Exploring Intra-State Tensions in Government Responses to COVID-19

Federman, Peter Stanley; Curley, Cali

doi:10.1093/publius/pjac015

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While we do not have answers to this series of questions, we do hope that this paper provides an opportunity for exploring these important and timely questions. This is particularly relevant as recent research by Federman and Curley (2022) explores the pushback that emerged in some states based on delegation decisions by governors, particularly the differences in styles and strength of pushback from local governments and state legislatures, and conflicts between legislative and bureaucratic officials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the political market framework to explain executive decision‐making during the COVID‐19 crisis

Curley

Federman

Shen

2023

Public Administration Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional political market framework (PMF) argues that elected officials respond to policy demands by adopting policy that furthers their goal of reelection. However, an emerging crisis can make this approach to decision‐making challenging as the immediacy of response, the needs of the public, and technical expertise may conflict with reelection goals. This conflict can encourage elected officials to engage in blame avoidance by delegating policy‐making powers to the bureaucracy. Utilizing a mixed methods approach to analyze state‐level governor responses to COVID‐19, this paper expands the PMF by capturing the influence of bureaucratic demands on elected official decisions to delegate or transfer power to the bureaucracy. We find evidence that bureaucratic expertise, under the right set of circumstances, influences policymaker decisions to delegate policymaking power. Lastly, we advocate for a renewed focus on democratic principles and the consequences of delegation for transparency, accountability, and social equity. In understanding the specific dynamics at play when bureaucrats and executives work to develop policy in crisis, practitioners may gain a better understanding of how to navigate difficult decisions. The specific executive orders across states are not particularly well‐known, and providing evidence of the steps other states took to combat the crisis may prove useful to practitioners in the emergency management space. If practitioners have a more complete understanding of why policy is made and by what mechanisms, they may apply a focus on implementation strategies that are effective and relevant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the political market framework to explain executive decision‐making during the COVID‐19 crisis

Curley

Federman

Shen

2023

Public Administration Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Preparing for the next pandemic: Reflections and recommendations from Florida

Liu,

Waldman,

Deal

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context The COVID-19 emergency warrants reflection on how to improve future infectious disease pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). U.S. States took diverse approaches to COVID-19, with Florida’s approach characterized by fewer restrictions on businesses and individuals. Despite the profound effects of the pandemic, there is a dearth of stakeholder-informed recommendations for PPR at the state level. This study aims to empirically examine stakeholder perspectives on PPR in Florida. Methods 25 semi-structured interviews were conducted with former and current leaders from government, academia, and the private sector in Florida. Participants were asked about challenges encountered during COVID-19 and considerations for what should be done for future pandemics. Interview transcripts and notes were analyzed using qualitative content analysis (QCA). Findings Results were organized into four main categories (recommendations for future actions, challenges in PPR, successes and failures during the COVID-19 response), across which six sub-categories were identified: public health systems capacities; mitigation of disease transmission; roles and relationships; messaging and information dissemination; minimizing other adverse effects of a pandemic; and public health culture. Considering the neglect of existing pandemic plans and jurisdictional tensions around decision-making during COVID-19, participants proposed implementing a pandemic playbook that delineates the responsibilities of relevant agencies and processes of waiving standard procedures. While many suggested closures and restrictions to avoid the spread of disease, others questioned the extent to which such strategies should be implemented. Conclusions This study corresponds with the need for consensus-building across ideological divisions, revealing tensions among federal, state, and county-level entities, as well as across state-level agencies. Participants defined successful pandemic response as not only comprising the mitigation of disease transmission, but also the minimization of adverse social and economic effects. Participants discussed strategies for a unified, well-coordinated approach to future pandemics that balances health and economic concerns.

show abstract

State Contexts for a Public Health Emergency: The Divergence of Politics and Administration in COVID-19 Vaccination Rates

Janousek,

Noh

2024

COVID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amid the array of challenges prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the policy response of governments proved vital. Different states in the U.S. pursued varied policy approaches that demonstrated distinct divergences in impact. Particularly, contrasting state contexts produced markedly assorted frameworks for the delivery of public health services, which indicate potential effects for COVID-19 policy implementation. Using the rates of COVID-19 vaccination as a measure of policy execution, the purpose of this study is to examine the political and administrative influences contributing to differences in COVID-19 public health policy outcomes among the states in the U.S. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models included data sources of nationally representative information pertaining to state public health attributes of politics and administration during the height of the pandemic and vaccine campaign. The findings suggest that state political leadership and fiscal capacity display significant associations with COVID-19 vaccination disparities, while other administrative indicators did not. The results signal important policy implications for the politics–administration dynamic within the COVID-19 pandemic and offer further understanding toward the roles of federalism and governance in future public health emergencies.

show abstract

Exploring Intra-State Tensions in Government Responses to COVID-19

Cited by 3 publications

References 30 publications

Expanding the political market framework to explain executive decision‐making during the COVID‐19 crisis

Expanding the political market framework to explain executive decision‐making during the COVID‐19 crisis

Preparing for the next pandemic: Reflections and recommendations from Florida

State Contexts for a Public Health Emergency: The Divergence of Politics and Administration in COVID-19 Vaccination Rates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About