How Should COVID-19 Vaccines be Distributed between the Global North and South? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Six European Countries

Introduction

In his opening speech to address the United Nations General Assembly in September 2021, Secretary General António Guterres expressed stark discontent with the highly unequal global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines: “A majority of the wealthier world is vaccinated. Over 90 percent of Africans are still waiting for their first dose. This is a moral indictment of the state of our world. It is an obscenity.”(UN Secretary General, 2021). At the time of writing, only 10% of citizens in low-income countries have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, while more than 80% of available doses have been allocated to people in high-income countries.(Padma, 2021) This blatant inequity in access to COVID-19 vaccines is partly a consequence of widespread vaccine nationalism in high-income countries, including the stockpiling of vaccine doses for their own citizens.(Harman et al., 2021; Herzog et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2021)

To ensure “fair and equitable access” to COVID-19 vaccines for all countries, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi), and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) formed a multilateral initiative named “COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access” (COVAX).(Herzog et al., 2021) However, several governments have resorted to making bilateral purchasing agreements with vaccine manufacturers outside of COVAX, which has substantially weakened the initiatives’ collective purchasing power.(Kim, 2021; Wouters et al., 2021) Moreover, recent estimates published by “Think Global Health” suggest that only a small fraction of the promised vaccine doses have actually reached people in low-income countries. The WHO’s pledges for a more equitable COVID-19 vaccine distribution have not been fulfilled.

Ramping up global COVID-19 vaccination rates is imperative for three reasons. From an ethical perspective, unequal access to vaccination leads to high rates of transmission, severe infections, and deaths in those parts of the world where health care capacity is the lowest. This aggravates existing health inequities between the Global South and North.(Godlee, 2021; Katz et al., 2021; Krause et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2021) In addition, achieving a more equitable vaccine distribution would have utilitarian benefits: A recent modeling study compared two hypothetical scenarios – one in which the 50 richest countries used all available vaccines and one in which vaccines were allocated to all countries proportionally to their population size – finding that the former scenario would lead to twice as many COVID-19 deaths.(Herzog et al., 2021) Second, there are compelling economic arguments in favour of equitable vaccine distribution: The RAND Corporation estimates that constrained access to COVID-19 vaccines in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) would reduce the global GDP by US$ 153 billion each year, including a loss of US$ 56 billion in the European Union and United States combined.(Hafner et al., 2020) Put differently, every US$ 1 spent on supplying vaccines to LMICs would yield a return of US$ 4.8.(Hafner et al., 2020) Third, alleviating global asymmetries in COVID-19 vaccine coverage is warranted for virologic reasons. Unmitigated COVID-19 transmissions in some parts of the world will create evolutionary reservoirs from which new SARS-CoV-2 variants could arise, increasing the risk of immune escape - for both vaccine-induced and natural immunity - and of other phenotypic changes that could lead to greater virulence.(Saad-Roy et al., 2021; Telenti et al., 2021; van Oosterhout et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2021) As WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus put it: “none of us will be safe until everyone is safe”.(UN Secretary General, 2021b)

Decision-makers in high-income countries are incentivised to engage in vaccine nationalism if there is limited public support for giving COVID-19 vaccines to poorer regions of the world.(Clarke et al., 2021) Public opinion can be affected by populist rhetoric from nationalist parties, portraying vaccine donations to the Global South as a lack of patriotism. Governments will likely only donate vaccines or actively participate in international vaccine alliances such as COVAX if they do not expect to pay a price at the ballot box. A thorough understanding of public preferences for the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines is therefore paramount.

Recent empirical literature has explored public preferences for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines. A majority of these studies examined public opinion on prioritisation within high-income countries and when COVID-19 vaccine availability was still heavily constrained in those countries.(Duch et al., 2021; Gollust et al., 2020; Knotz et al., 2021; Luyten et al., 2020; Persad et al., 2021; Reeskens et al., 2021; Sprengholz et al., 2021) Based on data from online surveys and survey experiments, the studies revealed substantial public support for prioritising frontline healthcare workers and clinically vulnerable groups.(Duch et al., 2021; Persad et al., 2021) To our knowledge, only four studies to date have examined individuals’ preferences on the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines across national borders.(Clarke et al., 2021; Guidry et al., 2021; Klumpp et al., 2021; Vanhuysse et al., 2021) One online survey conducted in seven high-income countries found that around 50% of participants generally supported global allocation schemes that would give priority to the countries that could not afford to purchase vaccines.(Clarke et al., 2021) Another survey conducted in the US found that 40% of respondents were in favour of donating at least 10% of the nationally purchased vaccines to poorer countries. Support was less pronounced among older respondents – a group that is at greater risk of severe disease progression if infected.(Guidry et al., 2021)

