Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective Well-Being of the Solo Self-Employed and Employees in Germany (2019–2023)

Peters, Eileen; Pohlmeyer, Merle; Buschoff, Karin Schulze Article — Published Version Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective Well-Being of the Solo Self-Employed and Employees in Germany (2019–2023) Social Indicators Research Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Peters, Eileen; Pohlmeyer, Merle; Buschoff, Karin Schulze (2025) : Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective Well-Being of the Solo Self-Employed and Employees in Germany (2019–2023), Social Indicators Research, ISSN 1573-0921, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Vol. 180, Iss. 1, pp. 183-204, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03640-8 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/330896 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ORIGINAL RESEARCH Accepted: 28 May 2025 / Published online: 17 June 2025 © The Author(s) 2025, corrected publication 2025 Eileen Peters [email protected] 1 Institute of Economic and Social Research, Düsseldorf, Germany Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective Well-Being of the Solo Self-Employed and Employees in Germany (2019–2023) EileenPeters1· MerlePohlmeyer1· Karin SchulzeBuschoff1 Social Indicators Research (2025) 180:183–204 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03640-8 Abstract Previous research indicates that the self-employed have higher subjective well-being (SWB) than employees. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many self-employed individuals experienced exceptionally high levels of economic stress due to limited government and social security support. This is especially true of the solo self-employed (i.e., self-employed without employees). Drawing on nationally representative panel data spanning the years 2019–2023—and thus the onset, peak, and fading out of the pandemic—we used fixed-effects regression models to analyze the SWB trajectories of the solo self-employed and employees in Germany in terms of life satisfaction and job satisfaction. Our results show that SWB was only moderately affected in 2020 but declined steeply in 2021. Although life satisfaction recovered moderately in 2022 and 2023, it remained substantially lower than pre-pandemic levels. The life satisfaction of the solo self-employed decreased more strongly than that of employees in 2020 and 2021. Job satisfaction also saw a steep decline in 2021, with solo self-employed individuals experiencing a greater drop than employees. However, the job satisfaction of the solo self-employed returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2022, whereas that of employees continued to decline in 2022 and 2023. These insights shed light on how the SWB of different employment groups was affected during this unprecedented crisis and provide valuable information for more effective interventions in future crises. Keywords Subjective well-being · COVID-19 · Solo self-employed · Employees · Germany 1 3 E. Peters et al. 1 Introduction The lives of people across the globe were abruptly and fundamentally changed by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Measures to contain the spread of the virus had significant repercussions on both the public and private spheres. Social distancing mandates and lockdowns in particular contributed to a marked increase in anxiety, depression, stress, and feelings of social isolation and loneliness (Benke et al., 2022; Brodeur et al., 2021). Furthermore, work conditions were heavily impacted. Some sectors experienced a slowdown, others saw a surge in demand, resulting in heterogeneous effects on people’s work hours— furloughs and short-time work for some, overtime for others (Alon et al., 2020; Bünning et al., 2020; Frodermann et al., 2020). These pandemic-related measures altered living and work conditions and had adverse effects on mental health and subjective well-being (SWB) (e.g., Bähr et al., 2022; Huebener et al., 2024; Kriechel et al., 2024; Nieuwenhuis & Yerkes, 2021; Patzina et al., 2024; Peters et al., 2023; Zoch et al., 2021), which intensified as the pandemic progressed—also with the advent of other crises (Benke et al., 2022; Entringer & Kröger, 2021; Kriechel et al., 2024; Patzina et al., 2024). However, adversity and advantage in coping with the burdens resulting from the pandemic per se and with the restrictions to help contain it (e.g., lockdowns, social distancing) were unequally distributed across social groups (Adams-Prassl et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2023). It quickly became clear that in most countries the self-employed were particularly hard hit by the (negative) consequences of the pandemic and the restrictions associated with it (Adams-Prassl et al., 2020; Graeber et al., 2021; Torrès et al., 2022; Yue & Cowling, 2021). Research on the situation in Germany indicates that the self-employed were significantly more impacted than employees by pandemic-related sales and income losses (Kritikos et al., 2020; Peters & Schulze Buschoff, 2025). Income losses among the selfemployed were not only more severe but also persisted longer; as of January 2022, twice as many self-employed individuals reported income losses due to the pandemic compared with employees (Peters & Schulze Buschoff, 2025). Furthermore, income losses were more pronounced among the self-employed than among employees (Graeber et al., 2021; Kritikos et al., 2020; Peters & Schulze Buschoff, 2025). The solo self-employed—that is, selfemployed persons without employees—were particularly affected by the negative impact of the pandemic on income and by feelings of financial strain (Schulze Buschoff & Emmler, 2021). As it became evident that the self-employed were particularly vulnerable to financial difficulties and emergencies, the German government introduced various financial support programs. One of the earliest and most prominent was the Immediate Assistance Program (Soforthilfe-Programm), which provided a one-time payment of up to €15,000 to selfemployed individuals affected by revenue declines. However, this financial aid could not fully compensate for income losses or cover living expenses, although this would have been necessary, especially for many solo self-employed individuals (Grabka, 2021). Thus, in contrast to the short-time working allowance available to employees, these measures did not offer sufficient protection against financial hardship (David et al., 2022; Grabka, 2021; Stiel et al., 2021; Weber et al., 2024).1 Consequently, many self-employed individuals 1 The short-time working allowance (Kurzarbeitergeld) scheme was one of the most relevant measures in Germany in terms of protecting employees from income losses and furloughs. The Federal Employment Agency subsidizes up to 60% of employees’ net income (or 67% for employees with children). 