khamis et al., 2021b). Brunckhorst et al. (2023) show that while the net
changes in employment from April-June 2020 were almost entirely driven by sudden job
losses, during the second half of 2020 and especially in 2021, the employment gains were
driven not only by lower rates of job losses, but also by a higher share of previously
unemployed adults starting work. Among different employment types, self-employed
workers experienced higher job losses, likely because they are informal and lack formal job
protection (World Bank, 2021a).
The overall labor market impact can be greatly underestimated if only outright job
losses are considered (additionally, HFPS often only asked about the labor market status of
the respondent, an issue that is discussed in section 2.1). This may be particularly true in
LMICs where self-employment is more prevalent and agriculture is an important sector for
livelihoods, serving as a safety net during recessions (World Bank, 2022b). Job changes and
intensive margins of labor market adjustment such as reduced hours need to be considered
for a full picture of the labor market dynamics.
Indeed, available data show that the intensity of work fell sharply early in the pandemic,
through reduced hours, leave without pay, and lower salaries, suggesting that adjustments
in the intensive margin were quite prevalent and often more common than extensive margin
adjustments (World Bank, 2021a). This mirrors the findings from firm-level surveys which
showed that the employment adjustment occurred predominantly along the intensive
margin through the use of leave of absence and reduction in hours, with only a small share
of firms laying off workers (Apedo-Amah et al., 2020).
Job changes occurred extensively; however, these new jobs are likely to be of lower
quality than those held prior to the pandemic. Even in the early phases of the pandemic, an
additional 9 percent of workers reported working in jobs different from prior to the
pandemic. Transitions from wage employment to self-employment, from nonagricultural to
agricultural jobs, and from employment in larger to smaller firms were found to be more
common, in addition to increases in informal jobs (World Bank, 2022d; Brunckhorst et al.,
21
2023; Amankwah and Gourlay, 2021; World Bank, 2022b). In SSA, re-employment often
involved a change in industry (Contreras-Gonzalez et al., 2022). Job changes were also found
to be more frequent among vulnerable groups. The new jobs are likely inferior when
measured in terms of remuneration or non-monetary characteristics (e.g., employment
protection and other benefits).
The labor market impact of the pandemic was widely found to be regressive. Larger
losses were observed among poor and vulnerable groups such as women, the less educated,
and urban informal workers. Work stoppages were twice as high among respondents in the
poorest quintile of the income distribution compared to those in the top quintile (Hoogeveen
and Lopez-Azevedo, 2022; Kim et al., 2021). 14 The gap in job losses by education level and
gender was larger in countries with higher income inequality before the pandemic
(Brunckhorst et al., 2023). A larger share of households living in fragile and conflict-affected
areas reported stopping work while also being less likely to report receiving government
assistance (Tabakis et al., 2022). Households with children were initially more likely to suffer
from income loss or food insecurity compared to households with no children (WB/UNICEF,
2022).
Work stoppages were usually more prevalent in the industrial and service sectors than
in agriculture, which is consistent with income losses being more frequently reported by
households with non-farm enterprises compared to family farms (Brunckhorst et al., 2023;
Bundervoet et al., 2022; Khamis et al., 2021a; Kugler et al., 2023; Sitko et al., 2022). The
sectoral patterns of jobs losses may also explain why in low-income countries more-
educated workers appeared to be more affected as they are more likely to be employed in
industry and service sectors in urban areas, whereas those with less education were likely
self-employed in agriculture, which was more protected. More generally, urban workers
14 In some regions, country-level HFPS allowed for more granular distributional analysis when the
households’ location in the country’s welfare distribution was available, either because the sample was based
on preexisting consumption surveys or household welfare could be imputed using proxy means tests, a wealth
index, or via a Survey of Wellbeing via Instant and Frequent Tracking (SWIFT). In those cases the welfare
impacts of the pandemic could be analyzed along the full income distribution, when typically only group-wise
comparisons were possible.
22
were more likely to lose jobs compared to rural workers, but this was mostly driven by
differences in the sectoral composition of employment (Narayan et al., 2022).
Intensive margin labor market adjustments may explain why reported income losses
were much more widespread than employment losses. About two-thirds of households
reported decreased incomes in the second quarter of 2020, at the peak of mobility
restrictions, after which the share declined (Ballon et al., 2021; Narayan et al., 2022,
Brunckhorst et al., 2023). Both farm and nonfarm incomes were lost (Brunckhorst et al.,
2023) while households were much more likely to report reductions in business incomes
than wages in EAP (Kim et al., 2021). Decreases in nonlabor income such as remittances were
also common, contributing to overall income losses (Nolte et al., 2022; Mavrotas and Van den
Bosch, 2022). Similar to job losses, income losses were more likely to be reported by women,
less-educated workers, and those with school-aged children (Narayan et al., 2022).
As the pandemic evolved, the focus in the labor market shifted to the recovery process.
Labor market outcomes gradually recovered, but the process was hampered by intermittent
mobility restrictions as new variants of the virus spread. Just like the initial impact, the
recovery was uneven across countries and slower among more vulnerable population
groups (Brunckhorst et al., 2023; Cunningham et al., 2023; Furbush et al., 2021; Mejia-
Mantilla et al., 2021). While work stoppages were relatively similar across income groups
when severe mobility restrictions were in place, once restrictions were relaxed, poor
workers were either slower to return to work or experienced higher rates of work stoppages,
which is partly attributed to differences in the sector of work across poor and rich workers
(Kim et al., 2021; Hoogeveen and Lopez-Azevedo, 2022).
Evidence from panel surveys globally indicates the relationship between policy
stringency and employment outcomes over time depended on a worker’s location, gender
and education level, even after accounting for all time-invariant factors, such as skills and
experience, at the individual level (Brunckhorst et al., 2023). In LAC, a quarter of pre-
pandemic jobs had not returned by mid-2021 and many vulnerable workers had exited the
labor market altogether. At the same time, high levels of labor market inflows were also
reported in some countries (World Bank, 2022d), while in SSA job losses persisted one year
after the onset of the pandemic (Contreras-Gonzalez et al., 2022; Cunningham et al., 2023).
In the South Asia region (SAR), labor mobility mattered for the recovery, as workers who
23
moved had a higher job recovery rate compared to those who did not, but this was
accompanied by a decline in job quality (World Bank, 2022b).
This trajectory of employment recovery again closely resembled results from firm
surveys, with larger and more productive firms recovering faster than smaller firms. Jobs
were also recovering more slowly than had been lost during the initial shock, possibly due
to persisting uncertainties surrounding the pandemic (Cirera et al., 2021). As a result of the
slow labor market recovery, nearly half of all households had not recovered their incomes to
pre-pandemic levels by 2021 (Brunckhorst et al., 2023).
Gender gaps in work stoppages were particularly pronounced and persisted through the
second year of the pandemic (Brunckhorst et al., 2022; Clavijo et al., 2021; Narayan et al.,
2022; Kugler et al., 2023). The sources of the gender gap were mainly attributed to gender
differences in the occupational distribution (Kugler et al., 2023) and the role of care
responsibilities, which tend to fall largely on women (Melendez et al., 2021). For example,
Berniell et al. (2023) found a strong relationship between job losses and the potential for
working from home among women with children, highlighting the increased care burden
during the pandemic due to extensive school closures. Among new labor market entrants in
LAC, women were more likely to be in informal employment while new jobs in self-
employment largely accounted for the recovery in the latter half of 2021 (Cucagna and
Romero, 2021; Melendez et al., 2021). In SAR where female labor force participation had
been historically low, women were disproportionately slower to return to work (World
Bank, 2022b).
As the pandemic triggered one of the largest recessions in history, many governments
around the world provided assistance to households to cushion the impact of the shock;
however, the support provided was largely inadequate. Often assistance was extended by
either expanding existing programs or creating new emergency programs aimed at
providing relief payments. However, the scale of the response was heterogeneous across
countries as many relied on external financing for spending during the pandemic. Overall,
HFPS suggest that coverage of public assistance was smaller than the extent of losses,
particularly in poorer countries, and was often received sometime after needs were highest
(World Bank, 2022a). In most countries, especially at higher income levels, households were
more likely to receive support if they reported income or job losses. Rural and less educated
24
households were slightly more likely to benefit from assistance measures; however, the
difference tends to be relatively small across population groups (Brunckhorst et al., 2023;
World Bank, 2022a). 15
Insufficient mitigation measures to protect households led to further damaging impacts
for households. On the one hand, some households relied on negative coping strategies to
deal with the shock, which may have significant implications if it involves the loss of physical
and human capital. Among various coping mechanisms, reducing food consumption was
among the most frequently reported (Amankwah and Gourlay, 2021; Josephson, Kilic and
Michler, 2021) in addition to using savings or selling assets or borrowing from friends or
family (Brunckhorst et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2022; Melendez et al., 2021). The latter types of
losses could constrain their ability to recover from the crisis and compound preexisting
inequalities if they have long-term consequences on households’ productive assets. Poorer
households were more often forced to sell their assets compared to richer households (Kim
et al., 2021).
Access to food deteriorated as households’ purchasing power got eroded due to income
losses and rising global food prices, leading to increased concerns about malnutrition and
impact on human capital. Across countries, food insecurity, a key metric in assessing basic
household welfare, was higher in poorer countries, with some reporting that more than 30
percent of households went without food for at least a day in the last month due to lack of
resources (Narayan et al., 2022). The poorest were often found to be the most food insecure
(Kim et al., 2021). Vulnerable households such as those with female or less educated
household heads were again found to be hit harder (Brunckhorst et al., 2023; Dasgupta and
Robinson, 2022), while food insecurity increased faster in rural areas (Rudin-Rush et al.,
2022).
15 There are some limitations to assessing social assistance coverage as reported in the global HFPS data.
The harmonized database does not distinguish between regular and emergency cash transfers; where this
information was available, such as in LAC, results show that in most countries a far greater share of households
received emergency transfers compared to regular transfers, with the majority of recipients overlapping
between the two (Mejia-Mantilla et al., 2021).
25
The prevalence of food insecurity in lower-income countries even before the pandemic
makes it difficult to separate the impact of the pandemic from preexisting trends. In the
absence of a pre-pandemic baseline, some studies attempted to circumvent this by
correlating the level of food insecurity with measures of pandemic impact. These results
showed that households which experienced pandemic-induced jobs and income losses were
more likely to be associated with food insecurity, suggesting that the pandemic affected food
security at least partly through its economic impacts (Bundervoet et al., 2021; Narayan et al.,
2022). Food insecurity spiked initially then gradually declined in SSA, although this was
likely compounded by the hungry season and ongoing conflict (Rudin-Rush et al., 2022).
Similarly, in MENA high levels of food insecurity were not strongly correlated with
pandemic-related stringency measures, but rather appeared to be driven by country-specific
circumstances including ongoing conflicts or high inflation (Hooegeveen and Lopez-
Azevedo, 2022). While the pandemic worsened food insecurity in many countries, the crisis
may have reinforced preexisting trends in countries that were struggling before the
pandemic.
Another significant consequence of the pandemic with potentially long-run impacts is
the impact on human capital through disruptions in access to services such as health care
and education. Schooling disruptions occurred extensively around the world in what was an
unparalleled education crisis in history (World Bank, 2021). About 1.6 billion students in
over 190 countries around the world are estimated to have been affected by school closures
(Munoz-Najar et al., 2022), which ranged from an average of nearly 70 weeks in South Asia
to 30 weeks in Europe and Central Asia. 16 School closures caused major disruptions in
learning, but between the modalities that were offered and the gaps in digital technology,
access to online learning varied significantly across countries. The HFPS data showed that
the share of students who had stopped learning in LICs and LMICs peaked during the first
three months of the pandemic after which it gradually declined but remained elevated
(World Bank, 2022a). The estimate was significantly lower in UMICs where both
16 Estimates based on UNESCO school closures database. Available at

