The experiences of Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand in providing relief and stimulus packages can be compared and contrasted in various ways (Nungsari, Ch 11 in this volume; Ho, Ch 12; Archanun, Juthathip, and Mayoon, Ch 13). We observed cross-country similarities and differences, and policy responses had country-specific elements. The scope of measures to remedy the pandemic-induced economic contraction is vast and, in general, common practices that yield positive results can be taken as examples worth serious consideration. This chapter synthesizes definitive and prescriptive findings while being mindful that policy options may be contingent on circumstances. Lessons can be drawn in three key areas: (1) objectives and transitions in policy focus, (2) targeting and mechanisms and (3) structural consequences.

OBJECTIVES AND TRANSITIONS

The urgency of providing job and income protection was readily apparent in the early phases of the pandemic, specifically when all three countries implemented nationwide lockdowns from March to May 2020. As mobility restrictions were scaled down, modified or localized, relief and stimulus measures remained important, but policy priority gravitated towards job creation and economic stimulus, especially as vaccination progressed. Amid these common threads, notable similarities and variations in the policy specifics provide lessons.

Cash transfers emerged as a necessary and impactful intervention for safeguarding well-being during the unprecedentedly extensive and state-imposed lockdown, meaning mobility restrictions. Cash transfers are worth reprising in the event of another pandemic, or any crisis that may entail shutdowns beyond the control of businesses, whether due to mobility restrictions or financial meltdown. The Covid-19 experience established a precedent of concerted, direct and effective means to protect jobs and income, both of which are of utmost importance to society. Malaysia and Singapore's informal economies are relatively small and hence formal mechanisms and existing social protection institutions were able to deliver assistance to broad swathes of the population. However, some communities remained marginalized and excluded, notably migrant workers, undocumented workers and refugees.