1 3 184 Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective… faced severe threats to their livelihoods, as contact restrictions, shutdowns, and restricted store opening hours limited their business, forcing many to give up their self-employment (Hanschke & Strauß, 2021; Kritikos et al., 2021). The pandemic thus underscored the vulnerability of the self-employed during crises, primarily due to their inadequate social security protection. The implications are profound: Research indicates that the mental health and life satisfaction of self-employed individuals deteriorated more than that of employees (Kritikos et al., 2020; Torrès et al., 2022; Yue & Cowling, 2021). Although these studies explored how the pandemic affected the SWB of both the selfemployed and employees, most covered only the initial phase. First research for Germany shows that being self-employed was associated with greater decreases in SWB compared with employees, indicating that the self-employed are a vulnerable group (Kritikos et al., 2020; Jaschke et al., 2023; Zoch et al. 2022). While these findings offer some insights, there is still a critical need to investigate how the medium-term consequences of the pandemic shaped the SWB trajectories of both self-employed individuals and employees. Key questions remain unanswered: Did SWB continue to deteriorate as the pandemic progressed, or did it recover with the rollout of vaccines and the easing of restrictions? Did the SWB trajectories of the solo self-employed and employees diverge as the pandemic unfolded and eventually receded? This paper extends previous research by examining SWB trajectories not only during the initial phase of the pandemic but also as it progressed and receded, and by assessing whether SWB among employees and the solo self-employed recovered, or if lingering effects persisted—an aspect that previous research has not addressed. Using longitudinal data from the nationally representative German Panel Study Labour Market and Social Security (PASS; Trappmann et al., 2019) covering the years 2019–2023, we explored how different employment groups coped with extreme stressors over time, thus capturing the medium-term consequences of the pandemic. This period was characterized by multiple crises, including Russia’s war against Ukraine, rising energy prices, and increasing inflation rates, all of which negatively impacted SWB (Kriechel et al., 2024). Although a few studies to date have explored how SWB (Huebener et al., 2024; Kriechel et al., 2024) and mental health (Patzina et al., 2024) developed during and after the pandemic in Germany, they did not focus on differences between the self-employed and employees. Furthermore, previous studies have mostly not accounted for the fact that the selfemployed are a very heterogeneous group, ranging from the solo self-employed to those with numerous employees (Binder, 2017; Johansson Sevä et al., 2015). Hence, this paper focuses on the solo self-employed, who tend to have more precarious working conditions compared with their counterparts with employees (Binder, 2017; Binder & Coad, 2012), and who appear to have been particularly affected economically by the restrictions to contain the virus (Schulze Buschoff & Emmler, 2021). In doing so, we follow calls from researchers emphasizing the importance of recognizing the heterogeneity within the self-employed population to avoid blurring the relationship between self-employment and SWB (e.g., Binder, 2017). Finally, by examining different dimensions of SWB, this paper explores whether the pandemic had varying effects on SWB. It operationalizes SWB through measures of overall life satisfaction and job satisfaction. By distinguishing between these two aspects, it provides a more nuanced understanding of how different components of SWB were affected during the pandemic. 1 3 185 E. Peters et al. 2 Self-Employment in Germany and the COVID-19 Pandemic Self-employment in Germany is in a constant state of flux and is characterized by a high level of dynamism. This is true both of the number of self-employed individuals and the structure and composition of self-employment. Recent decades have seen a particular increase in the share of the solo self-employed. In 2002, the group of the self-employed included for the first time more solo self-employed persons than self-employed individuals with employees. This trend ended in 2012, and since then, the overall number of self-employed individuals has declined, with the number of solo self-employed individuals decreasing even more than that of self-employed individuals with employees. In 2023, around 8.5% of the German workforce were self-employed, which corresponds to around 3.9 million people (Federal Statistical Office, 2024). In recent years, self-employment has emerged as a highly heterogeneous employment category encompassing various industries and professional fields. As this heterogeneity increases, the boundaries between dependent employment and self-employment are becoming increasingly blurred. Furthermore, in Germany, social security law has significant gaps in the protection of the self-employed, and labor law provides only fragmentary protection for self-employed individuals. For instance, statutory minimum wage regulations do not apply to the self-employed, leaving them without a lower limit of income protection. This problem is particularly prevalent in the platform economy, where orders or units of work are awarded online, largely independent of time and place, to workers who are formally classified as self-employed (Schulze Buschoff, 2018). Self-employment in Germany is increasingly diverse and polarized, with significant disparities in social circumstances and income levels compared with employees (Bonin et al., 2022). Overall, the development in recent years towards a diversification of self-employment has been accompanied by a comparatively high proportion of solo self-employed individuals with precarious working conditions characterized by irregular and low income and insufficient access to social security protections (Brenke & Beznoska, 2016; Conen et al., 2016; Vermeylen et al., 2017). The lack of comprehensive social security coverage for the self-employed is predominantly a German phenomenon. Whereas most EU countries include self-employed individuals in state insurance schemes, Germany mandates compulsory insurance only for a few specific groups, or for those classified as bogus self-employed (Weber et al., 2024).2 This limitation is based on the assumption that the self-employed can independently provide for their own welfare and do not require collective protection through public insurance systems (Schulze Buschoff, 2016). However, it is evident that many self-employed people—particularly the solo self-employed—are no different from those already subject to compulsory insurance or from employees, in that they rely on selling their labor and face the same social risks, such as old age, illness, and unemployment. Thus, there have been long-standing calls for the comprehensive inclusion of all self-employed workers in state social security systems (Fachinger, 2007; Schulze Buschoff, 2016). 2 Some social insurance branches have been opened to self-employed individuals. Since 2006, self-employed persons have been eligible for voluntary continued participation in unemployment insurance, but only after a period of dependent employment. Health insurance became mandatory for all in 2009. However, social security rules remain fragmented, with about a quarter of self-employed persons enrolled in special mandatory pension schemes; this share varies widely by occupational group. 