Ethnic Marginalization and (Non)Compliance in Public Health Emergencies

Arriola, Leonardo R.; Grossman, Allison N.

doi:10.1086/710784

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Historical experiences of exclusion can frame how people in marginalized groups engage with dominant institutions and groups (Cohen 1999). Members of marginalized groups are likely to exhibit low levels of trust in government, and empirical studies in developed (Alsan and Wanamaker 2018) and developing country contexts (Obadare 2005;Blair, Morse, and Tsai 2017;Arriola and Grossman 2020) suggest they are less likely to comply with public health advisories.…”

Section: Social Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political and Social Correlates of Covid-19 Mortality

Bosancianu¹,

Hilbig²,

Humphreys³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do political and social features of states help explain the evolving distribution of reported Covid-19 deaths? We identify national-level political and social characteristics that past research suggests may help explain variation in a society's ability to respond to adverse shocks. We highlight four sets of arguments---focusing on (1) state capacity, (2) political institutions, (3) political priorities, and (4) social structures---and report on their evolving association with cumulative Covid-19 deaths. After accounting for a simple set of Lasso-chosen controls, we find that measures of government effectiveness, interpersonal and institutional trust, bureaucratic corruption and ethnic fragmentation are currently associated in theory-consistent directions. We do not, however, find associations between deaths and many other political and social variables that have received attention in public discussions, such as populist governments or women-led governments. Currently, the results suggest that state capacity is more important for explaining Covid-19 mortality than government accountability to citizens, with potential implications for how the disease progresses in high-income versus low-income countries. These patterns may change over time with the evolution of the pandemic, however. A dashboard with daily updates, extensions, and code is provided at https://wzb-ipi.github.io/corona/.

show abstract

Section: Social Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political and Social Correlates of Covid-19 Mortality

Bosancianu¹,

Hilbig²,

Humphreys³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While we acknowledge that an empirical test of the true intentions of governments is not possible, we have generated and empirically examined three empirical observations that are consistent with our theoretical argument. (Bosancianu, Dionne, Hilbig, Humphreys, Sampada, Lieber and Scacco, 2020;Cepaluni, Dorsch and Branyiczki, 2020;Cronert, 2020;Frey, Chen and Presidente, 2020), federal institutions (Buthe, Barceló, Cheng, Ganga, Messerschmidt, Hartnett and Kubinec, 2020), partisanship (Kubinec, Carvalho, Cheng, Barceló, Hartnett, Messerschmidt, Duba and Cottrell, 2020), political polarization (Allcott, Boxell, Conway, Gentzkow, Thaler and Yang, 2020;Gadarian, Goodman and Pepinsky, 2020;Grossman, Kim, Rexer and Thirumurthy, 2020;Makridis and Rothwell, 2020;van Holm, Monaghan, Shahar, Messina and Surprenant, 2020), institutional trust (Goldstein and Wiedemann, 2020), institutional messaging (Arriola and Grossman, 2020;Everett, Colombatto, Chituc, Brady and Crockett, 2020), state capacity (Bosancianu et al, 2020;Cronert, 2020;Frey, Chen and Presidente, 2020), social norms (Barceló and Sheen, 2020;Goldberg, Gustafson, Maibach, van der Linden, Ballew, Bergquist, Kotcher, Marlon, Rosenthal and Leiserowitz, 2020), among many others. The present study contributes to this emerging literature by demonstrating how recent history of political violence can explain cross-country variation in government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Windows of Repression: Using COVID-19 Policies against Political Dissidents?

Barceló¹,

Kubinec²,

Cheng³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we explore whether government incentives to repress domestic dissidents influences the adoption, timing, and duration of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that governments which have historically repressed internal dissent are more likely to adopt policies in response to the pandemic which are observationally equivalent to those that they would use to limit domestic dissent --- in particular policies that restrict citizen's freedom of movement --- compared to countries that have not. Empirically, we find that governments that have recently engaged in state violence against civilians have been more likely to enact lockdown and curfew policies, have done so earlier in the pandemic, and have implemented these policies over a longer time period. Overall, our results have implications for understanding how the repressiveness of state institutions shapes policy responses to a global health crisis.

show abstract

“…However, by coordinated and effective public information campaigns, through example, by helping people understand that obeying these restrictions is crucial to reclaiming their lives, compliance may be enhanced. In this regard, Arriola and Grossman’s work, though in the context of Africa, may be interesting (Arriola & Grossman, 2020). They wanted to see how the social identity of individuals could affect their compliance with advice from public health officials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation Strategies and Compliance in the Covid-19 Fight; How Much Compliance is Enough?

Mukerjee

Chow

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today, with only 4% of the world's population, the U.S. is bearing a disproportionate share of COVID-19 infections. Seeking to understand this puzzle, we investigate how mitigation strategies and compliance can work together (or in opposition) to reduce (or increase) the spread of COVID-19 infection. Drilling down to the state level, we create specific state indices suitable for the U.S. to measure the degree of strictness of public mitigation measures. In this, we build on the Oxford Stringency Index. A modified time-varying SEIRD model, incorporating this Stringency Index as well as a Compliance Indicator to reduce the transmission, is then estimated with daily data for a sample of 6 U.S. states. These are New York, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, and Arizona. We provide a simple visual policy tool to evaluate the various combinations of mitigation policies and compliance that can reduce the basic reproduction number to less than one; this is the acknowledged threshold in the epidemiological literature to control the pandemic. States successful in combating the pandemic were able to achieve a suitable combination. Understanding of this relationship by the public and policy makers is key to controlling the pandemic. This tool has the potential to be used in a real-time, dynamic fashion for flexible policy options.

show abstract

Ethnic Marginalization and (Non)Compliance in Public Health Emergencies

Cited by 30 publications

References 40 publications

Political and Social Correlates of Covid-19 Mortality

Political and Social Correlates of Covid-19 Mortality

Windows of Repression: Using COVID-19 Policies against Political Dissidents?

Mitigation Strategies and Compliance in the Covid-19 Fight; How Much Compliance is Enough?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About