A survey conducted in Germany asked participants to choose between different options for international agreements and alliances on the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, which varied by (i) countries joining the agreement, (ii) distribution rules, and (iii) cost per German household. The authors found that participants displayed a strong preference for an alliance exclusively composed of EU states. More importantly, the authors found that participants were more supportive of vaccine alliances if the national cost of participation was lower and national vaccine coverage higher, suggesting that participants’ preferences were significantly shaped by self-interest.(Vanhuysse et al., 2021)

In contrast, in a discrete choice experiment conducted in Germany and the US, participants in both countries expressed a strong preference for prioritising vaccine allocation to countries with a higher number of COVID-19 deaths and fewer intensive care unit beds, even when they were asked to imagine that they or a vulnerable family member were still waiting for the COVID-19 vaccine.(Klumpp et al., 2021) Notably, no previous study to date has exclusively sampled participants who were still waiting for their first COVID-19 vaccine dose when participating in the survey experiment.

In this paper, we analyse new experimental evidence from six EU countries on citizens’ preferences for the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines between the Global South and North. We advance the literature in three ways. First, by covering six countries, we implement the largest survey experiment on international vaccine allocation preferences to date and are thus able to examine differences in citizens’ preferences across EU member states. Second, we conduct a discrete choice experiment among participants who are themselves not yet vaccinated, asking them to allocate a COVID-19 vaccine to either a person in their own country or to a person in a country in the Global South. This places specific salience on the notion that donating a vaccine dose to a person in the Global South might mean sacrificing one’s own dose or that of a fellow citizen, thus leveraging self-interest-based and nationalistic considerations. Third, we specifically examine heterogeneity in participants’ preferences along key sociodemographic characteristics. Policymakers can use these insights to anticipate which population groups will be most and least supportive of COVID-19 vaccine donations.

Results

Discrete Choice Experiment

Table 2 summarises results for the main effects model, which shows, separately for each country, the impacts of the four attributes and levels on a candidate’s likelihood of being chosen by the respondent to receive the COVID-19 vaccine first. In France, Italy, Spain, and Sweden, respondents, on average, chose the hypothetical candidate from the Global South over the hypothetical candidate from their own country to receive the vaccine first (Spain: OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.55-2.06; Italy: OR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.50-2.01; Sweden: OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.24-1.65;

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2.

Main attribute effects by country

France: OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18-1.59; all p-values<0.001). For German respondents, we observe the opposite pattern: candidates from the Global South had significantly lower odds of being chosen to receive the vaccine (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62-0.76, p-value<0.001). In Poland, a candidate’s country of residence neither increased nor decreased the odds of being chosen to receive the vaccine (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.86-1.15).

For the attribute of COVID-19 mortality risk, we observe a similar pattern in all surveyed countries: The odds of being chosen to receive the vaccine were between two and almost six times higher for a candidate with an increased COVID-19 mortality risk, relative to a candidate with an average risk. The effect was even more pronounced for a candidate with a strongly increased mortality risk (ranging from OR: 4.35, 95% CI: 3.65-5.19 in Poland to OR: 14.20, 95% CI: 11.75-17.17 in Sweden; all p-values<0.001).

For employment status and age, we also observed largely similar patterns across countries: First, employed candidates who lost income due to the pandemic and candidates who were employed in essential services exhibited were significantly more likely to be chosen to receive the vaccine when compared to unemployed candidates. Second, in all countries, 40-year-old candidates had slightly higher odds of being chosen to receive the vaccine than 20-or 60-year-old candidates.