1 3 186 Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective… The pandemic highlighted the vulnerable situation of the self-employed in terms of social protection against labor market risks, as it quickly became clear that this group was particularly hard hit by its (negative) consequences (Kritikos et al., 2020, 2021; Seebauer et al., 2021; Schulze Buschoff & Emmler, 2021). Hence, at the end of 2020, the government took steps to protect the self-employed by adopting the Social Protection Package I, which provided easier access to basic social security for the self-employed, among others. Financial support programs, such as the Immediate Assistance Program (Soforthilfe-Programm), provided one-time payments of up to €15,000 to those self-employed persons affected by revenue declines. However, the financial aid could not fully compensate for income losses or cover living expenses (Grabka, 2021). Unlike employees, the self-employed were not eligible for the short-time work allowance and remained poorly protected against risks such as unemployment and income loss. Many struggled to sustain their businesses during contact restrictions and quarantines, leading some to abandon self-employment altogether (Hanschke & Strauß, 2021; Kritikos et al., 2021). As a result, the self-employed faced greater financial worries and income losses than employees during the pandemic (Kritikos et al., 2020; Peters & Schulze Buschoff, 2025). In summary, the self-employed—especially solo self-employed individuals—were more affected than employees by the negative consequences of the pandemic, particularly in the form of financial losses (e.g., Schulze Buschoff & Emmler, 2021). This raises the question of whether these financial losses and greater uncertainties also impacted their SWB. 3 Shifts in SWB Among Employees and the Self-Employed The concept of SWB originated in positive psychology (Diener, 1984) and is associated with good health, longevity, better social relationships, work performance, and creativity (Diener et al., 2018).3 It has been increasingly adopted in fields such as sociology and economics as an indicator for quality of life (Diener & Chan, 2011; Stiglitz et al., 2009). SWB can be influenced by different areas of life, such as family situation, social environment, health, and work. In the absence of major life events and external shocks, SWB—and particularly its cognitive component, life satisfaction—is generally regarded as a relatively stable construct, exhibiting minimal fluctuations over time. Low levels of SWB may not only adversely impact individual health but can also lead to negative labor market outcomes, underscoring the importance of monitoring SWB as a vital element of social policy evaluation and development (McMahan & Estes, 2011). Hence, decreases in SWB may indicate that political actors should take social policy measures. The pandemic—and government measures to contain it—resulted in restrictions on people’s personal and professional lives. Along with financial losses and worries, there was an increase in subjective stresses such as loneliness, worry, and depression (Brodeur et al. 2021; Kritikos et al., 2020; Peters & Schulze Buschoff, 2025). Initial evidence for Germany indicates that SWB decreased during the first year after the outbreak of the pandemic 3 Diener’s definition of SWB comprises an affective and a cognitive component. The affective component refers to moods and emotions, which represent people’s immediate evaluations of life events (Diener et al., 1999). When examining the course of SWB during the pandemic, we considered the cognitive component, life satisfaction, because a comprehensive assessment of the life situation was more meaningful for the present research than an assessment of the affective component. 1 3 187 E. Peters et al. (Bähr et al., 2022; Nieuwenhuis & Yerkes, 2021; Zoch et al., 2021). Therefore, based on the significantly altered life and work circumstances due to government restrictions during the pandemic in Germany and on previous research, we propose the following hypothesis: H1. The SWB of solo self-employed individuals and employees in Germany declined during the pandemic. Cross-national comparative studies show that the self-employed generally have higher SWB than employees (e.g., Johansson Sevä et al., 2015; Nordenmark et al., 2023; Yue & Cowling, 2021). This is usually attributed to the entrepreneurial opportunities, greater autonomy, and flexibility of self-employment (Binder, 2017; Binder & Coad, 2012). However, selfemployment also brings inherent risks, such as income instability and job insecurity (Binder, 2017; Binder & Coad, 2012). Notwithstanding these risks, studies provide evidence for greater SWB among the self-employed compared with employees (e.g., Johansson Sevä et al., 2015; Nordenmark et al., 2023; Yue & Cowling, 2021). During the pandemic, many of the typical advantages of self-employment, such as flexibility and autonomy, were severely constrained by lockdowns and government restrictions, while the negative aspects—particularly financial instability—became more pronounced. Besides the adverse effects on income, there were also clear negative effects on the SWB of the self-employed. Compared with employees, the self-employed—and the solo self-employed in particular—were more frequently impacted by subjective factors such as the heavy burden of their work situation, financial pressures, and concerns regarding their professional future (Schulze Buschoff & Emmler, 2021). Furthermore, research findings indicate that the mental health of the selfemployed deteriorated more than that of employees, and that their life satisfaction declined more sharply (Caliendo et al., 2022; Kritikos et al., 2020; Torrès et al., 2022; Jaschke et al., 2023). This means that, in addition to the greater financial hardships during the pandemic, there were differences in subjective perceptions, such as stress and worries, which were more pronounced among the self-employed, especially the solo self-employed (Kritikos et al., 2020; Schulze Buschoff & Emmler, 2021). A comparison of the SWB of the self-employed and employees in the EU-27 countries during the pandemic (Nordenmark et al., 2023) suggests that the different welfare systems— and thus the different levels of social security protection for the self-employed—could be responsible for differences in SWB between these two groups. In the Nordic countries (e.g., Denmark, Finland, Sweden), whose welfare systems differ from those of countries such as Germany, smaller differences in SWB were observed between the self-employed and employees. In Germany, the self-employed appear to have been significantly more affected by the crisis than employees, which also translated into greater decreases in their SWB during the first months of the pandemic (Kritikos et al., 2020; Zoch et al. 2021). Considering the different dynamics and protection measures during the pandemic in Germany and their heterogeneous impact on the burdens experienced by the solo self-employed and employees, we hypothesize: H2. The decline in SWB during the pandemic in Germany was more severe among the solo self-employed than among employees. 