https://covid19.uis.unesco.org/global-monitoring-school-closures-covid19/.
26
governments and households had more resources to support distance learning. However, by
2021, an estimated 20 percent of students in lower-income countries had still not returned
to school (Brunckhorst et al., 2023). In some LAC countries attendance levels were falling
short by nearly 30 percent compared to before the pandemic (Alonso et al., 2022).
Learning disruptions were more common among vulnerable children including those
living in rural areas or from households with a less educated respondent (Bundervoet et al.,
2022; Narayan et al., 2021; Alonso et al., 2022). Most children in LAC were engaged in some
form of learning but engagement levels and the quality of learning varied widely within the
region. Households in the top income quintile were most likely to have their children
engaged in learning activities after the pandemic compared to those in other quintiles (Dang
et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021). There was significant heterogeneity in the type of specific
learning activities undertaken. For example, in SSA teacher assignments and radio/TV
programs were among the most popular types (Dang et al., 2021). The pace of return to
school was mixed: in a few countries, the return to school occurred swiftly once schools
reopened (e.g., Ethiopia, Chad), but disengagement from learning continued for a prolonged
period in most countries.
A substantial proportion of households in LMICs had to delay or forgo health care during
the pandemic. While in richer countries this was largely due to fear of contracting COVID-19
or lockdowns, in poorer countries foregone care was due to financial constraints (Kakietek
et al., 2022). Access to health services were relatively quick to improve, however, compared
to disruptions in other outcomes or services (Hoogeveen and Lopez-Azevedo, 2021; Mejia-
Mantilla et al., 2021).
Access to COVID-19 vaccinations became a contentious issue during the pandemic, with
global debates around issues such as their safety, efficacy, and supply. As the world gradually
opened up, population immunity was considered critical to facilitate the economic recovery
but there were concerns around the novelty of the virus. The HFPS modules were adapted
to these evolved circumstances and early modules asking about knowledge of COVID-19 and
related health behavior were replaced with questions about population attitudes toward
vaccines. This led to results from 53 countries which suggested that about 1 in 5 adults was
hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine (Dayton et al., 2022). Most common concerns around
the vaccine related to the perceived lack of safety and lack of effectiveness, indicating that
27
low vaccine supplies were not the only driver behind low vaccination rates, a finding that
was consistent across several studies (Dayton et al., 2022, Camacho et al., 2022; Margolies et
al., 2021; Wollburg et al., 2023). In LAC, it was shown that the share of population willing to
get vaccinated increased over time (Melendez et al., 2021).
A particularly useful and novel application of the HFPS data was to inform poverty
nowcasts during the pandemic. Because the pandemic affected people very differently within
countries, the usual approach to assume distribution-neutral income growth which
underlies some welfare projection models was prone to underestimating poverty levels and
could not be used to estimate the impact on inequality. Moreover, the precise impact on
overall poverty and inequality levels would depend on how households located at different
parts of the income distribution were affected. Specifically, the HFPS data was combined
with data from recent household surveys and information from national accounts on overall
GDP growth and growth rates by sector in 2020 to produce household income projections
that would allow for the differential impacts to be examined along the full distribution. The
estimation involves calculating the probability of income loss as a function of household
characteristics, which was then mapped to the pre-pandemic household surveys to simulate
a new income distribution. The specific size of income loss is estimated by applying sector
GDP growth rates from national accounts data to the respondent’s income for the relevant
sector of work (see Mahler et al., 2022 and Narayan et al., 2022 for methodological details).
This exercise yielded the projection that the pandemic likely led to an additional 70
million global extreme poor in 2020 than would have been had the pandemic not occurred.
Estimates on global inequality suggested an increase of the global income Gini index by a
little more than 0.5 point, reversing the pre-pandemic trend of declining global income
inequality. This result was largely the consequence of increased between-country (rather
than within-country) inequalities. At the country level, the impact of the pandemic on
inequality appeared to be mixed. In the majority of countries, income losses were more
common among the bottom 40 than the top 60 percent of the income distribution in urban
areas, whereas the result was more mixed in rural areas (World Bank, 2022a; Mahler et al.,
2022). Abay et al. (2022) using a similar approach also find that urban households in SSA
were more affected by income losses.
28
Longer term impacts
While some of the early pandemic job and income losses have been recovering to various
degrees throughout 2021-2022, the broader impacts of the pandemic, particularly those
related to losses of human capital, are believed to be more lasting or will take time to fully
materialize. World Bank (2023) documents significant impacts on vaccinations, pre-school
attendance and cognitive and motor development skills among children below 6 years of age,
foregone and forgotten learning among school-aged children, and exits from or delays in
joining the labor force among young adults. Kakietek et al. (2022) further argue that the
reduction in access to health care services during the pandemic will likely subside in high-
income countries, but persist in low-income countries where they are linked primarily to
financial barriers unrelated to the pandemic.
The heterogeneity of initial pandemic impacts on employment, incomes, education and
health across countries and population groups, as well as the unequal recovery patterns
described above, have also raised concerns about the implications of the pandemic for
inequality. Early estimates of the pandemic impacts on inequality suggested this impact to
be muted – an estimated 0.7 point increase in the global Gini for 2020 (Mahler et al., 2022).
However, evidence from earlier epidemics indicates that it may take 4-5 years for inequality
impacts to reach their peak (Furceri et al., 2022). Furthermore, the significant pandemic
impacts on human capital may also increase inequality in the medium to long term because
of the unequal distribution of learning losses within and across countries (Azevedo et al.,
2022).
While mapping education losses into future incomes and thus income inequality is
fraught with many strong assumptions, including those related to subsequent job market
outcomes of students affected by school closures during 2020-2022, one tractable way of
making inference on future inequality is through the lens of intergenerational mobility. The
Great Gatsby curve (Corak, 2013) shows a strong relationship between intergenerational
mobility and overall inequality in incomes in high-income countries, a relationship that is
also present in a global sample of developing countries (Narayan et al., 2018). Moreover, as
one would expect, there is also a strong relationship between intergenerational mobility in
education and intergenerational mobility in incomes, because education is a key
29
determinant of one’s labor market prospects, and intergenerational mobility in education is
indicative of the extent of inequality in opportunity in society that would also map into
unequal chances in the income space (Narayan et al., 2018).
Taking advantage of these conceptual linkages, some research has simulated the impacts
of school closures on educational attainment and has used such simulations to construct
counterfactual estimates of intergenerational mobility in education with and without COVID-
19 impacts. For instance, Neidhofer et al. (2021) estimate, based on a sample of 17 countries
in Latin America, that relative intergenerational mobility in education could decrease by
between 1 and 5 percent on account of learning losses.
Azevedo et al. (2023) have relied on HFPS data to inform a set of similar simulations
globally. Namely, they combine the national estimates of learning losses from UNESCO, the
World Bank’s Global Database on Intergenerational Mobility (GDIM) and the data from HFPS
on whether children were learning during the period of school closures, and if yes, by which
modality, to estimate distributional gradients within countries of learning losses that
account for a differentially higher likelihood that children from low socioeconomic
backgrounds were not learning at all, or were using less effective remote learning modalities
such as SMS / radio / mobile app learning, rather than maintaining direct communications
with their teachers. They find that unequally distributed learning losses due to school
closures could result, absent mitigation, in between 3 and 7 percent increases in
intergenerational persistence of education, depending on the assumptions about the
effectiveness of various modalities of remote learning. Against historical trends in
intergenerational persistence, the simulations imply that in developing countries COVID-19
could erode 40 percent (up to four-fifths in some scenarios) of the improvement in
intergenerational mobility between the 1970s and 1980s birth cohorts.
Conclusions and lessons learned
On May 5, 2023, WHO declared an end to COVID-19 as a public health emergency of

