Democratic health in the corona pandemic. The corona pandemic as a trigger or amplifier of democratic erosion or autocratization?

Wurster, Stefan

doi:10.1007/s12286-023-00558-8

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 33 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The regime is important and it shapes the leader's response in times of crisis. Spinelli (2021), cited by Kneuer and Wurster (2023) believes that the pandemic did not cause problems related to the democratic process, but rather made them visible. In addition to the literature, the Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem) "measures", among other things, the quality of democ-racy during the pandemic and how the implemented measures violated democratic norms in 146 states (Lührmann et al, 2020).…”

Section: Theoretical Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women Executive Leadership and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Explaining Decision Making in Serbia and Germany

BAICOANĂ

2024

Perspol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Theoretical Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women Executive Leadership and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Explaining Decision Making in Serbia and Germany

BAICOANĂ

2024

Perspol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forum: Challenges to Scholarship and Policy During Crises

Davies

Alba-Ulloa

Ghosn

et al. 2023

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic influence on mortality and public health and generated much speculation on potential impacts on international politics. Fast-moving crises such as the COVID pandemic and 2008 financial crises entail many challenges for scholarship; events evolve rapidly, our prior knowledge base is limited, it is unclear whether existing theories or analogies apply, and new research findings emerge quickly but also erratically. Researchers face demands to engage with policy and general audiences when normal standards of scholarship may be difficult to apply. Crises can also have a dramatic impact on how we conduct research and interact with other scholars. The forum introduction outlines how crises pose challenges for scholarship and policy and the value of approaching crises such as COVID-19 in comparative perspective. Milner highlights the important differences between the immediately observable short-term impact of crises and the more difficult to evaluate long-run impacts. Kneuer examines how crises can impact political change, detailing how COVID countermeasures can serve as a pretext for autocratization and the safeguards afforded by institutions. Solingen examines the impact of serial crises on global value chains and the difficulties in tracing impacts when crises are compounded. De Alba-Ulloa documents how scholars in the Global South and North face similar challenges during the COVID pandemic, but differences in resources to mitigate can exacerbate inequalities. Davies highlights the difficulties in studying public opinion during COVID and need for behavioral data to understand global health emergencies. Ghosn examines dilemmas in interacting with severely affected communities during crises and offers advice on better practices.

show abstract

Internet Control and Disinformation Across Regime Types During and After the Covid‐19 Crisis

Kneuer,

Schünemann,

Bahms

2024

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The unprecedented scale of mitigation measures taken by governments during the Covid-19 pandemic raised concerns about if and to what extent democracy would be affected. Empirical accounts show that media freedom was the most vulnerable. This article concentrates on interference in digital media, as attacks on the digital realm during the pandemic were particularly harmful given that media activity moved from print to online all over the world. This large-n study makes various important contributions. Firstly, it uncovers whether regime types differ in their reactions to the Covid-19 pandemic regarding the digital media sector. Secondly, it takes a diachronic approach and examines the period before 2020, during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, and after the pandemic (2022–2023). This longitudinal exploration enables us to make nuanced statements about the post-Covid-19 developments in digital media. Thirdly, the analyses take into account different degrees of measures: less and more repressive as well as disinformation strategies. The results add value to the debate because they demonstrate that all regime types, including democracies, resorted to control mechanisms during the Covid-19 pandemic. Equally relevant is the behavior of these regimes after the pandemic: While democracies by no means cut back on all measures, autocracies did not strengthen all measures. Most remarkably, full democracies are the only regime type where governments increasingly engaged in disinformation after the pandemic. Thus, an important finding is that the pandemic did not constitute a catalyzing event for all regime types to the same extent. But the most worrisome effects are associated with the democracies.

show abstract

Democratic health in the corona pandemic. The corona pandemic as a trigger or amplifier of democratic erosion or autocratization?

Cited by 4 publications

References 33 publications

Women Executive Leadership and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Explaining Decision Making in Serbia and Germany

Women Executive Leadership and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Explaining Decision Making in Serbia and Germany

Forum: Challenges to Scholarship and Policy During Crises

Internet Control and Disinformation Across Regime Types During and After the Covid‐19 Crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About