1 3 188 Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective… Previous research on SWB during the pandemic has focused predominantly on the first year after the outbreak. By contrast, the present study also incorporates data from 2022, a period when many restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of the virus had been lifted and a gradual return to normalcy was underway, and 2023, when the majority of pandemic-related restrictions had been lifted for nearly a year, which might have helped to level out any negative impacts on SWB. However, the pandemic may have had lasting effects on SWB due to prolonged economic insecurity, lingering health issues, weakened social ties, and deepseated psychological scars that continued to affect it long after restrictions have been lifted. Furthermore, this period was marked by multiple crises, including Russia’s war against Ukraine and rising energy prices and inflation rates. This raises the question of whether SWB showed signs of recovery in 2022 and 2023, or whether the lingering effects of the pandemic and the multiple other crises continued to have a detrimental effect. 4 Data and Method 4.1 Data and Sample Our analyses are based on data from the German Panel Study Labour Market and Social Security (PASS) conducted by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) (Trappmann et al., 2019). PASS is an annual large-scale nationally representative panel survey that collects householdand individual-level data. The target population comprises all private households in Germany. In addition to a representative general population sample, PASS includes a sample of welfare benefit recipients. As we were interested in SWB, including satisfaction with employment, we restricted the sample to employed and self-employed respondents. PASS data are collected using a mix of computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) and computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). The large sample size allows for detailed analyses of the employment histories of self-employed workers and employees. The panel data include information on respondents’ sociodemographic and employment characteristics and their satisfaction with certain life domains. The longitudinal nature of the data enables the depiction of changes over time—also during the pandemic. To capture how SWB trajectories evolved during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic levels, we drew on data from Waves 13–17 (2019–2023). To interpret the results on the development of SWB during this period, it is essential to know what pandemic-related measures were in place at the time of the respective surveys and to consider how they may relate to our findings. Table A1 in the Online Appendix displays the percentage of interviews conducted in each month for each survey year. PASS interviews are usually conducted between February and April each year. The share of interviews conducted during those months ranged between 44% in 2023 and 84% in 2021. Therefore, variances due to different interview time points should not influence our results. In 2020 (Wave 14), nearly half of the respondents took part in the survey between February and April. In March 2020, as COVID-19 infection rates increased in Germany, government measures were implemented to curb the spread of the virus. On March 22, lockdown measures and contact restrictions were announced, which led to the closing of businesses and schools. The services sector, in which a significant number of solo self-employed individuals work, was particularly impacted. Restrictions were gradually eased in May 2020. Thus, some respondents were 1 3 189 E. Peters et al. interviewed before and others after the first lockdown came into force. However, as the pandemic was already salient in the news and already impacted individuals’ behavior, there should be no difference between the SWB of respondents interviewed in February and those interviewed in March or April.4 In 2021, 84% of the interviews were conducted between February and April—56% in March alone. In November 2020, a partial lockdown was implemented, which had evolved into a stricter lockdown by mid-December 2020. These measures were repeatedly extended. At the beginning of March 2021, shops and close-contact services were permitted to reopen, subject to strict hygiene protocols. However, on March 22, due to high infection rates, the lockdown was extended until April 18, 2021. This marked the final lockdown, although the overall pandemic situation remained uncertain. In 2022, the majority of PASS respondents were interviewed between February and April; again, over half of the interviews (54%) were conducted in March. At the beginning of 2022, the number of infections was high. However, due to widespread vaccination and increased testing, no new lockdown measures were implemented. In November 2021, the measures were reduced to proof of 2G status (vaccinated or recovered), 2G + status (vaccinated or recovered + negative COVID-19 test), or 3G status (vaccinated, recovered, or tested), together with the obligation to wear a face mask. By April 2022, the only remaining requirement was to wear an FFP2 mask on public transport and in healthcare facilities and retirement homes. Hence, this was a fading-out period, where most of the major restrictions had been lifted. The PASS survey conducted in 2023 (Wave 17)—the most recent survey in our dataset—thus serves as a first observation after most pandemic measures had been lifted for nearly a year. We limited our analyses to employees and self-employed individuals aged 18–65 years. To ensure comparability of work hours and monthly wages, we excluded individuals in marginal employment (Minijobber), and those with “minijobs” in addition to their main employment, thereby reducing the sample by 6.7%. In addition, as the group of self-employed is highly heterogenous and our focus was on the solo self-employed, we excluded all selfemployed respondents with employees (3%). Furthermore, we excluded contributing family workers and farmers, due to the difficulty of comparing these groups of self-employed persons (e.g., Binder, 2017). The solo self-employed in our sample could be members of the liberal professions or other solo self-employed persons.5 As SWB can be driven by employment changes, we also excluded individuals who had changed their employment status during the observation period (12.3%). Our aim in so doing was to ensure that differences in SWB between the solo self-employed and employees were not due, for example, to switches out of self-employment into dependent employment or unemployment (Binder, 2017; Binder & Coad, 2012).6 After listwise deletion of missing values (4.7%), the final sample comprised 7,152 individuals and encompassed 17,060 person-years, with 506 solo 4 A comparison of the SWB of respondents who participated in February with that of respondents who participated in March showed that it did not differ statistically significantly between these groups. 5 Additional sensitivity analyses showed that solo self-employed members of the liberal professions and other solo self-employed individuals did not differ in their SWB development during the observation period. See Table A3 and Fig. A2 and A3 in the Online Appendix. 6 The transition matrix shows that the prevalence of switches was comparable at each time point, and that only a small percentage of respondents (8.5% of solo self-employed and 3.8% of employees) experienced a change in employment status during the observation period. Sensitivity checks confirmed that results remained substantively unchanged when these individuals were included (see Online Appendix Table A4). 