Why do democracies respond differently to COVID-19? A comparison of the United States and South Korea.

COVID-19 has posed severe challenges to crisis management in democracies. Different democracies respond to the crisis differently. This article proposes an analytical framework to explain why democracies respond differently to the public health crisis and how different contextual factors affect crisis response in democracies. By comparing COVID-19 responses in the US and South Korea, this article conducts a comparative case study with a most similar system design. The two countries have been selected as cases because they are both developed democracies with a robust healthcare system. However, different contextual factors in the two countries have created different crisis responses by shaping different crisis leadership and political and social solidarity. This study collected data from different sources, including government documents, official websites, leaders' speeches, research reports, academic articles and news media. We tried to enhance the reliability of the data by comparing different data sources. We found that individual, institutional and cultural dimensions of contextual factors can influence different crisis responses of democratic countries by shaping crisis leadership and political and social solidarity. On the individual and institutional dimensions, leadership style and governance structure shape crisis leadership (sense making, decision making and coordinating, and meaning making), which in turn influences crisis management. On the cultural dimension, political and social solidarity measured by political polarization and social cooperation are shaped by cultural and social norms. Our findings indicate that democracies require strong crisis leadership and a high degree of political and social solidarity to tackle public health crises. A centralized and coordinated system, as well as a political elite leadership style shaped by rich crisis response experience, expertise and high sensitivity to crises are conducive to crisis management. Fostering a cultural and social norm that facilitates state-society collaboration can promote crisis management. These findings provide valuable insights for decision-makers to effectively respond to future pandemics.

Mao Y 《Frontiers in Public Health》

Political institutions and policy responses during a crisis.

How do countries with differing political institutions respond to national crises? We examine policy responses to the coronavirus pandemic in a sample of 125 countries, using high frequency data on two measures: (i) containment policies, i.e., closure of public spaces and restrictions on movement of people, and (ii) health policies, i.e., public information campaigns, testing, and contact tracing. We have four main findings. First, non-democracies impose more stringent policies prior to their first Covid-19 case, but democracies close the gap in containment policies and surpass non-democracies in health policies within a week of registering their first case. Second, while policy responses do not differ by governance systems (presidential or parliamentary), elected leaders who performed better in the last election, or face an election farther in the future, impose more aggressive policies. Third, democracies with greater media freedom respond more slowly in containment policies, but more aggressively in health policies. Lastly, more conducive norms (such as trust in the elected government) systematically predict a more aggressive policy response. Our results remain robust to allowing countries with different economic, social, and medical characteristics to have different evolution of policy responses. Our analysis therefore suggests that political institutions and the incentives of the political leaders embedded therein significantly shape the policy response of governments to a national crisis.

Chiplunkar G ，Das S 《-》

What accounts for the different regional responses to COVID-19 in China? Exploring the role of institutional environment, governance capacity and legitimacy.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought enormous challenges for public health crisis management in China. Crisis responses vary greatly among provinces. Many studies focus on the role of the central government in crisis management. However, how regional governments respond to such pandemic crises is underexplored. The existing literature lacks extensive comparative studies explaining why different regions respond differently to the crisis and how different regional institutional environments affect crisis management. By proposing an analytical framework based on governance capacity and legitimacy theory, this article seeks to address these questions. This study mainly focuses on provincial governments because they play a crucial role in coordinating various organizations and different levels of government in response to the crisis. By comparing the different COVID-19 responses of Hubei and Zhejiang provinces, this study finds that different regional institutional environments based on the triangular linkage of government, business and society influence regional crisis management by shaping different governance capacities (coordination, analytical, regulation and delivery capacity) and legitimacy (input, throughput and output legitimacy). Regional governments with strong governance capacity can promote crisis management through cross-organizational collaboration, scientific analysis and timely decision-making and effective policy implementation. Promoting citizen participation and information disclosure in the policy process and enhancing citizens' support can improve governance legitimacy, thereby facilitating crisis management. Governance capacity and legitimacy also affect each other. These findings contribute to the literature on public health crisis management. They also shed light on how regional governments in China and other countries with regional variation can effectively tackle public health crises under different institutional environments.

Mao Y 《-》

The influence of political disagreements and corruption on state health leader turnover during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

Governments faced formidable challenges in coordinating public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to enhance the understanding of effective organizational leadership during crises by investigating the factors influencing the turnover of health leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Using primary data encompassing all appointments and dismissals of federal and state health secretaries, this paper conducted a quantitative analysis of the relational and reputational factors that contributed to leader turnover during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper also examined whether leaders' management and public health experience increase the duration of tenure. States encountered significant challenges in retaining experienced and effective leadership during the health emergency, primarily due to political conflicts in policymaking and, to a lesser extent, allegations of corruption. Furthermore, leaders with expertise in public health were found to be less likely to be removed from office. However, managerial experience did not prolong the tenure of state health secretaries during the emergency. Since most health leaders have public health and management experience, the contributions of each factor to the duration of a secretary's tenure are difficult to separate and analyze separately. This study provides empirical insights into what factors drive health leader turnover during major health emergencies. During major health emergencies, health leaders often strongly disagree with elected officials on the response. This paper test how crisis leadership theories help explain state health leaders' duration in one of the world's largest public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper find that policy disagreements contributed to significant turnover. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this paper is the first that are aware of that uses novel primary data on public health executive leader characteristics and turnover causes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It provides empirical evidence contributing to the crisis leadership literature by examining health leader turnover in one of the world's largest public health systems.

Barberia LG ，Masiero G ，Alves de Lima I ，Santana L ，Moraes de Sousa TC ... -  《-》

Words matter: political and gender analysis of speeches made by heads of government during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on political leadership around the world. Differences in how leaders address the pandemic through public messages have practical implications for building trust and an effective response within a country. We analysed the speeches made by 20 heads of government around the world (Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Scotland, Sint Maarten, United Kingdom, United States and Taiwan) to highlight the differences between men and women leaders in discussing COVID-19. We used an inductive analytical approach, coding speeches for specific themes based on language and content. Five primary themes emerged across a total of 122 speeches on COVID-19, made by heads of government: economics and financial relief, social welfare and vulnerable populations, nationalism, responsibility and paternalism, and emotional appeals. While all leaders described the economic impact of the pandemic, women spoke more frequently about the impact on the individual scale. Women leaders were also more often found describing a wider range of social welfare services, including: mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence. Both men and women from lower-resource settings described detailed financial relief and social welfare support that would impact the majority of their populations. While 17 of the 20 leaders used war metaphors to describe COVID-19 and the response, men largely used these with greater volume and frequency. While this analysis does not attempt to answer whether men or women are more effective leaders in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, it does provide insight into the rhetorical tools and types of language used by different leaders during a national and international crisis. This analysis provides additional evidence on the differences in political leaders' messages and priorities to inspire citizens' adhesion to the social contract in the adoption of response and recovery measures. However, it does not consider the influence of contexts, such as the public audience, on leaders' strategic communication approaches.

Dada S ，Ashworth HC ，Bewa MJ ，Dhatt R ... -  《-》