Table 2.

Main results

COVID-19 cases	Panel A: Phillips and Sul (2007)		Panel B: Phillips and Sul (2009)
	log t	t-stat	Final club	log t	t-stat
Panel A: Club convergence results of COVID-19 cases
Full sample	$-0.394$ (0.163)	$-2.420$${}^{\ast \ast }$
Club 1 [BEL, ESP, FIN, GBR, IRL, LUX, MKD, NLD, ROU, SRB, SVK, SWE, TUR]	0.477 (0.233)	2.045	Club 1 [BEL, ESP, FIN, GBR, IRL, LUX, MKD, NLD, ROU, SRB, SVK, SWE, TUR]	0.477 (0.233)	2.045
Club 2 [AUT, BGR, CHE, CYP, CZE, DEU, DNK, EST, FRA, GRC, HRV, HUN, ISL, ITA, LTU, LVA, MLT, MNE, NOR, POL, PRT, SVN]	-0.143 (0.193)	-0.739	Club 2 [AUT, BGR, CHE, CYP, CZE, DEU, DNK, EST, FRA, GRC, HRV, HUN, ISL, ITA, LTU, LVA, MLT, MNE, NOR, POL, PRT, SVN]	$-0.143$ (0.193)	-0.739
Panel B: Teleworking and e-commerce as COVID-19 containment factors
	Club	$Teleworkin{g}_{2019}$		$E-commerc{e}_{2019}$
COVID-19 cases	1	18.9		48.692
	2	13.282		44.545

(i) Panel A: The numbers in square brackets denote the countries included in each club (countries’ abbreviations are provided in the Appendix). The term log t denotes the convergence coefficient whereas t-stat is the convergence test statistic. The latter is distributed as a simple one-sided t-test with a critical value of $-1.65$. ** denotes rejection of the null hypothesis (convergence) at 5% level of statistical significance. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. The higher the number of the club, the lower the COVID-19 cases on average. The results were estimated using the Stata codes of Du (2017). (ii) Panel B: The numbers reported in Panel B are the average values of the corresponding containment factor for each club. There is no statistically significant difference between the means of containment factors across clubs in all cases. The test for the equality of means is conducted allowing for both homogeneous and heterogeneous covariance matrices across groups (the test produces similar results under both options)