1 3 190 Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective… from Model 1 in Table 2. These plots show whether the decline between 2019 and subsequent observation points differed statistically significantly between solo self-employed respondents and employees, thus indicating which group was more affected. If the confidence intervals cross zero (dashed line), the differences were not statistically significant at the 90% confidence level. Figure 3 shows that from 2019 to 2020, the life satisfaction of the solo self-employed decreased to a greater extent (b = − 0.212, p = 0.056) than that of employees. This trend persisted in 2021, when the solo self-employed experienced more negative impacts on their life satisfaction compared with 2019 (b = − 0.239, p = 0.094) than did employees. As indicated by the statistically insignificant interaction term in Model 1 in Table 2, there were no differences between the life satisfaction trajectories of the two groups in 2022 or 2023. Figure 4 illustrates the conditional marginal effects plots derived from Model 2 in Table 2. As the confidence intervals crossed zero (dashed line), there was no difference in the impact of the pandemic on job satisfaction among the solo self-employed in 2020 compared with employees. In 2021, the decline in job satisfaction was considerably steeper for the solo self-employed (b = 0.358, p = 0.066). However, after 2021, there were no statistically significant differences in job satisfaction trajectories between the two groups. Overall, our findings support H2, which posited that the decline in SWB during the pandemic in Germany was more severe among the solo self-employed than among employees. However, the steeper decline in SWB among the solo self-employed in 2021 was not a lasting trend but disappeared in 2022, when pandemic-related restrictions were gradually eased, and in 2023, when they had had been lifted for nearly a year. Fig. 3 Differences in changes in life satisfaction between the solo self-employed and employees, 2019– 2023. Note: Based on Model 1 in Table 2. Own calculations based on data from PASS Waves 13–17. 90% confidence intervals (CIs). Controlled for: relationship status, children under 15 years living in household, weekly work hours, log monthly individual gross income, receipt of pandemic-related government aid, receipt of social welfare benefits 1 3 197 E. Peters et al. 5.3 Sensitivity Analyses We performed several sensitivity checks to ensure the validity of our core findings (detailed results available upon request). First, we re-estimated our models by replacing individual gross monthly income with household net income to account for broader financial resources available to respondents. While household income better captures the material living conditions within a household—including partner income and public transfers—it is less directly linked to the respondent’s employment status. In this alternative specification, the interaction effects between survey year and solo self-employment on life satisfaction (Table 2, Model 1) became statistically insignificant when household income was included instead of individual income. This suggests that individual income plays a key statistical role in differentiating the life satisfaction trajectories of solo self-employed individuals and employees, and that excluding it may obscure relevant variation related to income disparities. In contrast, results for job satisfaction (Table 2, Model 2) remained robust regardless of whether individual or household income was controlled for. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of how income is operationalized in models of subjective well-being: individual income helps clarify employment-related differences in life satisfaction, whereas household income may reflect compensatory resources that buffer financial strain and attenuate observed group differences. Especially during the pandemic, when external childcare was limited, individuals who shouldered childcare responsibilities might have experienced greater decreases in SWB. As the solo self-employed usually have greater work flexibility and autonomy, it might have been easier for them to reconcile increased childcare demands with work responsibilities. However, accounting for childcare responsibilities did not change our core findings on Fig. 4 Differences in changes in job satisfaction between the solo self-employed and employees, 2019– 2023. Note: Based on Model 2 in Table 2. Own calculations based on data from PASS Waves 13–17. 90% confidence intervals (CIs). Controlled for: relationship status, children under 15 years living in household, weekly work hours, log monthly individual gross income, receipt of pandemic-related government aid, receipt of social welfare benefits 1 3 198 Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective… SWB. Furthermore, controlling for education and for age from 18 to 65 years measured in 5-year intervals confirmed our core findings. Excluding actual weekly work hours from the models did not change our core findings. 6 Conclusion This study aimed to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted SWB—operationalized as life satisfaction and job satisfaction—among the solo self-employed and employees in Germany. Although previous research has examined the immediate effects of the pandemic, there has been little research on its medium-term consequences, on whether SWB recovered or continued to deteriorate as the pandemic unfolded, and on what happened after the gradual lifting of restrictions and return to normalcy. By leveraging nationally representative longitudinal data covering the years 2019 to 2023, this study extends prior research by capturing the entire course of the pandemic, from its onset, through its peak, to its eventual decline. We focused specifically on the solo self-employed, a group that tends to face greater financial precarity and that was particularly vulnerable to the economic disruptions caused by the pandemic (Schulze Buschoff & Emmler, 2021). During the pandemic, the usual advantages of self-employment, such as flexibility and independence, were greatly limited by lockdowns and government restrictions, while the negative aspects, particularly financial instability, became more prominent. This was reflected in heightened psychological stress, with this group reporting increased concerns about financial security and worsened mental health (Caliendo et al., 2022; Peters & Schulze Buschoff, 2025). Our findings show that the SWB of both solo self-employed individuals and employees declined significantly during the pandemic. Notably, the initial decline in life satisfaction was more pronounced than the decrease in job satisfaction. This suggests that the broader life challenges posed by the pandemic, such as health concerns, social restrictions, and financial uncertainty, may have impacted overall well-being more than job-related wellbeing. More specifically, we found that with the onset of the pandemic in 2020, declines in life satisfaction were moderate, and job satisfaction did not appear to be affected by the pandemic-related restrictions. A substantial decline in both life satisfaction and job satisfaction became evident in 2021 among employees and the solo self-employed. This is in line with first evidence in Germany showing that the adverse effects of the pandemic on loneliness, depression, mental health, and SWB intensified over the course of the pandemic (Benke et al., 2022; Entringer & Kröger, 2021; Kriechel et al., 2024; Patzina et al., 2024). Further, our results suggest that the solo self-employed were disproportionately more negatively affected by the pandemic in terms of life satisfaction. The decline in their life satisfaction was steeper in 2020 and in 2021, which marked the lowest level of life satisfaction during the observation period. Turning to the results on job satisfaction, we also detected substantial differences between the two groups. In line with previous research (Binder, 2017), the solo self-employed had higher job satisfaction levels than employees before the pandemic, but this gap closed in 2021. Although both groups experienced lower job satisfaction compared with pre-pandemic levels, solo self-employed individuals’ job-satisfaction decreases were three times higher compared with those of employees. Hence, during the first year after the outbreak of the pandemic (2020–2021), the solo self-employed experienced a more severe decline in SWB than employees. 