international concern. While the global health crisis is officially over, data from the HFPS has
revealed starkly uneven patterns of household welfare during the pandemic era, from which
some households are likely yet to recover, and losses of human and physical capital may
leave scars on future generations.
30
Phone surveys became a valuable means to monitor household welfare during the
pandemic. The large-scale adoption of national phone surveys highlighted important
strengths associated with remote household data collection that hold even when in-person
surveys are feasible.
Several lessons have also been learned from the experience of working with a large,
harmonized global database. First, while phone surveys have the advantage of being
relatively inexpensive and quick to roll out, they require reliable sampling frames and the
pros and cons among the different options in terms of representativeness, implementation
and post-survey adjustments need to be well understood. Sampling households from a
previous in-person survey was associated with much higher response rates in HFPS
compared to surveys using random digit dialing and allowed for more rigorous post-survey
adjustments to improve representativeness. These are compelling reasons to favor sampling
from a recent in-person survey; however, there are also tradeoffs relative to RDD in terms of
representing individuals within households.
Second, regarding the questionnaire design, country-customization should be carefully
balanced against standardization in instances where cross-country comparisons are
important such as during a global crisis. Ex-post harmonization can be very resource-
intensive and more standardized data collection would mean less time spent on preparing
the data for analysis, allowing for timely results that can inform the crisis response.
Relatedly, some relatively small details in survey customization came at a high cost: for
example, the selection of different reference periods for food security hampered
comparability of the otherwise identical question.
Finally, baseline metrics are critical for crisis monitoring as without them, interpretation
of contemporaneous outcomes can be limited. This is particularly important for outcomes
such as employment and food security, which may change significantly in a short period.
Phone surveys that sampled from previously interviewed households clearly demonstrated
the advantages of baseline information for assessing and addressing both
representativeness and measurement concerns (Gourlay et al., 2021). In practice, this means
more frequent data collection in LMICs which would also facilitate regular welfare
monitoring in data deprived countries. Better aligning questions in phone surveys and
existing data sources, such as labor force surveys, would also help to provide a comparable
31
pre-crisis baseline. In anticipation of future crises, questions in standard surveys could be
adjusted to ensure that baseline metrics for simple welfare and employment indicators that
can be reliably collected by phone will be available.
In order for phone surveys to become a reliable toolkit for researchers and NSOs, more
research is needed on some key questions. First, the survey mode effect is still not well
understood. Second, more research is needed to inform which questions in phone surveys
are most useful and to identify indicators that reliably track welfare. Third, a better
understanding is needed on how to best align phone surveys with key indicators from
standard labor force surveys and how the inclusion of fewer questions affects the estimates.
Fourth, more analysis should be done to quantify the relative merits of different sampling
frames, and how to assess the resulting uncertainty in the estimates. The standardization of
questions, alignment with other data sources and increased availability of baseline metrics
will be important to facilitate this research.
Phone surveys are especially valuable in fast onset or rapidly evolving crises when acute
impacts threaten household welfare and access to timely information is critical for the policy
response. Recognizing this, many countries continued phone-based welfare monitoring or
started new national phone surveys well after containment policies were relaxed. For
example, the National Bureau of Statistics in Nigeria launched a new phase of phone surveys
during 2022 with the objective “to monitor in real-time how the Nigerian households are
coping with national and global crises and their effects on the welfare and livelihoods of the
households” (National Bureau of Statistics, 2022). The HFPS have been repurposed to
monitor welfare impacts unrelated to COVID-19, including those from locust invasions and
conflict in Ethiopia (Abay et al., 2022; Ilukor and Gourlay, 2021), the coup in Myanmar
(World Bank, 2022c), and the volcanic eruption and resulting tsunami in Tonga (Nakamura
and Pape, 2023). Nevertheless, remote data collection cannot always replace in-person
surveys with detailed consumption modules because there are important use cases such as
poverty measurement when data quality is critical.
32
References
Abate, G. T., De Brauw, A., Hirvonen, K., and Wolle, A. 2023. Measuring consumption over the
phone: Evidence from a survey experiment in urban Ethiopia. Journal of Development
Economics 161: 103026.
Abay, K.A., Abay, M.H., Berhane, G., Chamberlin, J., Croke, K. and Tafere, K., 2022. Access to
health services, food, and water during an active conflict: Evidence from Ethiopia. PLOS
Global Public Health, 2(11), p.e0001015.
Abay, K.A., Berhane, G., Hoddinott, J. and Tafere, K., 2023. COVID-19 and food security in
Ethiopia: do social protection programs protect?. Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 71(2), pp.000-000.
Alonso, J.D., Chen Peraza, J., Ramírez, J., Schutt, Pardo, E., Vargas Mancera, M.J., Yáñez Pagans,
M. 2022. The Learning Crisis in Latin America and the Caribbean and the COVID-19
Pandemic: Sobering Results of a Deepening Trend. World Bank and UNDP.
Amankwah, A., Gourlay, S., 2021. Food Security in the Face of COVID-19: Evidence from Africa
(English). LSMS Integrated Surveys on Agriculture Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/912661610964372485/Food-Security-
in-the-Face-of-COVID-19-Evidence-from-Africa
Amaral, S., Dinarte-Diaz, L., Dominguez, P., Perez-Vincent, S.M., and Romero, S. 2022. Talk or
Text?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 9999.
Ambel, A., McGee, K., Tsegay, A., 2021. Reducing Bias in Phone Survey Samples. Effectiveness
of Reweighting Techniques Using Face-to-Face Surveys as Frames in Four African
Countries. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 9676.
Apedo-Amah, M.C., Avdiu, B., Cirera, X., Cruz, M., Davies, E., Grover, A., Iacovone, L., Kilinc, U.,
Medvedev, D., Maduko, F.O., Poupakis, S., Torres, J., Tran, T.T., 2020. Unmasking the
Impact of COVID-19 on Businesses: Firm Level Evidence from Across the World. Policy
Research Working Paper; No. 9434. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Azevedo, J.P., Akmal, M., Cloutier, M.H., Rogers, H., Wong, Y.N. 2022. Learning Losses during
COVID-19: Global Estimates of an Invisible and Unequal Crisis. Policy Research Working
Papers; 10218. World Bank, Washington, DC.
33
Azevedo, J.P., Cojocaru, A., Montalva Talledo, V.S., Narayan, A., 2023. “COVID-19 School
Closures, Learning Losses and Intergenerational Mobility”” Policy Research Working
Paper Series 10381, The World Bank.
Ballon Fernandez, P.M., Mejia-Mantilla, C., Olivieri, S.D., Lara Ibarra, G., Romero Haaker, F.J.
2021. Lives or Livelihoods : The Costs of Staying Healthy – COVID-19 in LAC (English).
Policy Note, no. 1 Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.
Beegle, K., Carletto, C., Himelein, K., 2012a. Reliability of recall in agricultural data. Journal of
Development Economics, 98, 34–41.
Berniell, I., Gasparini, L., Marchioni, M., Viollaz, M. 2023. The role of children and work-from-
home in gender labor market asymmetries: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in
Latin America. Review of Economics of the Household, Feb. 16: 1-24.
Bundervoet, T., Dávalos, M.E., and Garcia, N. 2022. The short-term impacts of COVID-19 on
households in developing countries: An overview based on a harmonized dataset of high-
frequency surveys. World Development: 105844.
Brubaker, J., Kilic, T., Wollburg, P., 2021. Representativeness of Individual-Level Data in
COVID-19 Phone Surveys Findings from Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper No. 9660.
Brück, T., Regassa, M.D. 2023. Usefulness and misrepresentation of phone surveys on COVID-
19 and food security in Africa. Food Security 15 (2): 423-453.
Brunckhorst, B., Cojocaru, A., Hill, R., Kim, Y.S. and Kugler, M. 2023. Long COVID: The
Evolution of Household Welfare in Developing Countries during the Pandemic. World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 10300.
Camacho, A., Hernandez, E., Hernandez, P., Herrera, C.A., Dayton Eberwein, J., Kerr, A.,
Bergeron, J.R., Veillard, J., Katietek, J.J. 2022. Disruption of Health Care Services and
COVID-19 Vaccination in Latin America and the Caribbean by Mid-2021. Policy Brief.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Cirera, X., Cruz, M., Grover, A., Iacovone, L., Medvedev, D., Pereira-Lopez, M., Reyes, S. 2021.
Firm Recovery during COVID-19. Six Stylized Facts. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper No. 9810.
34
Clavijo, I., Mejia-Mantilla, C., Olivieri, S.D., Lara Ibarra, G., Romero, J.E. 2021. Mind the Gap:
How COVID-19 is Increasing Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington,
DC: World Bank Group.
Contreras-Gonzalez, I., Oseni, G., Palacios-Lopez, A., Pieters, J., Weber, M., 2022. “Inequalities
in Job Loss and Income Loss in Sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 Crisis,” IZA
Discussion Papers 15406, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
Corak., M., 2013. Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 27 (3), Summer, pp. 79-102.
Cucagna, E., Romero, J. 2021. The Gendered Impacts of COVID-19 on Labor Markets in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Gender Innovation Lab for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Cunningham, W., Tchuisseu, F., Viollaz, M., Edochie, I.N., Newhouse, D.L., Ricaldi, F. 2023.
“How Did Urban Household Enterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa Fare during COVID-19?
Evidence from High-Frequency Phone Surveys,” Policy Research Working Paper Series
10360, The World Bank.
Dabalen, A., Etang, A., Hoogeveen, J., Mushi, E., Schipper, Y., Engelhardt, J. von, 2016. Mobile
Phone Panel Surveys in Developing Countries: A Practical Guide for Microdata Collection.
The World Bank, Washington DC.
Dang, H.A., Oseni, G., Zezza, A., Abanokova, K. 2021. Impact of COVID-19 on Learning:
Evidence from Six Sub-Saharan African Countries. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Dasgupta, S., Robinson, E.J.Z., 2021. “Food insecurity, safety nets, and coping strategies
during the COVID-19 pandemic: multi-country evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa,” LSE
Research Online Documents on Economics 112194, London School of Economics and
Political Science, LSE Library.
Dayton, J.M., Edochie, I.N., Newhouse, D.L., Cojocaru, A., Deudibe, G.B., Kakietek, J.J., Kim,Y.S.,
Montes, J. 2022. “COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in 53 Developing Countries : Levels,
Trends, and Reasons for Hesitancy,” Policy Research Working Paper Series 10191, The
World Bank..
Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., and Ansar. S. 2022. The Global Findex Database
2021: Financial Inclusion, Digital Payments, and Resilience in the Age of COVID-19.
Washington, DC: World Bank
35
Dillon, B., 2012. Using mobile phones to collect panel data in developing countries. Journal of
International Development, 24, 518–527.
Egger, D., Miguel, E., Warren, S.S., Shenoy, A., Collins, E., Karlan, D., Parkerson, D., Mobarak,
