Patterns of Democracy Matter in the COVID-19 Crisis

Abstract

for their great support and the three IRPP referees for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Covid-19 and health and safety at work: Trade union dilemmas in Germany, France and Luxembourg (March 2020–December 2021)

“…While unions in Luxembourg were critical of many measures adopted over the course of the pandemic, they were involved in the negotiations over the introduction of the Covid-Check pass at workplaces, which they eventually supported. In contrast, in France, the centralised management of the pandemic ( Bandelow et al, 2021 ) left little space for social concertation with trade unions or employer organisations. In addition, relations between French unions and the state were tense after numerous conflicts over government policies in the years preceding the Covid-19 pandemic ( Yon, 2020 ).…”

Three years of COVID‐19 pandemic: Coping with crisis governance in the long term

“…在世界大部分地区因流行病的相对缓解和应急制度的结束而恢复正常之际，出现了两个问题:从治理的角度来看，COVID‐19危机对政治制度有何影响？从政治学角度来看，这场危机如何增加了我们的反思？就第一个问题而言，这场危机阐明了反应过度和反应不足的可能性，以及公众对“政府以社会可接受的方式应对大流行一事”的信任程度的重要性(Capano et al, 2020)。由于情况的特殊性，事件的时间发展也显示出第一阶段政策趋同的效果，随后出现治理路径的多样化，这些路径有关于每个国家的政策反馈如何影响政治考量(Sayers et al, 2022)。在“需要使用科学证据来治理这场存在高度不确定性的危机（其中大量数据被密切监测）”，与“需要避免‘决策过程被技术官僚化’这类指责”之间，出现了重大的紧张关系(Kuhlmann et al, 2022)。在这方面，鉴于民粹主义政府在面对突发公共卫生事件时的反科学态度的后果，大流行的民粹主义治理引起了学术界的关注(Bayerlein et al, 2021)。从更一般的角度来看，还评估了政治制度和系统的特征如何解释大流行的管理方式。与总统制相比，议会制不太可能引发强烈的政治个性化——考虑到凝聚力和非极化对于成功的危机管理的重要性，这可能是一种优势(Lecours et al, 2021)。联邦系统遭遇了特定的挑战:纵向与横向协调(Schnabel and Hegele, 2012)、以及需要在联邦解决方案和地方偏好之间找到平衡点(Bandelow et al, 2021)。不过，中心化的系统也面临着独特挑战，即政治责任集中在中央政府（同上）。此外，这场危机提醒人们，尽管事件的发生非常特殊，但先前存在的政策和权力关系也助长了当前的问题(Bergeron et al, 2020)。这场危机还表明，我们仍然在应对健康方面的社会不平等问题时能力欠佳，基于社会建构的健康资源重新分配这一角度，这些不平等是可避免的。(Aïach & Fassin, 2004)。…”

COVID-19 counterfactual evidence. Estimating the effects of school closures

“…It is probably true that there is already a large and interesting agenda for policy scholars (Dunlop et al, 2020;Weible et al, 2020), and many social scientists are more interested in looking at the opposite side of the COVID crisis, at the social and political consequences of the pandemic (Vezzoni et al, 2020), at the institutional factors triggering certain types of policy responses (Bandelow et al, 2021;Zhao et al, 2020), and at their variegated level of support (Altiparmakis et al, 2021;Bol et al, 2021;Jørgensen et al, 2021).…”