1 3 199 E. Peters et al. Furthermore, as we explored SWB trajectories up to and including 2023, when government restrictions had already been lifted, vaccinations were widely available, and life gradually returned to normalcy, our results provide insights into how SWB developed during the fading-out period. Life satisfaction for both groups increased moderately after 2021. Thus, the fading out of the pandemic and the lifting of restrictions had a positive effect on the life satisfaction of the solo self-employed and employees. However, the life satisfaction of both groups remained substantially lower than pre-pandemic levels, which suggests a slow recovery. Surprising differences in job satisfaction emerged between employees and the solo selfemployed. Whereas employees’ job satisfaction continued to decline in 2022 and 2023, that of the solo self-employed appears to have recovered by 2022. This highlights the importance of exploring different components of SWB, as their dynamics may differ. These results are in line with those of a study analyzing feelings of stress and concerns about the future of their employment among self-employed individuals and employees in Germany from April 2020 to July 2023 (Peters & Schulze Buschoff, 2025). It found that in the period April 2020–April 2022, the self-employed experienced higher levels of stress due to their work situation and more worries about their professional future compared with employees. However, whereas stress and worries decreased for the self-employed during that period, employees’ stress and worries increased and were more pronounced as of April 2022. One explanation could be the higher resilience of the self-employed and the reemergence of the positive aspects of self-employment, such as autonomy and flexibility, which are important drivers of job satisfaction among the self-employed (Binder, 2017). By contrast, employees were better protected than the self-employed against income losses and unemployment during the pandemic thanks to the short-time work allowance, which probably cushioned the decline in job satisfaction levels. However, in 2022, dramatic increases in inflation, supply bottlenecks, and uncertainties slowed down the German economy and possibly decreased employees’ job satisfaction due to uncertainty and stagnating wages. Future research should therefore further investigate why the job satisfaction trajectories of the solo self-employed and employees differed during the observation period. Our analyses clearly show how SWB varied throughout the pandemic. Relatedly, previous research analyzing data from the bi-annual German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA) showed that SWB exhibited dynamic patterns of change during the pandemic and beyond, driven by the multiple crises faced by the population (Kriechel et al., 2024). To fully understand the impact of COVID-19 and concurrent crises—such as Russia’s war against Ukraine—it is thus crucial to consider the exact timing of the surveys, the pandemicrelated measures in place at that time, the severity of infection waves, and the presence of additional crises (e.g., rising inflation rates). Accounting for these factors ensures a more accurate interpretation of SWB trends and broader societal impacts. Despite these insights, this study has certain limitations. First, we could not sufficiently account for the heterogeneity within the group of solo self-employed, which may have led to different SWB trajectories for different industries and occupations. Future research should therefore investigate how the pandemic affected SWB among groups of solo self-employed workers that differed in terms of their income and precarity. Similarly, future research should examine differences between various categories of self-employment, such as solo self-employed versus self-employed with employees, as well as opportunity-driven versus necessity-driven self-employment. 1 3 200 Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective… Second, in our analyses, we did not differentiate by gender. However, a comparison by gender could shed light on gendered dynamics in SWB during the pandemic. Studies show that during the pandemic, women were generally more negatively affected in their SWB compared with men (Patzina et al., 2023), and that self-employed women were more affected in terms of financial losses than were their male counterparts (Graeber et al., 2021; Seebauer et al., 2021). Therefore, future research should consider the gendered impact of the pandemic on SWB among the self-employed. As women are more often solo self-employed, this heterogeneity should also be considered to achieve more in-depth insights into how the pandemic affected female self-employed persons. Despite these limitations, this study provides novel insights into how the SWB of the solo self-employed and employees in Germany evolved during and after the pandemic. The findings offer a more nuanced understanding of how different employment groups were affected, emphasizing the crucial role of individual income in explaining differences in life satisfaction. Rather than self-employment alone driving disparities between the two groups, income stability was a key factor. These insights are particularly relevant for shaping future policy measures to mitigate the long-term effects of the pandemic and to improve crisis response strategies. While government support programs for the self-employed, such as the Immediate Assistance Program and the Restart Assistance Program, provided temporary relief, they were limited in scope and duration and often hindered by bureaucratic hurdles (David et al., 2022; Grabka, 2021; Kritikos et al., 2022). The inadequacy of these measures likely contributed to the significant decline in SWB among solo self-employed individuals. Strengthening social protections for the self-employed—such as better integration into social security systems—could help alleviate financial uncertainty and existential risks, ultimately buffering some adverse effects on life satisfaction. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 1 2 0 5 - 0 2 5 - 0 3 6 4 0 - 8 . Data Availability The PASS data are available to researchers at h t t p s : / / f d z . i a b . d e / e n / o u r - d a t a - p r o d u c t s / i n d i v i d u a l - a n d - h o u s e h o l d - d a t a / p a s s /. Declarations Conflict of Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Adams-Prassl, A., Boneva, T., Golin, M., & Rauh, C. (2020). Inequality in the impact of the coronavirus shock: Evidence from real time surveys. Journal of Public Economics, 189., Article 104245. