I wouldn’t be surprised if there are but I’m honestly not aware of them.
> European countries did better: governments encouraged struggling employers to keep workers on their payrolls with reduced hours, and then made up some or all of the pay gap. Unlike the ppp, such programmes were usually aimed only at struggling firms that needed to cut salaries (though they were not always well targeted: a share of beneficiaries in Britain continued to pay dividends). Yet despite the flaws in America’s programme, the study’s authors argue that Congress was incapable of doing better. Crafting a targeted policy would have been hard, expensive and slow. Many countries that kept workers in jobs had programmes in place already: some of the most successful—including France, Japan and Germany—simply increased coverage and benefits at the onset of the pandemic. If America hopes to waste less money in future crises, it should plan ahead.
But that’s not necessarily due to the PPP. Stimulus checks and unemployment insurance were the majority of the $2.2 billion effort. European countries were more efficient with their version of PPP (and perhaps general pandemic assistance programs) because they leveraged existing programs that touched payrolls.
From the article:
> Many countries that kept workers in jobs had programmes in place already: some of the most successful—including France, Japan and Germany—simply increased coverage and benefits at the onset of the pandemic.
These programs were created quickly - some countries had better infrastructure to handle this than the US - but the alternative could have been an underwhelming response to an even larger problem.