A.M., Fink, G., Udry, C. and Walker, M., 2021. Falling living standards during the COVID-
19 crisis: Quantitative evidence from nine developing countries. Science Advances, 7(6),
p.eabe0997.
Etang, A., Himelein, K., 2020. Monitoring the Ebola Crisis Using Mobile Phone Surveys, in:
Hoogeveen, J., Pape, U. (Eds.), Data Collection in Fragile States: Innovations from Africa
and Beyond. Palgrave Macmillan.
Furbush, A., Josephson, A.L., Kilic, T., Michler, J.D. 2021. The Evolving Socioeconomic Impacts
of COVID-19 in Four African Countries. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.
9556.
Furceri, D., Loungani, P., Ostry, J.D., Pizzuto, P., 2022. Will covid-19 have long-lasting effects
on inequality? Evidence from past pandemics. The Journal of Economic Inequality 20, 1–
29.
Garlick, R., Orkin, K., Quinn, S., 2020. Call Me Maybe: Experimental Evidence on Frequency
and Medium Effects in Microenterprise Surveys. The World Bank Economic Review, 34,
418–443.
Glazerman, S., Rosenbaum, M., Sandino, R., Shaughnessy, L., 2020. Remote Surveying in a
Pandemic: Handbook. Innovation for Poverty Action.
Glazerman, S., Grépin, K.A., Mueller, V., Rosenbaum, M. and Wu, N., 2023. Do referrals
improve the representation of women in mobile phone surveys? Journal of Development
Economics, 162, p.103077.
Gonzales Morales, Luis G., Perucci, F., 2021. “COVID-19: How the data and statistical
community stepped up to the new challenges”. UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (DESA) Policy Briefs. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Gourlay, S., Kilic, T., Martuscelli, A., Wollburg, P., Zezza, A., 2021. High-Frequency Phone
Surveys on COVID-19: Good Practices, Open Questions. Food Policy, 105, p.102153.
Groves, R.M., Fowler Jr, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R., 2011.
Survey Methodology. John Wiley & Sons
36
Henderson, S., Rosenbaum, M., 2020. Remote Surveying in a Pandemic: Research Synthesis.
Innovation for Poverty Action.
Hill, R., Narayan, A., 2020. “COVID-19 and inequality: A review of the evidence on likely
impact and policy options.” Centre for Disaster Protection Working Paper No. 3
(December), London, UK.
Himelein, K., Eckman, S., Kastelic, J., McGee, K., Wild, M., Yoshida, N., Hoogeveen, J., 2020. High
Frequency Mobile Phone Surveys of Households to Assess the Impacts of COVID-19.
Guidelines on Sampling Design. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Hoogeveen, J. G., Lopez-Acevedo, G. 2021. Distributional Impacts of COVID-19 in the Middle
East and North Africa Region, MENA Development Report, World Bank, Washington, DC,
Ilukor, J., Gourlay, S. 2021. Locust Invasion in Ethiopia: Scope and Impact. World Bank,
Washington, DC.
IMF. 2021. Database of Country Fiscal Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Washington, DC. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Fiscal-Policies-
Database-in-Response-to-COVID-19 (visited on 03/27/2023).
ITU. 2022. International Telecommunication Union ( ITU ) World Telecommunication/ICT
Indicators Database. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx.
Jeong, D., Aggarwal, S., Robinson, J., Kumar, N., Spearot, A. and Park, D.S., 2023. Exhaustive or
exhausting? Evidence on respondent fatigue in long surveys. Journal of Development
Economics, 161, p.102992.
Josephson, A., Kilic, T., Michler, J.D . 2021. Socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 in low-income
countries. Nature Human Behavior 557-565.
Kakietek, J.J., Dayton Eberwein, J., Stacey, N., Newhouse, D., Yoshida, N. 2022. Foregone
healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic: early survey estimates from 39 low-and
middle-income countries. Health Policy and Planning, Vol. 37 (6), 771-778.
Khamis, M., Prinz, D., Newhouse, D., Palacios-Lopez, A., Pape, U., and Weber., M. 2021. The
early labor market impacts of COVID-19 in developing countries. World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper No. 9510.
Kim, L.Y., Lugo M.A., Mason, A.D., and Uochi, I. 2021. Inequality under COVID-19: Taking Stock
of High-Frequency Data for East Asia and the Pacific. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper No. 9859.
37
Kim, Y.S., Tanner, J., Deudibe, G., Imtiaz, S., and Mugera, H. 2023. Displaced during Crisis:
Lessons Learned from High-Frequency Phone Surveys and How to Protect the Most
Vulnerable. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kugler, M., Viollaz, M., Duque, D., Gaddis, I., Newhouse, D., Palacios-Lopez, A. and Weber, M.,
2023. How Did the COVID-19 Crisis Affect Different Types of Workers in the Developing
World?. World Development, p.106331.Margolies et al. 2022. A Shot in the Arm: New
Evidence from the World Bank High Frequency Surveys on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance
and Uptake in the Caribbean
Mahler, D.G., Yonzan, N., Laker, C. 2022. The impact of COVID-19 on global inequality and
poverty. Policy Research Working Paper No. 10198. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Margolies, A., de Hoop, J., Kim, P., Paffhausen, A.L. and Di Giorgio, L. 2022. “A shot in the arm:
How to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in the Caribbean?” Latin
American and Caribbean: Opportunities for All Blog, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Mathur, M., 2020. How to identify the best length and time for a phone survey. IDinsight Blog.
https://medium.com/idinsight-blog/phone-survey-duration-and-timingsreaching-
respondents-part-ii-b2c85627d576
Mavrotas, G., Van den Bosch, C., 2022. "The influence of COVID-19 on remittances: potential
development outcomes," IOB Discussion Papers 2022.04, Universiteit Antwerpen,
Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
Mejia-Mantilla,C., Olivieri, S.D., Rivadeneira Alava, A.M., Lara Ibarra, G., Romero Haaker, F.J.,
Del Carpio, X.V., 2021. Jobs Interrupted: The Effects of COVID-19 in the LAC Labor
Markets (English). Jobs Interrupted policy note, no. 2 Washington, D.C.: World Bank
Group.
Meléndez, M., Camacho, A., Tenjo, L., Hernandez, P., Mejia-Mantilla, C., Lara Ibarra, G.,
Castaneda, C.A., 2022. Not There Yet: Slow Recovery and Many Left Behind as Latin
America and the Caribbean Navigates the Ripples of the Pandemic – 2021 High-
Frequency Phone Surveys – Wave 2, Policy Note, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Miguel, E. and Mobarak, A.M., 2022. The economics of the COVID-19 pandemic in poor
countries. Annual Review of Economics, 14, pp.253-285.
38
Msemburi, W., Karlinsky, A., Knutson, V., Aleshin-Guendel, S., Chatterji, S., and Wakefield, J.
2023. “The WHO estimates of excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic”.
Nature 613 (7942): 130–137.
Muñoz-Najar, A., Gilberto, A., Hasan, A., Cobo, C., Azevedo, J.P., Akmal, M. 2021. Remote
Learning during COVID-19: Lessons from Today, Principles for Tomorrow.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
Nakamura, S., Pape, U. 2023. Uncovering the untold impact of the 2022 Tonga volcano and
tsunami: How phone surveys reveal crucial insights. World Bank Blogs.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/uncovering-untold-impact-2022-tonga-
volcano-and-tsunami-how-phone-surveys-reveal
Narayan, A., Van der Weide, R., Cojocaru, A., Lakner, C., Redaelli, S., Mahler, D.G.,
Ramasubbaiah, R.G.N., Thewissen. S., 2018. Fair Progress?: Economic Mobility Across
Generations Around the World. World Bank Publications.
Narayan, A., Cojocaru, A. Agrawal, S., Bundervoet, T., Davalos, M.E., Garcia, N., Lakner, C.,
Mahler, D.G., Montalva Talledo, V.S., Ten, A., 2022. "COVID-19 and Economic Inequality :
Short-Term Impacts with Long-Term Consequences," Policy Research Working Paper
Series 9902, The World Bank.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2022. Nigeria National Longitudinal Phone Survey (NLPS)
Phase 2: Basic Information Document. Version 3. Available from:
https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/4444
Neidhöfer, G., Lustig, N., Tommasi, M. 2021. “Intergenerational Transmission of Lockdown
Consequences: Prognosis of the Longer-Run Persistence of COVID-19 in Latin America.”
The Journal of Economic Inequality 19 (3): 571-98.
Nolte, K., Sipangule, K., Wendt, N., 2022. Agricultural households in times of crisis. The
COVID-19 pandemic, livelihoods and land-use decisions, Journal of Land Use Science, 17
(1) (2022), pp. 134-160.
Rothwell, J.T., Cojocaru, A., Srinivasan, R., Kim, Y.S, 2023. Global Evidence on the Economic
Effects of Disease Suppression During COVID-19 SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3888781 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3888781
39
Rudin-Rush, L., Michler, J.D., Josephson, A., Bloem, J.R. 2022. Food insecurity during the first
year of the COVID-19 pandemic in four African countries, Food Policy, Volume 111,
102306.
Sitko, N., Knowles M., Viberti, F. and. Bordi, D. 2022. Assessing the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic on the livelihoods of rural people – A review of the evidence. Rome, FAO.
Tabakis, C., Ten, G.K., Merfeld, J.D., Newhouse, D.L., Pape, U.J., Weber, M. 2022. The Welfare
Implications of COVID-19 for Fragile and Conflict-Affected Areas. Policy Research
working paper no. WPS 10081; COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Washington, D.C. : World Bank
Group.
WHO. 2023. WHO COVID-19 Dashboard. Geneva: World Health Organization.
https://covid19.who.int/ (visited on 03/27/2023).
Wollburg, P., Tiberti, M., Zezza, A., 2020. Recall length and measurement error in agricultural
surveys. Food Policy, 102003.
Wollburg, P.R., Markhof, Y.V., Kanyanda, S.S.E., Zezza, A. 2023. The Evolution of COVID-19
Vaccine Hesitancy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Panel Survey Data. World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper No. 10275.
World Bank. 2021a. Distributional Impacts of COVID-19 in the MENA Region. Washington,
DC: The World Bank.
World Bank. 2022a. Poverty and Shared Prosperity Report 2022: Correcting Course.
Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2022b. COVID-19 in South Asia: An Unequal Shock, An Uncertain Recovery –
Findings on Labor Market Impacts from Round 1 of the SAR COVID Phone Monitoring
Surveys. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
World Bank. 2022c. Progress, Setbacks, and Uncertainty: Effects of COVID-19 and Coup on
Poverty in Myanmar. Myanmar Poverty Synthesis Note. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2022d. Long COVID: The Extended Effects of the Pandemic on Labor Markets in
Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank.
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/37682
World Bank. 2023. Global Monitoring Database. [Dataset]. World Bank, Washington, DC.
40
Zezza, A., McGee, K., Wollburg, P., Assefa, T. and Gourlay, S., 2023. From necessity to
opportunity: lessons for integrating phone and in-person data collection. European
Review of Agricultural Economics, 50(4), pp.1364-1400.
41
Appendix
Table A1: HFPS coverage and response rates, by sampling frame
By sampling frame
Pooled
Survey RDD Other
Phone coverage rate (% hh) 81 85 78 83
Response rate in round 1 (%) 73 36 49 48
Recontact rate in round 2 (%) 89 62 65 73
Attrition rate at round 3 (%) 18 46 45 32
HFPS countries (#) 34 50 9 93
Source: COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Surveys.
Notes: Household survey-based phone coverage rates are available for 68 of 93 countries (GMD); HFPS response rates in
round 1 are reported from 61 countries, recontact rates in round 2 surveys can be calculated for 62 countries and attrition
rates in round 3 surveys for 48 countries.
Figure A1: HFPS response and recontact rates, by sampling frame and region
100 100
HFPS recontact rate vs previous round (%)
HFPS response rate in round 1 (%)
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
EAP ECA LAC MENA SAR SSA EAP ECA LAC MENA SAR SSA
Survey RDD Other/mixed Survey RDD Other/mixed

