What makes for successful deployment of fear during a crisis?

Johnson, Matthew; Flinders, Matthew; Degerman, Dan

doi:10.1332/204378921x16201509216560

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Degerman et al 2020 ). Johnson et al ( 2021 , p. 320) argue that for the “effective management of crises, fear must be sustained alongside the promotion of civic virtues, such as solidarity, responsibility and duty”.…”

Section: Discussion: Citizenship In the Context Of The Covid-19 Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizenship in times of crisis: biosocial state–citizen relations during COVID-19 in Austria

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing upon 152 in-depth qualitative interviews with residents in Austria carried out in the first year of the pandemic, this article discusses how people’s experiences with COVID-19 policies reflect and reshape state–citizen relations. Coinciding with a significant government crisis, the first year of COVID-19 in Austria saw pandemic measures justified with reference to a biological, often medical understanding of health that framed disease prevention in terms of transmission reduction, often with reference to metrics such as hospitalisation rates, etc. Instead of using this biomedical frame, our interviewees, however, drew attention to biopsychosocial dimensions of the crisis and problematised the entanglements between economy and health. We call this the emergence of a biosocial notion of citizenship that is attentive to psychological, social and economic dimensions of health. Insights into the biosocial nature of pandemic citizenship open a window of opportunity for addressing long-standing social injustices.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Citizenship In the Context Of The Covid-19 Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizenship in times of crisis: biosocial state–citizen relations during COVID-19 in Austria

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That intervention, through lockdowns and self-isolation mandates, often required substantive constraints on negative liberty (see Berlin 1969). Increasingly, it became apparent that decades-old settled neoliberal principles had actively contributed to the crisis and been rendered obsolete by conditions on the ground (see Johnson et al, 2021). There was no market solution to the need for intensive care beds, creating medicines, funding and training researchers, or restricting transmission of new variants via international travel and commerce.…”

Section: 'Shove'mentioning

confidence: 99%

After nudging: the ethical challenge of post-pandemic policymaking in the UK

Degerman,

Johnson,

Flinders

et al. 2024

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the interplay between crises, opportunities and democratic change in the United Kingdom. A vast body of scholarship underlines that crises open ‘windows of opportunity’ that can occasionally lead to radical shifts in the role of the state and the design of public policy. Even when a radical shift occurs, however, it has often proved temporary, with relationships and processes quickly reverting to pre-crisis modes once the immediacy of the crisis abates. This may not be true of our present period of crisis following the COVID-19 pandemic. The consequences of decades of underinvestment in infrastructure and increasing concentration of resources in a small minority of individuals and organisations are being exacerbated by climate change, geopolitical conflict and new waves of disease. The challenge for policymakers in the UK now is heightened by evidence that suggests that nudging, a libertarian paternalist means of promoting certain ends, is ineffective. Policymakers who have long used state neutrality between conceptions of the good as the justification for not promoting certain ends now have to confront a real ethical dilemma: coerce to achieve specific outcomes or invest in addressing the social determinants that actually affect behaviour. This article suggests that contrary to decades of opposition to redistribution among UK policymakers, only the latter is consistent with libertarian paternalism.

show abstract

“…Forms of Universal Basic Income (UBI) have been advanced over several decades by policymakers from across the political spectrum. Providing individuals with a largely unconditional means of satisfying basic needs has been presented as a means of dealing with labour market insecurity, bureaucratic stagnation (Gordon 2014 ) regional inequality, absolute poverty and, more recently, public health (Johnson et al 2021 ). The universality of UBI as a policy has increased in salience during the pandemic with programmes such as ‘furlough’, the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (HM Revenue and Customs 2021 ), and temporary freezes on evictions (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 2021 ) being deployed to prevent destitution among non-welfare recipient cohorts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, support for tax and spending and belief in the legitimacy of state involvement in the economy had risen to medium-term highs (see NatCen 2018 ). The pandemic has only heightened that consensus, with both the UK Conservative Government and the US Democratic Administration believing that the state alone has the capacity to address myriad challenges associated with regional inequalities, health, housing, infrastructure and climate (see Johnson et al 2021 ). This represents a significant shift in public perception and policy development that cannot easily be explained through reference to values.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are ‘red wall’ constituencies really opposed to progressive policy? Examining the impact of materialist narratives for Universal Basic Income

Johnson

Nettle

2022

Br Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is often presented as desirable in theory, but unsaleable electorally. Policymakers fear intuitive, ‘values’-based opposition from socially conservative voters, whom the policy would benefit materially, but who might regard it as ‘giving others something for nothing’. We provide evidence from ‘red wall’ constituencies in Wales and the Midlands and North of England that indicates this presumption of voters is wrong. In Study 1, we find high levels of support for the policy, with different narrative framings more effective for different groups based on their material interests. In Study 2, we used a novel ‘adversarial collaboration’ method to show that simple narratives can strongly increase support for UBI even among respondents who initially see themselves as fundamentally opposed. The generated narratives stressed positive, material consequences of introducing UBI, rather than conformity with abstract values. This indicates that policymakers should exercise caution over ‘values’-based explanations for preferences. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41293-022-00220-z.

show abstract

What makes for successful deployment of fear during a crisis?

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Citizenship in times of crisis: biosocial state–citizen relations during COVID-19 in Austria

Citizenship in times of crisis: biosocial state–citizen relations during COVID-19 in Austria

After nudging: the ethical challenge of post-pandemic policymaking in the UK

Are ‘red wall’ constituencies really opposed to progressive policy? Examining the impact of materialist narratives for Universal Basic Income

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About