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j p u b e c o . 2 0 2 0 . 1 0 4 2 4 5 1 3 201 E. Peters et al. Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. SAGE Publications, Inc. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 4 1 3 5 / 9 7 8 1 4 1 2 9 9 3 8 6 9 Alon, T., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., & Tertilt, M. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality (NBER Working Paper 26947). National Bureau of Economic Research. h t t p s : / / w w w . n b e r . o r g / s y s t e m / fi l e s / w o r k i n g _ p a p e r s / w 2 6 9 4 7 / w 2 6 9 4 7 . p d f Bähr, S., Frodermann, C., Kohlnuss, J., Patzina, A., Stegmaier, J., & Trappmann, M. (2022). COVID-19, subjective well-being and basic income support in Germany. Zeitschrift Für Sozialreform, 68(1), 85–117. https://doi.org/10.1515/zsr-2022-0005 Benke, C., Autenrieth, L. K., & Pané-Farré, C. A. (2022). One year after the COVID-19 outbreak in germany: Long-term changes in depression, anxiety, loneliness, distress and life satisfaction. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 273, 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-022-01400-0 Binder, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial success and subjective well-being: Worries about the business explain one’s well-being loss from self-employment (SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 947). DIW Berlin. h t t p s : / / w w w . d i w . d e / d o c u m e n t s / p u b l i k a t i o n e n / 7 3 / d i w _ 0 1 . c . 5 7 5 0 7 4 . d e / d i w _ s p 0 9 4 7 . p d f Binder, M., & Coad, A. (2012). Life satisfaction and self-employment: A matching approach. Small Business Economics, 40, 1009–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9413-9 Bonin, H., Krause-Pilatus, A., Rinne, U., Koch, N., & Nenzel, C. (2022). Selbstständige Erwerbstätigkeit in Deutschland (IZA Research Report No. 132). IZA– Institute of Labor Economics. h t t p s : / / d o c s . i z a . o r g / r e p o r t _ p d f s / i z a _ r e p o r t _ 1 3 2 . p d f Brenke, K., & Beznoska, M. (2016). Solo-Selbstständige in Deutschland. Strukturen und Erwerbsverläufe (BMAS-Forschungsbericht, 465). Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. h t t p s : / / w w w . b m a s . d e / D E / S e r v i c e / P u b l i k a t i o n e n / F o r s c h u n g s b e r i c h t e / f b - 4 6 5 - s o l o - s e l b s t a e n d i g e . h t m l Brodeur, A., Clark, A. E., Fleche, S., & Powdthavee, N. (2021). COVID-19, lockdowns and well-being: Evidence from Google trends. Journal of Public Economics, 193., Article 104346. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j p u b e c o . 2 0 2 0 . 1 0 4 3 4 6 Bünning, M., Hipp, L., & Munnes, S. (2020). Erwerbsarbeit in Zeiten von Corona (WZB Ergebnisbericht). Berlin Social Science Center. h t t p s : / / w w w . w z b . e u / s y s t e m / fi l e s / d o c s / d s i / a f / E r w e r b s a r b e i t % 2 0 i n % 2 0 Z e i t e n % 2 0 v o n % 2 0 C o r o n a . p d f Caliendo, M., Graeber, D., Kritikos, A. S., & Seebauer, J. (2022). Pandemic depression: Covid-19 and the mental health of the self-employed. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(3), 788–830. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 1 0 4 2 2 5 8 7 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 6 Conen, W., Schippers, J., & Schulze Buschoff, K. (2016). Self-employed without personnel: Between freedom and insecurity (WSI Study No. 05). Institute of Economic and Social Research. h t t p s : / / w w w . e c o n s t o r . e u / b i t s t r e a m / 1 0 4 1 9 / 2 2 5 4 2 8 / 1 / w s i - s t u d y - 0 5 . p d f David, A., Dienes, C., García Schmidt, A., Kay, R., Rosenberger, T., Sajons, C., Sänger, R., Schäfer, S., & Terstriep, J. (2022). Unternehmerisches Handeln und staatliche Unterstützungsmaßnahmen in der COVID-19-Pandemie (ReCOVery Policy Brief). Institut Arbeit und Technik. h t t p s : / / w w w . i a t . e u / a k t u e l l / v e r o e ff / 2 0 2 2 / d a v i d _ t e r s t r i e p 0 2 . p d f Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 7 / 0 0 3 3 - 2 9 0 9 . 9 5 . 3 . 5 4 2 Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 7 5 8 - 0 8 5 4 . 2 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 4 5 . x Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6 Entringer, T., & Kröger, H. (2021). Psychische Gesundheit im zweiten Covid-19 Lockdown in Deutschland (SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, 1136). DIW Berlin. h t t p s : / / w w w . d i w . d e / d o c u m e n t s / p u b l i k a t i o n e n / 7 3 / d i w _ 0 1 . c . 8 1 9 6 0 1 . d e / d i w _ s p 1 1 3 6 . p d f Fachinger, U. (2007). Versicherungspflicht überfällig: Rentenversicherung. Wirtschaftsdienst, 87(6), 349– 350. h t t p s : / / w w w . e c o n s t o r . e u / b i t s t r e a m / 1 0 4 1 9 / 6 8 5 3 3 / 1 / 7 3 4 5 2 9 2 4 4 . p d f Federal Statistical Office (2024, January 2). CORRECTION: Employment reaches a new high in 2023 [Press release]. h t t p s : / / w w w . d e s t a t i s . d e / E N / P r e s s / 2 0 2 4 / 0 1 / P E 2 4 _ 0 0 1 _ 1 3 3 2 1 . h t m l Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114(497), 641–659. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 4 6 8 - 0 2 9 7 . 2 0 0 4 . 0 0 2 3 5 . x Frodermann, C., Grunau, P., Haepp, T., Mackeben, J., Ruf, K., Steffes, S., & Wanger, S. (2020). Wie Corona den Arbeitsalltag verändert hat (IAB-Kurzbericht, 13/2020). Institute for Employment Research. https://doku.iab.de/kurzber/2020/kb1320.pdf 1 3 202 Diverging Paths? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Subjective… Grabka, M. (2021). Einkommensungleichheit stagniert langfristig, sinkt aber während der Corona-Pandemie leicht. DIW-Wochenbericht, 18. DIW Berlin. h t t p s : / / w w w . d i w . d e / d o c u m e n t s / p u b l i k a t i o n e n / 7 3 / d i w _ 0 1 . c . 8 1 7 4 7 3 . d e / 2 1 - 1 8 - 1 . p d f Graeber, D., Kritikos, A. S., & Seebauer, J. (2021). COVID-19: A crisis of the female self-employed. Journal of Population Economics, 34, 1141–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-021-00849-y Hanschke, K., & Strauß, S. (2021, March 5). Sie sterben still. FAZ. h t t p s : / / w w w . f a z . n e t / a k t u e l l / f e u i l l e t o n / d e b a t t e n / i n - d e r - k a n t - s t r a s s e - i n - b e r l i n - z e i g t - s i c h - d a s - v e r s a g e n - d e r - w i r t s c h a f t s p o l i t i k - 1 7 2 1 8 1 3 2 . h t m l Huebener, M., Waights, S., & Spiess, C. K. (2024). Well-being throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: Gendered effects of daycare and school closures (BiB Working Paper, 06/2024). Federal Institute for Population Research. h t t p s : / / w w w . b i b . b u n d . d e / P u b l i k a t i o n / 2 0 2 4 / p d f / W e l l - b e i n g - t h r o u g h o u t - t h e - C O V I D - 1 9 - p a n d e m i c - i n - G e r m a n y - G e n d e r e d - e ff e c t s - o f - d a y c a r e - a n d - s c h o o l - c l o s u r e s . p d f ? _ _ b l o b = p u b l i c a t i o n F i l e & v = 2 Jaschke, P., Kosyakova, Y., & Kuche, C. (2023). Mental health and well-being in the first year of the COVID19 pandemic among different population subgroups: Evidence from representative longitudinal data in Germany. British Medical Journal Open, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071331. Article 071331Walther, L., Goßner, L. Jacobsen, J., Ta, T-M-T, Hahn, E., Hans, S., & Bajbouj, M. Johansson