Notes: Each data point represents one survey round. HFPS response rates in round 1 are reported from 61 countries.
Recontact rate is calculated as the share of households successfully recontacted from the previous round in panel surveys.
The sample includes 266 follow-up survey rounds from 63 countries.
42
Table A2: HFPS sample weight components, by sampling frame
By sampling frame
Pooled
Weight components Survey RDD Other
Location (%) 89 94 100 93
Gender (%) 67 88 67 79
Age group (%) 59 84 67 74
Demographics (%) 67 43 67 52
Wealth (%) 59 39 83 49
Other (%) 48 22 50 33
Number of components (mean) 3.9 3.7 4.3 3.8
Countries reporting data (#) 27 49 6 82
Notes: Components used to calculate sample weights are reported from 82 of 93 HFPS countries.
Table A3: HFPS employment impacts, by location and post-survey adjustment
2020 peak 2021 low

Trend
Stopped working stringency stringency
(Δ)
(%) (%)
Non-urban/Rural
No weights 30.3 23.5 -6.8
Household weights 31.5 24.1 -7.4
Urban
No weights 32.0 21.8 -10.2
Gap
No weights -1.7 1.7 3.4
Household weights -0.7 1.4 2.1
Notes: Estimates are averages of country averages from a panel of 37 countries. 2020 (2021) estimates are based on the
survey round corresponding with peak (lowest) policy, when multiple rounds were conducted.
Table A4: HFPS employment impacts, by education level and post-survey adjustment
2020 peak 2021 low

Trend
(Δ)
(%) (%)
Low education
No weights 37.4 25.0 -12.4
High education
No weights 30.3 20.3 -10.1
Gap
No weights 7.1 4.7 -2.4
Notes: Estimates are averages of country averages from a panel of 34 countries.
43
Table A5: HFPS employment impacts, by gender and post-survey adjustment
2020 peak 2021 low

Trend
(Δ)
(%) (%)
Female
No weights 57.3 30.6 -26.7
Individual weights 58.0 33.4 -24.5
Male
No weights 40.0 15.9 -24.2
Gap
No weights 17.3 14.7 -2.6
Notes: Estimates are averages of country averages from a panel of 13 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean with
both household and individual level sampling weights.
Figure A2: Estimated employment impacts with and without sampling weights
+2 pp +2 pp.
Stopped working trend (vs. previous wave, pp.)
60 20
Stopped working (%) - Household weights
-2 pp.
-2 pp.
10
Household weights
40
20
-10
-20
0 -20 -10 0 10 20
0 20 40 60
Stopped working (%) - No weights No weights
Survey RDD Survey RDD

Notes: The sample includes 331 survey rounds in 77 countries.
44
Figure A3: Estimated employment impacts with household vs. individual sampling weights
+2 pp. +2 pp.
60 20

-2 pp.
Stopped working (%) - Individual weights
-2 pp.
10
Individual weights
40
20
-10
-20
0 -20 -10 0 10 20
0 20 40 60
Stopped working (%) - Household weights Household weights
+2 pp.

