**Notes:** For each regional sub-figure the upper part plots the number of active trade policy measures and the absolute number of COVID-19 cases over time while the lower part plots the weekly variation of COVID-19 cases.

**Source:** COVID-19 data from John Hopkins University CSSE database.

As noted previously, there is a more marked increase in the number of measures pertaining to medical products/PPE than actions targeting food products, and, for both sectors we observe a greater number of liberalization-cum-facilitation measures than trade restrictions. The latter pattern is stronger after May 2020, reflected in a gradual decline in the overall number of export control measures for medical products. Starting in August-September we also see a decline in the number of import-facilitating measures, reflecting a partial rollback of temporary reductions in import barriers (tariffs, taxes) for medical goods. The number of measures affecting food trade rise steadily throughout the period, with trade facilitating measures only showing a slight decline in late September/early October. The correlation between trade policies and the weekly increase in global COVID-19 cases is high, as expected, and appears to be stronger for food-related measures than for trade policies towards medical products (Table 4). Correlations that also consider cross-country variation reveal greater similarity between food and medical product-related trade policy activism.

**Table 4: Correlation between trade measures and number of global COVID cases**

||Weekly|Variation|Tota|l Cases|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||Food|Medical|Food|Medical|
|Restrictions|.867*|.666*|.743*|.515*|
|Liberalization|.926*|.806*|.827*|.657*|

Source: COVID-19 data from John Hopkins University CSSE database.

Regional patterns (see Appendix Figure A1) confirm to some extent the timing of the aggregate (global) response, but also reveal significant heterogeneity. Countries responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with heterogeneous timings and different combinations of export controls and import liberalizationcum-trade facilitating measures. Some countries acted both on the restrictive and liberalizing side creating long term changes in their pre-COVID trade policy structures for the food and medical sectors; other countries acted only on one side, either restricting trade or liberalizing it. However, short term changes in trade policy were very frequent. Finally, many countries did not employ any trade policy tool.

Figure 4 offers a visual representation at the country level of these different strategies by identifying countries that did not implement any change in their trade policy structures, and, for active jurisdictions, by distinguishing between temporary versus open ended changes in policy. Sectoral heterogeneity emerges (again) in shaping trade policy responses across countries. The food sector (Panel (a) Figure 4) is characterized by a higher number of inactive countries (colored white), and a higher tendency to implement temporary rather than open-ended trade policy changes. Some major net exporters of food tended to adopt a mix of import facilitation and export restrictions. Argentina and Indonesia did so on an open-ended basis, whereas the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan did so on a temporary basis. Other major food producers only took action to liberalize-facilitate imports of food products (e.g., Brazil and the United States). Many net importers in Africa did the same, but on an explicitly temporary basis.

Turning to trade policies towards medical products, there are again countries that take only measures to facilitate trade. Australia, Chile, and New Zealand are among those that did so on a temporary basis, while Canada, Colombia and Thailand are examples of nations that did so on an open-ended basis. In contrast, many European countries stand out by imposing measures to temporarily control exports, while other countries – Mexico and North African countries – do so on an open-ended basis. Many countries act on both the export and import margin to enhance domestic access to (availability of) medical supplies and PPE. This is the case for several large countries, e.g., Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States.

8