Figure 1 illustrates the results of the heterogeneity analysis that was pooled across countries (see Tables S2-3 for exact coefficients by subgroup and interaction terms). The odds of choosing the candidate from the Global South rather than the candidate from the respondents’ own country were significantly higher for female (OR of interaction: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.10-1.36, p-value<0.001) and more educated (OR of interaction: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.46-1.82, p-value<0.001) respondents, and significantly lower for older respondents (above 45 years) (OR of interaction: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61-0.76, p-value<0.001). In contrast, respondents who were themselves at high risk of a severe COVID-19 disease progression were significantly less supportive of distributing the COVID-19 vaccine to a candidate from the Global South (OR of interaction: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.63-0.78, p-value<0.001). In the subgroup of employed respondents, the odds of distributing the vaccine to a candidate in the Global South were slightly lower than in the subgroup of unemployed respondents (OR of interaction: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-1,00, p-value=0.045). The degree of COVID-19 threat perception did not seem to significantly affect respondents’ distribution preferences (OR of interaction: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.99-1.22, p-value=0.071).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Heterogeneity of country attribute by respondent characteristics (pooled sample)

Figure S3 and Tables S4-9 summarise the extent to which these patterns prevail in each country. The heterogeneities we identify were strongest in the German, Spanish, and Swedish samples. In the French and Italian sample, these patterns were prevalent, too, but not statistically significant. Interestingly, in terms of age, we found that older participants were relatively more supportive of distributing the vaccine to a candidate from the Global South in both countries. In the Italian sample, this effect was even statistically significant (OR of interaction: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.00-1.78, p-value=0.049). In the Polish survey, heterogeneity patterns were less clear, and we observed an opposite effect for educational attainment, with less educated respondents showing more pronounced preferences for an equitable vaccine distribution (OR of interaction: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52-0.99, p-value=0.044).

Discussion

In our DCE conducted online in six EU countries, we found widespread global solidarity and support for a more equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines between the Global North and South. Our results point to vaccine allocation preferences that are largely driven by the assessed vulnerability of possible recipients, irrespective of whether the recipient lives in the respondents’ own country or in the Global South. Similar to their prioritisation preferences within a country, our respondents – who are themselves not yet vaccinated against COVID-19 but do favour vaccination – appear to rely upon the same solidarity considerations when vaccines are distributed between countries. For example, they choose the candidate with the higher mortality risk over the candidate with the same nationality. In addition, we find that in a situation of vaccine scarcity and all else being equal, respondents from Spain, Italy, France and Sweden would prefer to allocate the vaccine to a person living in a country in the Global South with a worse health care system, as opposed to a person living in their own country of residence. We thus confirm the findings of studies of citizens’ distributional preferences, which revealed largely positive attitudes towards vaccine donations to poorer countries in the context of other pandemics(Kumar et al., 2012; Ritvo et al., 2013) and showed in experimental games that individuals follow egalitarian motives in their own decisions,(Dawes et al., 2007) and are even willing to punish third parties for inegalitarian behaviour.(Fehr and Gächter, 2002) Yet, we go beyond previous studies by showing that such support for allocating vaccines to low-income countries with low healthcare system capacity holds across European countries from Spain to Sweden, even among respondents who had themselves not yet gotten vaccinated, and in the context of a pandemic with truly global reach, which by the time when we conducted our experiments had lasted for well more than a year.

At the same time, our findings were inconclusive for Polish respondents and diverged for the German DCE: German survey participants were significantly less willing to allocate the COVID-19 vaccine to a person living in the Global South than to a person living in their own country, thus revealing preferences consistent with vaccine nationalism.

There are several possible explanations for the strikingly contrasting findings in Germany. First, studies have repeatedly found in-group bias (or here: national bias) in distributional preferences.(Bernhard et al., 2006; Reese et al., 2012; Yudkin et al., 2016) Such in-group bias might explain why German respondents appear willing to allocate the COVID-19 vaccines to more vulnerable candidates (e.g., those with higher COVID-19 risks) within their own country but not to candidates living in the Global South, if German participants had more nationalistic preferences, lower altruism, or less pro-social attitudes than participants from the other five countries. We lack the data to test this possible explanation directly, but it seem unlikely: several cross-country analyses investigating nationalism, patriotism, and xenophobia have found German citizens to be among the least nationalistic in Europe.(Coenders et al., 2021; Lubbers and Coenders, 2017) German citizens also do not generally appear to be outliers among their European peers in terms of altruism or similar pro-sociality variables.(Fehr et al., 2021)