20
+2 pp.
60
Stopped working (%) - Individual weights
-2 pp. -2 pp.
10
Individual weights
40
20 -10
-20
0 -20 -10 0 10 20
0 20 40 60 Stopped working trend (vs. previous wave, pp.)
Stopped working (%) - Household weights Household weights
Female Male Female Male

Notes: The sample includes 171 survey rounds in 42 countries where both individual and household sampling weights were
calculated.
45
Figure A4: HFPS vs. LFS employment estimates in Latin America and the Caribbean
Source: COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Surveys and ILOSTAT.

Notes: The sample includes between 9 and 11 countries with both sources of data collected in the same quarter.
Figure A5: HFPS household welfare vs. BPS firm outcomes during COVID-19
40 100
Share of households that
Share of households that

went a day without food
in the past 30 days (%)
lost income relative to
30 80
pre-pandemic (%)
20 60
10 40
20
0
0 20 40 60 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80

Share of firms that fired workers Change in firm sales in the past
in the past 30 days (%) 30 days relative to previous year (%)
Source: COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Surveys and COVID-19 Business Pulse Surveys.
Notes: Each dot indicates country averages from a pair of time-matched firm and household surveys conducted within two
months of each other. The sample includes 25 low- and middle-income economies in panel a and 15 in panel b.
46
Table A6: List of analytical work using HFPS data
# Journal/
Title Author Year Region Country Link
Countries Type
Long COVID: The Evolution of Household Welfare in Developing Brunckhorst et 2023 Global Multiple 80 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Countries during the Pandemic al. Research Working 96/1813-9450-10300
Paper
PSPR chapter 2: Shared Prosperity and Inequality: Uneven Losses and an World Bank 2022 Global Multiple 80 World Bank Report https://doi.org/10.15
Uneven Recovery 96/978-1-4648-1893-
6_ch4
PSPR chapter 4: Protecting Households with Fiscal Policy: Learning from World Bank 2022 Global Multiple 80 World Bank Report https://doi.org/10.15
COVID-19 96/978-1-4648-1893-
6_ch2
The Welfare Implications of COVID-19 for Fragile and Conflict-Affected Tabakis et al. 2022 Global Multiple 64 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Areas Research Working 96/1813-9450-10081
Paper
Assessing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the livelihoods of Sitko et al. 2022 Global Multiple 54 FAO Report https://www.fao.org
rural people A review of the evidence /3/cb7672en/cb7672
en.pdf
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in 53 Developing Countries: Levels, Trends, Dayton et al. 2022 Global Multiple 53 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
and Reasons for Hesitancy Research Working 96/1813-9450-10191
Paper
How Did Countries Respond to the COVID-19 Crisis? Emerging Patterns Contreras et al. 2023 Global Multiple 50 World Bank Report https://openknowled
on Jobs-Related Policies ge.worldbank.org/ha
ndle/10986/39730
How Did the COVID-19 Crisis Affect Different Types of Workers in the Kugler et al. 2023 Global Multiple 40 World Development https://doi.org/10.10
Developing World? 16%2Fj.worlddev.20
23.106331
Foregone healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic: early survey Kakietek et al. 2022 Global Multiple 39 Health Policy and https://doi.org/10.10
estimates from 39 low-and middle-income countries Planning 93/heapol/czac024
The Early Labor Market Impacts of COVID-19 in Developing Countries: Khamis et al. 2021 Global Multiple 39 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Evidence from High-Frequency Phone Surveys Research Working 96/1813-9450-9510
Paper
The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Inequality and Poverty Mahler et al. 2022 Global Multiple 37 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
(37 HFPS Research Working 96/1813-9450-10198
data) Paper
The Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of households with children: An World Bank & 2022 Global Multiple 35 World Bank & https://documents.w
overview based on High Frequency Phone Surveys UNICEF UNICEF Report orldbank.org/en/pub
lication/documents-
reports/documentde
tail/09923000309222
6699/p1776560f3b3c
c0eb0b5b50ce9d88cf
44f6
COVID-19 and Economic Inequality Narayan et al. 2022 Global Multiple 34 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Short-Term Impacts with Long-Term Consequences Research Working 96/1813-9450-9902
Paper
Jan22 GEP ch4: Impact of COVID-19 on Global Income Inequality World Bank 2022 Global Multiple 34 World Bank Report https://doi.org/10.15
96/978-1-4648-1758-
8_ch4
The Evolving Labor Market Impacts of COVID-19 in Developing Countries Khamis et al. 2021 Global Multiple 33 World Bank Jobs http://hdl.handle.net
Watch Covid-19 Brief /10986/36032
The short-term impacts of COVID-19 on households in developing Bundervoet et al. 2022 Global Multiple 31 World Development https://doi.org/10.10
countries: An overview based on a harmonized dataset of high- 16/j.worlddev.2022.1
frequency surveys 05844
COVID-19 School Closures, Learning Losses and Intergenerational Azevedo et al. 2023 Global Multiple 30 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Mobility (30 HFPS Research Working 96/1813-9450-10381
data) Paper
Covid-19 and Inequality: A review of the evidence on likely impact and Hill & Narayan 2020 Global Multiple 29 Centre for Disaster https://static1.squar
policy options Protection Working espace.com/static/6
Paper 1542ee0a87a394f7b
c17b3a/t/616acd834
fa3a0560a661eed/16
34389380869/WP_3
_22Dec.pdf
The influence of COVID-19 on remittances - potential development Van den bosch & 2022 Global Multiple 28 Working Paper https://repository.ua
outcomes Mavrotas ntwerpen.be/docma
n/irua/cefeec/19331
9.pdf
Impact of COVID-19 on food insecurity using multiple waves of high Dasgupta & 2022 Global Multiple 11 Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.10
frequency household surveys Robinson 38/s41598-022-
05664-3
Unmasking the Impact of COVID-19 on Businesses Apedo-Amah et 2020 Global Multiple 51
al
Firm Recovery during COVID-19 Cirera et al 2021 Global Multiple 38
Inequality under COVID-19: Taking Stock of High-Frequency Data for Kim et al. 2021 EAP Multiple 7 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
East Asia and the Pacific Research Working 96/1813-9450-9859
Paper
Distributional Impacts of COVID-19 in the MENA Region World Bank 2021 MENA Multiple 11 https://openknowled
ge.worldbank.org/ser
ver/api/core/bitstrea
ms/44d3c74e-2985-
53f8-8192-
2342e1bcaa8e/conte
nt
Food Insecurity in Indonesia during the COVID-19 Pandemic : What do Sjahrir & 2021 EAP Indonesia 1 World Bank Policy https://documents1.
We Learn from the High-Frequency Monitoring of Households? Wibisono Brief worldbank.org/curat
ed/en/09981500104
2352934/pdf/P17567
408b656a0a00afcd0
d1f3912dad66.pdf
48
Papua New Guinea High Frequency Phone Survey on COVID-19 United Nations, 2021 EAP Papua New 1 World Bank Report https://doi.org/10.15
UNICEF, World Guinea 96/37025
Bank
Cambodia Poverty Assessment: Toward a More Inclusive and Resilient World Bank 2022 EAP Cambodia 1 World Bank Poverty https://doi.org/10.15
Cambodia Assessment 96/38344
Myanmar Poverty Assessment: Progress, Setbacks, and Uncertainty World Bank 2022 EAP Myanmar 1 World Bank Poverty https://doi.org/10.15
Effects of COVID-19 and Coup on Poverty in Myanmar Assessment 96/37699
Women endure COVID–19 unequally to men World Bank 2020 EAP Myanmar 1 World Bank Report https://documents1.
worldbank.org/curat
ed/en/32939160631
7076359/pdf/Wome
n-Endure-COVID-19-
Unequally-to-
Men.pdf
The Labor Market and the COVID-19 Outbreak in Vietnam: Impacts and World Bank 2021 EAP Vietnam 1 World Bank Report http://hdl.handle.net
Lessons Learned for Social Protection /10986/35990
The Distributional Impact of COVID-19 Fiscal Policies on Households, World Bank 2021 EAP Vietnam 1 World Bank Report http://hdl.handle.net
with Emphasis on Da Nang City /10986/36606
A Year Deferred - Early Experiences and Lessons from Covid-19 in World Bank 2021 EAP Vietnam 1 World Bank Report http://documents.w
Vietnam orldbank.org/curated
/en/8269216334429
77133/A-Year-
Deferred-Early-
Experiences-and-
Lessons-from-Covid-
19-in-Vietnam
Social Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Vulnerable Populations in World Bank 2021 ECA Romania 1 World Bank Report https://documents1.
Romania : Overview of Findings from High Frequency Household and worldbank.org/curat
Community Surveys - Covering Period Until January 2021 ed/en/09994521003
2216351/pdf/P17418
1082c9a90560bae00
3ce74f62401e.pdf
The Learning Crisis in Latin America and the Caribbean and the COVID-19 Alonso et al. 2022 LAC Multiple 24 World Bank Policy http://hdl.handle.net
Pandemic: Sobering Results of a Deepening Trend Brief /10986/37924
Disruption of Health Care Services and COVID-19 Vaccination in Latin Camacho et al. 2022 LAC Multiple 24 World Bank Policy http://hdl.handle.net
America and the Caribbean by Mid-2021 Brief /10986/38307
Uneven Recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean: Are Women Being Cucagnam et al. 2022 LAC Multiple 24 World Bank Policy http://hdl.handle.net
Left Behind? Brief /10986/37685
Long COVID: The Extended Effects of the Pandemic on Labor Markets in del Carpio et al. 2022 LAC Multiple 24 World Bank Policy http://hdl.handle.net
Latin America and the Caribbean Brief /10986/37682
An Uneven Recovery : Taking the Pulse of Latin America and the Mejía-Mantilla, 2022 LAC Multiple 24 World Bank Report https://documents1.
Caribbean Following the Pandemic - 2021 LAC High Frequency Phone et al. worldbank.org/curat
Surveys ed/en/66576163911
9456550/pdf/An-
Uneven-Recovery-
Taking-the-Pulse-of-
Latin-America-and-
49
the-Caribbean-
Following-the-
Pandemic-2021-LAC-
High-Frequency-
Phone-Surveys.pdf
Internet Access and Use in Latin America and the Caribbean: From the Srinivasan et al. 2022 LAC Multiple 24 World Bank Policy http://hdl.handle.net
LAC High Frequency Phone Surveys 2021 Brief /10986/38000
A Shot in the Arm: New Evidence from the World Bank High Frequency Margolies et al. 2022 LAC Multiple 23 World Bank Policy http://hdl.handle.net
Surveys on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake in the Caribbean Brief /10986/38088
Not There Yet: Slow Recovery and Many Left Behind as Latin America Meléndez et al. 2022 LAC Multiple 22 World Bank Report http://hdl.handle.net
and the Caribbean Navigates the Ripples of the Pandemic - 2021 High- /10986/38015
Frequency Phone Surveys - Wave 2
The Welfare Costs of Being Off the Grid Ballon et al. 2021 LAC Multiple 13 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Brief 96/36026
Lives or Livelihoods? The Costs of Staying Healthy Ballon et al. 2021 LAC Multiple 13 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Brief 96/35623
The role of children and work-from-home in gender labor market Berniell et al. 2023 LAC Multiple 13 Review of Economics https://doi.org/10.10
asymmetries: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America of the Household 07/s11150-023-
09648-8
Mind the Gap: How COVID-19 is Increasing Inequality in Latin America Clavijo et al. 2021 LAC Multiple 13 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
and the Caribbean Brief 96/36025
The Gendered Impacts of COVID-19 on Labor Markets in Latin America Cucagna & 2021 LAC Multiple 13 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
and the Caribbean Romero Brief 96/35191
