Resisting Lockdown: The Influence of COVID-19 Restrictions on Social Unrest

Abstract

Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented social and political challenges. Mitigation strategies often disrupt the daily lives of citizens and constrain rights and privileges. Policies intended to contain disease spread have provoked resentment, resistance, and backlash. We examine the extent to which specific COVID-19 policy responses influence the frequency of civil unrest. Combining insights from both grievance and opportunity models of dissent, we contend that pandemic-response policies are most likely to lead to unrest when the grievances and opportunities created by disease-mitigation strategies reinforce each other. We test our arguments with nuanced information on specific pandemic-mitigation policies, combined with geolocated events data on COVID-19-related social unrest activities. We find that policies such as workplace and school closures, which induce intense grievances and reduce the opportunity cost of engaging in collective mobilization, are associated with increases in dissent activities. Policies that restrict opportunities for mobilization, such as restrictions on public transportation, reduce the number of dissent activities. Notably, economic support policies attenuate the effects of workplace closures on dissent. Our results illustrate the varying effects of pandemic-mitigation policies on unrest depending on how the grievances they inspire relate to the opportunity they create.

Authoritarian Opposition? Authoritarian Disposition and Resistance to Public Health Mitigation Strategies During COVID-19

“…Several recent studies have examined the correlates of public unrest during the COVID-19 pandemic or sought to identify the conditions that gave rise to organized opposition to restrictions. These studies highlight the role of opportunity structures in shaping anti-lockdown mobilization: protests frequency was negatively correlated with COVID-19 infection rates, negatively related to restrictions on domestic transportation and movement, and positively correlated with pre-existing state respect for civil liberties (Neumeyer, Pfaff, and Plümper, 2023; Plümper, Neumeyer, and Pfaff, 2021; Wood et al, 2022). Moreover, they suggest that grievances and general attitudes toward authorities influenced protest location and intensity.…”

“…Moreover, they suggest that grievances and general attitudes toward authorities influenced protest location and intensity. For example, protests were more common where restrictions were more severe, more costly, or more disruptive to the everyday lives of citizens (Kriesi and Oana, 2022; Plümper, Neumeyer, and Pfaff, 2021; Wood et al, 2022) and were less common where citizens reported higher levels of confidence and trust in authorities (Neumeyer, Pfaff, and Plümper, 2023).…”

“…In many cases, these restrictive policies were reinstated following periods of suspension. In some countries, such restrictions generated substantial grievances among many citizens, and provoked dissent—and occasionally violent unrest (Wood et al, 2022). Individual motives for participating in COVID-19 unrest undoubtedly varied; however, protests were most common following the imposition of restrictions that jeopardized financial well-being, severely disrupted the quotidian routines of individuals, and threatened cherished rights and privileges (Plümper, Neumeyer, and Pfaff, 2021; Wood et al, 2022).…”

“…In some countries, such restrictions generated substantial grievances among many citizens, and provoked dissent—and occasionally violent unrest (Wood et al, 2022). Individual motives for participating in COVID-19 unrest undoubtedly varied; however, protests were most common following the imposition of restrictions that jeopardized financial well-being, severely disrupted the quotidian routines of individuals, and threatened cherished rights and privileges (Plümper, Neumeyer, and Pfaff, 2021; Wood et al, 2022). Consequently, protests emerged as larger numbers of individuals perceived that the threats resulting from pandemic mitigation policies exceeded the threats posed by COVID-19.…”

Exploring the links between flood events and the COVID-19 infection cases in Romania in the new multi-hazard-prone era

“…This transition may act as a deep lever of change that allows for better multi-hazard management, which is of crucial importance given the fact that the COVID-19 management practices have significantly influenced and are influenced by risk mitigation practices that were designed prior to this global outbreak. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe and prolonged health problems (Poudel et al 2021 ; Kanne et al 2022 ; Vyas et al 2022 ), the overburdening of medical systems (Bigoni et al 2022 ; Chanda-Kapata et al 2022 ; Chemali et al 2022 ), social tensions (Donoso et al 2022 ; Fahs and Swank 2022 ; Rohlinger and Meyer 2022 ; Wood et al 2022 ), and economic disruptions (Choi et al 2022 ; Khetan et al 2022 ), increasing the vulnerability of human communities to other natural hazards and depleting their capacity to cope with hazards. On the other hand, certain hazard management practices hindered the implementation of COVID-19 preventive protocols (e.g., social distancing is difficult to maintain during evacuation procedures or in emergency shelters), damaged the medical and/or transport infrastructure, and negatively affected pandemic relief workers and volunteers (Shultz et al 2020 ; Ashraf 2021 ).…”