Opportunistic legislation under a natural emergency: Grabbing government power in a democracy during COVID‐19

Abstract

With increasingly frequent emergencies related to pandemics, climate change, or any other as yet unforeseen disaster, it is imperative to develop our understanding of how opportunistic legislation and policy grabs may appear even in democracies. Circumventing a lengthy process of public debate and government regulation, declaration of emergency may be conducive to such opportunism. Underlying mechanisms may involve national interest groups, whereby early in the pandemic a group quickly develops a messaging strategy focused on broad public health concerns. This strategy is then implemented by state affiliates lobbying local officials and mobilizing their supporters to push executive branch officials to effectuate restrictions. We examine state‐level abortion restrictions during the outbreak of COVID‐19. Our Qualitative Comparative Analyses indicate that at least in the political context of reproductive rights and under the emergency of COVID‐19, it was level of emergency, levels of religiosity in the state and Republican dominance in government that strongly predicted the likelihood of opportunistic legislation.

Cultural biases, agenda setting, and the regulation of policy processes

“…This issue of the Review of Policy Research (RPR) touches upon the intersection of agenda setting, cultural theory, and regulation at three different levels. First, COVID-19 still presents a core interest of public policy research, given the pandemic's short-term and long-term influence on developments in different policy sectors (Béland et al, 2024;Benveniste & Mizrahi, 2023;Cook et al, 2023;Ewert & Loer, 2022;Hogan et al, 2022;Hornung et al, 2023;Mavrot & Malandrino, 2023;Sommer et al, 2023). Second, while COVID-19 presents one potential window of opportunity for setting the agenda, we may not forget about other potential dynamics in agenda setting (Bérut & Saurugger, 2023;Lewallen et al, 2024;Pattyn & Bundi, 2023).…”

“…公共政策需要解决哪些紧迫主题，它们如何与公民的价值观和偏好相互作用，以及使用或首选什么类型的监管?本期《政策研究述评》(RPR)从三个不同层面探究了议程设置、文化理论和监管的交叉。第一，鉴于新冠肺炎对不同政策部门发展的短期和长期影响，该流行病仍然是公共政策研究的一个核心兴趣(Béland, Marchildon, Medrano, & Rocco, 2024; Benveniste & Mizrahi, 2023; Cook, Thiery, & Burchell, 2023; Ewert & Loer, 2022; Hogan, Howlett, & Murphy, 2022; Hornung, Bandelow, & Iskandar, 2023; Mavrot & Malandrino, 2023; Sommer, Parent, & Li, 2023)。第二，虽然新冠肺炎为设定议程提供了一个潜在的机会之窗，但我们可能不会忘记议程设定中的其他潜在动态(Bérut & Saurugger, 2023; Lewallen, Park, & Theriault, 2024; Pattyn & Bundi, 2023)。第三，通过具有不同自治程度的监管机构、并在公共服务提供中实施政策措施，对于有效解决紧迫问题而言至关重要(Maggetti & Verhoest, 2014; Mavrot & Hadorn, 2021; Verschuere, 2009)。…”

“…Este número de Review of Policy Research (RPR) aborda la intersección entre el establecimiento de agenda, la teoría cultural y la regulación en tres niveles diferentes. En primer lugar, la COVID‐19 todavía presenta un interés central en la investigación de políticas públicas, dada la influencia a corto y largo plazo de la pandemia en la evolución de diferentes sectores políticos (Béland, Marchildon, Medrano y Rocco, 2024; Benveniste y Mizrahi, 2023; Cook, Thiery y Burchell, 2023; Ewert y Loer, 2022; Hogan, Howlett y Murphy, 2022; Hornung, Bandelow y Iskandar, 2023; Mavrot y Malandrino, 2023; Sommer, Padre y Li, 2023). En segundo lugar, si bien la COVID‐19 presenta una posible ventana de oportunidad para establecer la agenda, no podemos olvidarnos de otras dinámicas potenciales en el establecimiento de la agenda (Bérut & Saurugger, 2023; Lewallen, Park, & Theriault, 2024; Pattyn & Bundi, 2023).…”