COVID-19 and Food Insecurity in Latin America and the Caribbean Hernández- 2022 LAC Multiple 13 Journal of Hunger & https://doi.org/10.10
Vásquez et al Environmental 80/19320248.2022.2
Nutrition 086023
Factors associated with food insecurity in Latin America and the Hernández- 2022 LAC Multiple 13 Nutrients https://doi.org/10.33
Caribbean countries: a cross-sectional analysis of 13 countries Vásquez et al 90/nu14153190
Jobs Interrupted: The Effects of COVID-19 in the LAC Labor Markets Mejía-Mantilla, 2021 LAC Multiple 13 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
et al. Brief 96/35866
The Impacts of COVID-19 on Informal Labor Markets: Evidence from Cueva et al. 2021 LAC Peru 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Peru Research Working 96/1813-9450-9675
Paper
Brazil Poverty Assessment: Looking Ahead of Two Crises World Bank 2022 LAC Brazil 1 World Bank Poverty https://doi.org/10.15
Assessment 96/37657
Honduras Poverty Assessment: Toward a Path of Poverty Reduction and World Bank 2023 LAC Honduras 1 World Bank Poverty https://doi.org/10.15
Inclusive Growth Assessment 96/39449
Unequal Impact of COVID-19 on MENA Households Nguyen et al. 2021 MENA Multiple 11 World Bank Report https://doi.org/10.15
96/978-1-4648-1776-
2_ch2
Living Standards of Tunisian Households in the Midst of the COVID-19 Alfani et al. 2021 MENA Tunisia 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Pandemic Research Working 96/1813-9450-9581
Paper
Impacts of COVID-19 on Household Welfare in Tunisia Kokas et al. 2020 MENA Tunisia 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Research Working 96/1813-9450-9503
Paper
50
COVID-19 in South Asia : An Unequal Shock, An Uncertain Recovery - World Bank 2022 SAR Multiple 8 World Bank Policy http://hdl.handle.net
Findings on Labor Market Impacts from Round 1 of the SAR COVID Brief /10986/37320
Phone Monitoring Surveys
Losing Livelihoods: The Labor Market Impacts of COVID-19 in Genoni et al. 2020 SAR Bangladesh 1 World Bank Report http://hdl.handle.net
Bangladesh /10986/34449
How did Urban Household Enterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa Fare during Cunningham et 2023 SSA Multiple 27 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
COVID-19? Evidence from High-Frequency Phone Surveys al. Research Working 96/1813-9450-10360
Paper
Revisiting Poverty Trends and the Role of Social Protection Systems in Abay et al. 2023 SSA Multiple 20 Journal of African https://doi.org/10.10
Africa during the COVID-19 Pandemic (20 HFPS Economies 93/jae/ejac041
data)
Food insecurity, safety nets, and coping strategies during the COVID-19 Dasgupta & 2021 SSA Multiple 9 International Journal https://doi.org/10.33
pandemic: Multi-country evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa Robinson of Environmental 90/ijerph18199997
Research and Public
Health
Agricultural households in times of crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic, Nolte et al. 2022 SSA Multiple 8 Journal of Land Use https://doi.org/10.10
livelihoods and land-use decisions Science 80/1747423X.2021.2
020922
Impact of COVID-19 on Learning: Evidence from Six Sub-Saharan African Dang et al. 2020 SSA Multiple 6 World Bank Report http://hdl.handle.net
Countries /10986/35676
Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Kanyanda et al. 2021 SSA Multiple 6 BMJ Open http://doi.org/10.11
six national phone surveys 36/bmjopen-2021-
055159
Impact of COVID-19 Crisis on Agriculture : Evidence from Five Sub- Amankwah & 2021 SSA Multiple 5 World Bank Report https://documents1.
Saharan African Countries Gourlay worldbank.org/curat
ed/en/30456161129
4945287/pdf/Impact
-of-COVID-19-Crisis-
on-Agriculture-
Evidence-from-Five-
Sub-Saharan-African-
Countries.pdf
Food Security in the Face of COVID-19 : Evidence from Africa Amankwah & 2021 SSA Multiple 5 World Bank Report https://documents1.
Gourlay worldbank.org/curat
ed/en/91266161096
4372485/pdf/Food-
Security-in-the-Face-
of-COVID-19-
Evidence-from-
Africa.pdf
Turning COVID-19 Vaccines into Vaccinations: New Evidence from Sub- Wollburg et al. 2022 SSA Multiple 5 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Saharan Africa Research Working 96/1813-9450-10152
Paper
The Evolution of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Wollburg et al. 2023 SSA Multiple 5 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Evidence from Panel Survey Data Research Working 96/1813-9450-10275
Paper
51
The Labor Market Impacts of COVID-19 in Four African Countries (April Contreras- 2020 SSA Multiple 4 World Bank Report http://hdl.handle.net
to October 2020): Evidence from LSMS-Supported High-Frequency Gonzalez et al. /10986/35778
Phone Surveys on COVID-19
Inequalities in Job Loss and Income Loss in Sub-Saharan Africa during the Contreras- 2022 SSA Multiple 4 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
COVID-19 Crisis Gonzalez et al. Research Working 96/1813-9450-10143
Paper
The Evolving Socioeconomic Impacts of COVID-19 in Four African Furbush et al. 2021 SSA Multiple 4 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Countries Research Working 96/1813-9450-9556
Paper
Socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 in low-income countries Josephson et al. 2021 SSA Multiple 4 Nature Human https://doi.org/10.10
Behaviour 38/s41562-021-
01096-7
Food insecurity during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in four Rudin-Rush et al. 2022 SSA Multiple 4 Food Policy https://doi.org/10.10
African countries 16/j.foodpol.2022.10
2306
Delivery of social protection programs to combat COVID-19 in Africa Duchoslav & 2021 SSA Multiple 3 In 2021 Annual https://doi.org/10.54
Hirnoven Trends and Outlook 067/9781737916413
Report: Building
Resilient African
Food Systems After
COVID-19. IFPRI
Spatial Heterogeneity of COVID-19 Impacts on Urban Household Batana et al. 2021 SSA Multiple 2 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Incomes: Between- and Within-City Evidence from Two African Research Working 96/1813-9450-9762
Countries Paper
Leaving No Women Behind: Evaluating the Impact of the COVID-19 Makate & 2023 SSA Multiple 2 International Journal https://doi.org/10.33
Pandemic on Livelihood Outcomes in Kenya and Ethiopia Makate of Environmental 90/ijerph20065048
Research and Public
Health
Near-Real-Time Welfare and Livelihood Impacts of an Active Civil War: Abay et al. 2022 SSA Ethiopia 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Evidence from Ethiopia Research Working 96/1813-9450-10004
Paper
Access to health services, food, and water during an active conflict: Abay et al. 2022 SSA Ethiopia 1 PLOS Global Public https://doi.org/10.13
Evidence from Ethiopia Health 71/journal.pgph.000
1015
COVID-19-Induced Disruptions of School Feeding Services Exacerbate Abay et al. 2021 SSA Nigeria 1 The Journal of https://doi.org/10.10
Food Insecurity in Nigeria Nutrition 93/jn/nxab100
The coronavirus pandemic and food security: Evidence from Mali Adjognon et al. 2021 SSA Mali 1 Food Policy https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.foodpol.2021.10
2050
Covid-19 lockdown and exposure of households to food insecurity in Agamile 2022 SSA Uganda 1 The European https://doi.org/10.10
Uganda: Insights from a national high frequency phone survey Journal of 57/s41287-022-
Development 00510-8
Research
Does the female-headed household suffer more than the male-headed Akalu & Wang 2023 SSA Ethiopia 1 Journal of Agriculture https://doi.org/10.54
from Covid-19 impact on food security? Evidence from Ethiopia and Food Research 067/9781737916413
52
Food Security and the COVID-19 Employment Shock in Nigeria: Any Ex- Akim et al. 2023 SSA Nigeria 1 Working Paper https://dx.doi.org/10
Ante Mitigating Effects of Past .2139/ssrn.3833558
Remittances?
COVID-19 and food security: Panel data evidence from Nigeria Amare et al. 2021 SSA Nigeria 1 Food Policy https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.foodpol.2021.10
2099
Balancing Work and Childcare: Evidence from COVID-19 School Closures Biscaye et al. 2022 SSA Kenya 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
and Reopenings in Kenya Research Working 96/1813-9450-9958
Paper
The Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Children in Kenya Cameron et al. 2022 SSA Kenya 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Paper
Coverage of social assistance in Ethiopia during the COVID-19 pandemic: Deshpande et al. 2022 SSA Ethiopia 1 BMJ Global Health http://doi.org/10.11
a time-to-event analysis 36/bmjgh-2022-
008432
COVID-19 and Children's School Resilience: Evidence from Nigeria Dessy et al. 2021 SSA Nigeria 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Paper
Resilience, endogenous policy responses to COVID-19, and their impacts Guedege et al. 2023 SSA Nigeria 1 World Development https://doi.org/10.10
on farm performance 16/j.worlddev.2023.1
06254
The Labor Market Implications of Restricted Mobility during the COVID- Heeman et al. 2022 SSA Kenya 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
19 Pandemic in Kenya: Evidence from Nationally Representative Phone Research Working 96/1813-9450-9963
Surveys Paper
Locust Invasion in Ethiopia: Scope and Impact Ilukor & Gourlay 2021 SSA Ethiopia 1 World Bank Report http://hdl.handle.net
/10986/35605
Gender Dimensions of COVID-19 Economic Impact in Chad: Insights from Kabir et al. 2021 SSA Chad 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
a CGE Model and Household Phone Survey Research Working 96/1813-9450-9679
Paper
The Impact of Covid-19 on Household Welfare in the Comoros : The Mendiratta et al. 2022 SSA Comoros 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Experience of a Small Island Developing State Research Working 96/1813-9450-9964
Paper
Poverty Reduction through Growth, Redistribution and Social Inclusion Mwabu 2023 SSA Kenya 1 Journal of African https://doi.org/10.10
in Times of COVID-19: Kenyan Evidence on the Underlying Mechanisms Economies 93/jae/ejac042
COVID-19 Pandemic, household income and coping strategies in Nigeria Onyeneke et al. 2022 SSA Nigeria 1 International Journal https://doi.org/10.33
of Agricultural 687/ijae.010.03.4098
Extension
Monitoring Covid-19 impacts on households in Sudan Osman et al. 2022 SSA Sudan 1 World Bank Policy https://documents1.
Brief worldbank.org/curat
ed/en/09963520727
2223078/pdf/P17416
802793a30cd08ea30
6b362a841d03.pdf
Willingness to take COVID-19 vaccines in Ethiopia: an instrumental Oyekale 2021 SSA Ethiopia 1 International Journal https://doi.org/10.33
variable probit approach of Environmental 90/ijerph18178892
Research and Public
Health
53
Socioeconomic Impacts of COVID-19 in Kenya Pape et al. 2021 SSA Kenya 1 World Bank Report http://hdl.handle.net
/10986/35961
Impact of COVID-19 on Labor Market Outcomes of Refugees and Vintar et al. 2022 SSA Kenya 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Nationals in Kenya Research Working 96/1813-9450-9960
Paper
Gendered Impacts of the COVID-19 Crisis in Uganda and Opportunities Wilman et al. 2022 SSA Uganda 1 World Bank Report https://doi.org/10.15
for an Inclusive and Sustainable Recovery 96/37112
Nigeria Poverty Assessment: A Better Future for All Nigerians World Bank 2022 SSA Nigeria 1 World Bank Poverty https://doi.org/10.15
Assessment 96/37295
Uganda Poverty Assessment: Strengthening Resilience to Accelerate World Bank 2022 SSA Uganda 1 World Bank Poverty https://doi.org/10.15
Poverty Reduction Assessment 96/37752
Gender Differences in Household Coping Strategies for COVID-19 in Xu et al. 2022 SSA Kenya 1 World Bank Policy https://doi.org/10.15
Kenya Research Working 96/1813-9450-9959
Paper
54

