Federal Institutions and Strategic Policy Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic

Shvetsova, Olga; VanDusky-Allen, Julie; Zhirnov, Andrei; Adeel, Abdul Basit; Catalano, Michael; Catalano, Olivia; Giannelli, Frank; Muftuoglu, Ezgi; Rosenberg, Dina; Sezgin, Mehmet Halit; Zhao, Tianyi

doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.631363

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The titles of the published works show that relatively little attention has been paid to the problem of the interdependence between the severity of the epidemiological situation and the stringency of governmental measures. 5 A team of researchers from the universities in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US), with the participation of scientists from the Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Russia, used data from the COVID-19 Public Health Protective Policy Index Project to study variables that correlate with the overall stringency of public health measures in federal policies and the contribution of federal and subnational institutions to COVID-19 policies (Shvetsova et al 2021). The issue of stringency of anti-COVID-19 measures was also discussed in political science journals in Canada (Paquet and Schertzer 2020).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restrictive COVID-19 policies in selected EU countries and Russia: an Institutional Approach

Demchuk

Капицын

Karateev

2023

CJERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on empirical quantitative data, the article provides a comparative analysis of existing studies of the policy of countering COVID-19 infection in selected European Union countries and Russia, the specifics of restrictive governmental measures (including institutional dimension), and also provides a quantitative analysis of the relationship between the severity of epidemiological situation in a particular country, the stringency of governmental response measures, and the institutional characteristics of the country (including the quality of healthcare, management, the level of public trust in the government, value orientations, etc.), which determine the specifics of measures taken and their effectiveness. Using the developed index of the severity of the epidemiological situation, institutional characteristics that most affect the effectiveness of the measures applied and, if possible, allow combining the relatively easy passage of the pandemic with relatively lax measures were identified.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restrictive COVID-19 policies in selected EU countries and Russia: an Institutional Approach

Demchuk

Капицын

Karateev

2023

CJERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Countries with decentralized political institutions, both democratic and federal, responded to COVID-19 more efficiently (Shvetsova et al, 2020). For instance, in contrast to Brazil's populist administration at the federal level, under the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro, who notoriously called COVID-19 "just a flu", many Brazilian states took serious measures to mitigate the spread of the virus thanks to their federal institutions (VanDusky-Allen et al, 2020;Shvetsova et al, 2021). Collectivist and democratic countries provided a more efficient response to the pandemic in terms of reducing people's mobility (Frey et al, 2020).…”

Section: Political Institutions and Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

How populists fuel polarization and fail their response to COVID-19: An empirical analysis

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How well have populist leaders responded to the COVID-19 pandemic? There is a growing literature dedicated to populism and health outcomes. However, the ongoing pandemic provides us with a unique opportunity to study whether populist leaders fared better or worse than their non-populist counterparts by using a much larger sample size. While there has been a fruitful debate over whether populism is responsible for worse health outcomes, much of the focus has centered around the overall effect of having populist parties in power, without testing for different explanatory mechanisms. We argue that populist leaders fuel mass political polarization, which increases the overall level of hostility among the population and reduces their willingness to comply with anti-COVID measures and, more generally, contribute to public good. We test this theory using the expert-coded V-Party Dataset which contains variables for the ideological characteristics for parties around the world, as well as weekly excess mortality from the World Mortality Dataset. In addition to the OLS regression analysis, we employ a causal mediation framework to account for the order of succession of populism and political polarization. Our empirical results corroborate our main hypothesis that populism fuels political polarization, which is, in turn, associated with higher excess mortality during the ongoing pandemic. Our results are robust to alternative model specifications.

show abstract

“…Additionally, states can be laboratories for policymaking. Lawmakers at both the state and national level can learn from other states about which policies are effective and which are not ( Boeckelman 1992 ; Shipan and Volden 2012 ; Shvetsova et al 2020b , 2021 ). In sum, for a variety of reasons, the federal nature of the US political system may explain why the national government adopted a limited approach to mitigating the spread of COVID-19.…”

Section: Covid-19 and The Us Public Policy Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Partisanship, Policy, and Americans’ Evaluations of State-Level COVID-19 Policies Prior to the 2020 Election

VanDusky-Allen

Utych

Catalano

2021

Political Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic was a key policy issue during the 2020 election in the United States. As such, it is important to analyze how voters evaluated government responses to the pandemic. To this end, in this article, we examine factors that influenced Americans’ evaluations of state-level COVID-19 policy responses. We find that during the pandemic onset period, Americans typically rated their state governments’ responses more favorably if their governor was a co-partisan. In contrast, during the re-opening period, we find that Democrats relied on both partisanship and policy to evaluate their state-level responses, while Republicans continued to rely solely on partisanship. We contend that given the complex policy environment surrounding COVID-19, Americans may have not been fully aware of the policies their state governments adopted, so they relied on partisan cues to help them evaluate their state-level policy responses. But by the re-opening period, Americans likely had enough time to better understand state-level policy responses; this allowed Democrats to also evaluate their state-level responses based on policy. These findings shed light on how Americans evaluated COVID-19 responses just prior to the 2020 election.

show abstract

Federal Institutions and Strategic Policy Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic

Cited by 12 publications

References 55 publications

Restrictive COVID-19 policies in selected EU countries and Russia: an Institutional Approach

Restrictive COVID-19 policies in selected EU countries and Russia: an Institutional Approach

How populists fuel polarization and fail their response to COVID-19: An empirical analysis

Partisanship, Policy, and Americans’ Evaluations of State-Level COVID-19 Policies Prior to the 2020 Election

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About