Second, respondents might have been influenced by heterogeneities in the pandemic situation across countries. In Germany, our experiment was implemented as the third pandemic wave peaked, whereas in the other countries, our DCEs were launched two months later, during a phase of relatively low daily case numbers. German respondents might therefore have felt a greater urgency about having faster access to vaccination – though our data does not show evidence of a substantially higher reported COVID-19 threat perception among German respondents (see Table S10 and Figure S4).

Third, the findings could be a function of the differences in the timing of the surveys relative to the progress of national vaccination campaigns. A recent survey experiment found that individuals with a higher perceived rank in the global income distribution feel stronger pressure to donate.(Fehr et al., 2021) Extrapolating this dynamic to the context of our study, we might expect to see a higher individual inclination for vaccine donations in countries where the (perceived) vaccination rate is high by international standards. When the survey was fielded in Italy, France, Spain, Poland, and Sweden, the vaccination rate in those countries exceeded 50% (30%) for first (second) doses whereas in Germany it was only at 25% (8%) (see Table S9). This difference in domestic conditions may have affected the perceived scarcity of the COVID-19 vaccines between countries and the normative assessment thereof.

A number of limitations are worth noting. First, participants’ preferences may partly be driven by cross-country variation in (1) COVID-19 infection and mortality rates, (2) COVID-19 vaccination rates, and (3) the pandemic trajectory over time. Our analyses did not allow for any in-depth investigation of these factors. Second, on an individual level, there may be additional characteristics that explain approval or rejection of COVID-19 vaccine donations but were not captured in the survey, including (1) nationalistic attitudes, (2) altruistic preferences or (3) migration background. Third, our analysis points to a number of predictors of variation.

However, they are not susceptible to experimental manipulation and should therefore not be interpreted as causal. Fourth, at the country level (except in Germany), we were not able to achieve our initial target sample sizes due to budget constraints. Thus, we likely only have adequate statistical power in the pooled analysis. Lastly and relatedly, sample sizes varied across countries and statistical power was higher in the German survey than in the other five surveys. However, since we find statistically significant effects of the main attributes in all countries except from Poland, lack of statistical power might have been less of a concern.

Policymakers and global health scholars have condemned the unequitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines between high- and low-income countries as “vaccine apartheid”.(Gonsalves and Yamey, 2021; Harman et al., 2021) Still, the World Health Organisation’s call for a moratorium on COVID-19 booster vaccinations in high-income countries in favour of prioritising first dose vaccinations in low-income countries went unheeded, at least in part out of a sense that donating vaccines to countries in the Global South lacks popular support and might even subject the government to electoral punishment.(Krause et al., 2021) The emergence of the new Omicron variant – and fears of potential future variants – emphasises once again the transboundary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Acknowledging this, governments in high-income countries should discard mitigation strategies that are guided by the premise of vaccine nationalism.(Vanhuysse et al., 2021) Findings from our study suggest that governments of European countries can rely on solid public approval for a more equitable vaccine distribution – especially among female, younger and more educated citizens. Public support for vaccine donations to the Global South may further increase once the specific COVID-19 risk groups have received their booster vaccination. More effective international policy initiatives to ensure efficient, adequate, and timely COVID-19 vaccine transfers to low-income countries are urgently needed.

Materials and Methods

Author contributions

GAV, TB, and JIS acquired funding for this research study. JIS, HS and TB conceptualised and led the study and developed the pre-analysis plan. JIS, GAV and HS oversaw and managed the data collection. JIS and HS merged and cleaned the data, and HS conducted the data analyses and data visualisations. JIS, HS, TB, and GAV contributed to the interpretation of the quantitative findings. JIS and HS drafted the first version of the manuscript and all authors provided substantial revisions and feedback. We confirm that all authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Data availability statement

A pre-analysis plan along with justifications of any deviations thereof is accessible via the Open Science Framework website: https://osf.io/72jrq/. All data and code will be shared via the same website.