Two routes to precarious success: Australia, New Zealand, COVID-19 and the politics of crisis governance

Abstract

Australia and New Zealand are routinely presented as sharing more in common than the federal and unitary systems separating them. As two modernising Antipodean settler societies, their governing trajectories have embraced waves of public administration/management reform. Shared pathways seem matched by their relative, although precarious and fragile, early successes in the crisis challenges of COVID-19. This article contextualises and examines one crucial point of separation: two very different crisis governance routes to such outcomes. Australia’s federal variant of multi-level governance, more used to addressing diverse regional challenges than shared national threats, has been characterised by an evolving balancing act of multi-jurisdictional agendas and bureaucratic–political conflicts. By contrast, New Zealand’s unitary system of governance, well-versed in the centralisation of power, has produced lower levels of intergovernmental conflict. Our analysis of these differing pathways also makes a contribution to our conceptual understanding of successful crisis governance. Points for practitioners Administrative arrangements based around federal or unitary systems are both quite capable of contributing to successful outcomes. Essential for both are inclusive crisis discussions that are consistent with the norms of the respective systems. Success can be fragile, especially in a pandemic. Appropriate inclusive discussions can facilitate responses to cascading crisis developments and act as a safeguard against complacency.

Partisan Differences in Twitter Language Among US Legislators During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Study

“…The United States' federal and state policy responses continue to shift and vary throughout the stages of the pandemic [1]. Notable divisions related to public health measures and frameworks for closing and reopening local economies have proliferated [2]. A unique aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic is the role that social media plays in housing, disseminating, and amplifying information and opinions [3,4].…”

Getting Things Done

“…Third, we can conclude that there was no one-size-fits-all administrative route to COVID success (Bromfield & McConnell, 2020). The institutional make-up of governance systems surely mattered: centralization was harder to achieve in federal countries than in unitary states.…”

“…They explore correlations between infection and mortality rates, and a host of social, institutional, historical and political factors (varying from female vs. male heads of government to individual vs. collectivistic cultures, from climate effects to the political affiliation of leaders). This will go on for years, and it is simply impossible at this point in time to meaningfully evaluate and explain the effectiveness of all the response policies that emerged across the world (Bromfield & McConnell, 2020). 1 We will need much more data and modelling to establish whether the schools should have been closed or not, whether it made sense to limit travel, whether facemasks really made a difference, whether complete and long-lasting lockdowns were worth the price, and whether the powers appropriated and wielded by governments were proportionate.…”

Crafting Crisis Narratives

“…Many factors affect the perception of governance success in a crisis like COVID-19 (Bromfield & McConnell, 2020). The massive problems in their health systems, the socio-economic consequences of the crisis regime, tensions within ruling parties and intergovernmental relations, the timing of the pandemic in relation to the electoral cycle (in the US), the dynamics of a pre-existing crisis (Brexit, in the UK)-these were undoubtedly factors at play in this or that country.…”