Highlights The type of authority ordering precautionary measures affects compliance. Citizens are more likely to comply with costly measures when health risks are high. Citizens are more likely to comply with authorities they view as having expertise. Policymakers should provide expert-backed advice to increase compliance. Policymakers should take measures to make compliance less costly.

No abstract

No abstract

The new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has paralysed many sectors of human life, including economic, social-cultural and political processes. In the political arena, several countries have postponed elections due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Other countries, including Malawi, went ahead with their planned elections. Malawi held a presidential election at a time when the number of COVID-19 cases was increasing rapidly. In this paper, we assess the effect of the perceived risk of catching COVID-19 on willingness to vote in the Malawi presidential election that was held on 23 June 2020. Turn out in this election was ten percentage points lower than in the general elections that were held a year earlier. The paper draws on a nationally representative survey of adult Malawians (n = 1155). In our main analysis, we use instrumental variables to account for potential endogeneity. We find that nearly two thirds of Malawians thought that they were likely to catch COVID-19 at some point. Notwithstanding the COVID-19 risk, 86% of the country’s citizens were willing to vote. Our analysis shows that an individual’s perceived risk of catching COVID-19 is associated with a lower likelihood of voting (β = − 0.096; p < 0.05). This suggests that voter turnout in Malawi’s fresh presidential election may have been highly affected by the perceived risk of catching COVID-19. The policy implication is that instituting and enforcing primary preventive measures may help reduce the perceived risk of catching COVID-19 and mitigate voter apathy.

Traditional leadership often coexists with modern political institutions; yet, we know little about how traditional and state authority cues—or those from male or female sources—affect public opinion. Using an original survey experiment of 1,381 Malawians embedded in the 2016 Local Governance Performance Index (LGPI), we randomly assign respondents into one of four treatment groups or a control group to hear messages about a child marriage reform from a female or male traditional authority (TA) or parliamentarian. In the sample as a whole, the female TA is as effective as the control (i.e., no endorsement), while other messengers elicit lower support (i.e., backfire effects). Endorsements produce heterogeneous effects across respondent sex and patrilineal/matrilineal customs, suggesting the need for tailored programs. Our paper adds an intersectional approach to the governance literature and offers a theoretical framework capable of explaining the impact of state and traditional endorsements across policy domains.