Sevä, I., Vinber, S., Nordenmark, M., & Strandh, M. (2015). Subjective well-being among the self-employed in europe: Macroeconomy, gender and immigrant status. Small Business Economics, 46, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9682-9 Kriechel, L., Bujard, M., & Hudde, A. (2024). The rollercoaster of subjective well-being in times of multiple crises: Evidence of five waves of bi-annual panel data of FReDA survey (BiB Working Paper 10/2024). Federal Institute for Population Research. h t t p s : / / w w w . b i b . b u n d . d e / P u b l i k a t i o n / 2 0 2 4 / p d f / T h e - r o l l e r c o a s t e r - o f - s u b j e c t i v e - w e l l b e i n g - i n - t i m e s - o f - m u - l t i p l e - c r i s e s - E v i d e n c e - o f - fi v e - w a v e s - o f - b i - a n n u a l - P a n e l - d a t a - o f - F R e D A - s u r v e y . p d f ? _ _ b l o b = p u b l i c a t i o n F i l e & v = 2 Kritikos, A., Graeber, D., & Seebauer, J. (2020). Corona-Pandemie wird zur Krise für Selbstständige (DIW aktuell No. 47). DIW Berlin. h t t p s : / / w w w . d i w . d e / d o c u m e n t s / p u b l i k a t i n e n / 7 3 / d i w _ 0 1 . c . 7 9 1 6 7 9 . d e / d i w _ a k t u e l l _ 4 7 . p d f Kritikos, A., Graeber, D., & Seebauer, J. (2021). Corona-Pandemie drängt Selbstständige vermehrt zur Geschäftsaufgabe– Frauen stärker betroffen (DIW aktuell No. 69). DIW Berlin. h t t p s : / / w w w . d i w . d e / d o c u m e n t s / p u b l i k a t i o n e n / 7 3 / d i w _ 0 1 . c . 8 2 1 5 3 4 . d e / d i w _ a k t u e l l _ 6 9 . p d f McMahan, E. A., & Estes, R. J. (2011). The relationship between subjective well-being and health: A review of the literature. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9204-9 Nieuwenhuis, R., & Yerkes, M. A. (2021). Workers’ well-being in the context of the first year of the COVID19 pandemic. Community Work & Family, 24(2), 226–235. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 3 6 6 8 8 0 3 . 2 0 2 1 . 1 8 8 0 0 4 9 Nordenmark, M., Landstad, B. J., Tjulin, Å., & Vinberg, S. (2023). Life satisfaction among self-employed people in different welfare regimes during the COVID-19 pandemic: Significance of household finances and concerns about work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20065141. Article 5141. Patzina, A., Collischon, M., & Kroh, J. (2023). The gendered effects of COVID-19 on well-being: A household perspective [preprint]. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/h2fa7 Patzina, A., Collischon, M., Hoffmann, R., & Obrizan, M. (2024). Mental health in Germany before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. MedRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.21.24309286. [preprint]. Peters, E., & Schulze Buschoff, K. (2025). Krise Ohne ende?? Die folgen der COVID-19 pandemie für die selbstständigen. In B. Kohlrauch, E. Peters, & K. Schulze Buschoff (Eds.), Was von Corona Übrig bleibt– Erwerbsarbeit, soziale ungleichheit, gesellschaftliche folgen (pp. 7–20). Campus. Peters, E., Reimann, M., & Diewald, M. (2023). The stress and resources of higher status hypotheses in light of COVID-19: Effects on work-life conflict and self-rated health. Soziale Welt, 74(1), 88–115. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 5 7 7 1 / 0 0 3 8 - 6 0 7 3 - 2 0 2 3 - 1 - 8 8 Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (3rd ed.). Stata. Schulze Buschoff, K. (2016). Solo-Selbstständigkeit in Deutschland. Aktuelle Reformoptionen (WSI Policy Brief No. 4). Institute of Social and Economic Research. h t t p s : / / w w w . w s i . d e / d e / f a u s t - d e t a i l . h t m ? s y n c _ i d = H B S - 0 0 6 3 1 4 Schulze Buschoff, K. (2018). Selbstständigkeit und hybride Erwerbsformen. Sozialpolitische Gestaltungsoptionen (WSI Policy Brief No. 21). Institute of Social and Economic Research. h t t p s : / / w w w . w s i . d e / d e / f a u s t - d e t a i l . h t m ? s y n c _ i d = H B S - 0 0 6 8 2 4 Schulze Buschoff, K., & Emmler, H. (2021). Selbstständige in der Corona-Krise (WSI Policy Brief No. 60). Institute of Social and Economic Research. h t t p s : / / w w w . b o e c k l e r . d e / d e / f a u s t - d e t a i l . h t m ? s y n c _ i d = H B S - 0 0 8 1 1 2 1 3 203 E. Peters et al. Seebauer, J., Kritikos, A. S., & Graeber, D. (2021). Warum Vor allem weibliche selbstständige Verliererinnen der Covid-19-Krise Sind. DIW Wochenbericht, 15, 261–269. h t t p s : / / w w w . d i w . d e / d e / d i w _ 0 1 . c . 8 1 5 7 9 4 . d e / p u b l i k a t i o n e n / w o c h e n b e r i c h t e / 2 0 2 1 _ 1 5 _ 3 / w a r u m _ v o r _ a l l e m _ w e i b l i c h e _ s e l b s t s t a e n d i g e _ v e r l i e r e r i n n e n _ d e r _ c o v i d - 1 9 - k r i s e _ s i n d . h t m l Stiel, C., Kritikos, A. S., Block, J., & Priem, M. (2021). Soforthilfe für Selbstständige wirkt vor allem positiv, wenn sie rasch gewährt wird (DIW aktuell No. 60) DIW Berlin. h t t p s : / / w w w . d i w . d e / d e / d i w _ 0 1 . c . 8 1 2 7 4 6 . d e / p u b l i k a t i o n e n / d i w _ a k t u - e l l / 2 0 2 1 _ 0 0 6 0 / s o f o r t h i l f e _ f u e r _ s e l b s t s t a e n d i g e _ w i r k t _ v o r _ a l l e m _ p o s i - t i v _ _ w e n n _ s i e _ r a s c h _ g e w a e h r t _ w i r d . h t m l Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. h t t p s : / / e c . e u r o p a . e u / e u r o s t a t / d o c u m e n t s / 8 1 3 1 7 2 1 / 8 1 3 1 7 7 2 / S t i g l i t z - S e n - F i t o u s s i - C o m m i s s i o n - r e p o r t . p d f Torrès, O., Benzari, A., Fisch, C., Mukerjee, J., Swalhi, A., & Thurik, R. (2022). Risk of burnout in French entrepreneurs during the COVID-19 crisis. Small Business Economics, 58(1), 1–23. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 1 1 8 7 - 0 2 1 - 0 0 5 1 6 - 2 Trappmann, M., Bähr, S., Beste, J., Eberl, A., Frodermann, C., Gundert, S., Schwarz, S., Teichler, N., Unger, S., & Wenzig, C. (2019). Data resource profile: Panel study labour market and social security (PASS). International Journal of Epidemiology, 48(5), 1411–1411g. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz041 Vermeylen, G., Wilkens, M., Biletta, I., Parent-Thirion, A., & Contreras, R., R (2017). Exploring self-employment in the European union. Eurofound. Publications Office of the European Union. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 8 0 6 / 6 5 1 9 1 7 Weber, T., Eiffe, F., & Adascalitei, D. (2024). Self-employment in the EU: Job quality and developments in social protection. Eurofound Publications Office of the European Union. h t t p s : / / w w w . e u r o f o u n d . e u r o p a . e u / e n / p u b l i c a t i o n s / 2 0 2 4 / s e l f - e m p l o y m e n t - e u - j o b - q u a l i t y - a n d - d e v e l o p m e n t s - s o c i a l - p r o t e c t i o n Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press. Yue, W., & Cowling, M. (2021). The Covid-19 lockdown in the united Kingdom and subjective well-being: Have the self-employed suffered more due to hours and income reductions? International Small Business Journal, 39(2), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620986763 Zoch, G., Bächmann, A. C., & Vicari, B. (2021). Reduced well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic– The role of working conditions. Gender Work & Organization, 29(6), 1969–1990. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / g w a o . 1 2 7 7 7 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3 204