WBWP Tracing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WBWP Tracing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized

Policy Research Working Paper 10585

Tracing Pandemic Impacts in the Absence

Poverty and Equity Global Practice

Produced by the Research Support Team

Ben Brunckhorst† ⓡ Yeon Soo Kim† ⓡ Alexandru Cojocaru†

High Frequency Monitoring Dashboard

Monitoring household welfare with the HFPS

Table 1: HFPS country coverage

East Asia and Pacific 14 29 59

Fragile and Conflict-Affected 26 75 154

Who does the HFPS data represent?

measured in phone surveys.

Phone access and HFPS coverage

Post-survey adjustments to address representativeness issues

What does the HFPS data measure?

Phone survey mode and instrument design effects

Concerns about recall bias

Harmonization and data processing

The evolution of welfare and employment during the pandemic

The pandemic-induced restrictions to mobility and economic activities caused

16 Estimates based on UNESCO school closures database. Available at

Conclusions and lessons learned

On May 5, 2023, WHO declared an end to COVID-19 as a public health emergency of

Table A1: HFPS coverage and response rates, by sampling frame

Survey RDD Other/mixed Survey RDD Other/mixed

Source: COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Surveys.

Table A3: HFPS employment impacts, by location and post-survey adjustment

2020 peak 2021 low

2020 peak 2021 low

2020 peak 2021 low

Survey RDD Survey RDD

Source: COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Surveys.

Stopped working trend (vs. previous wave, pp.)

Stopped working trend (vs. previous wave, pp.)

Female Male Female Male

Source: COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Surveys.

Source: COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Surveys and ILOSTAT.

Share of households that

lost income relative to

0 20 40 60 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80

You might also like