The imperative of state capacity in public health crisis: Asia's early COVID-19 policy responses

Why do democracies respond differently to COVID-19? A comparison of the United States and South Korea

Background

COVID-19 has posed severe challenges to crisis management in democracies. Different democracies respond to the crisis differently. This article proposes an analytical framework to explain why democracies respond differently to the public health crisis and how different contextual factors affect crisis response in democracies.

Methods

By comparing COVID-19 responses in the US and South Korea, this article conducts a comparative case study with a most similar system design. The two countries have been selected as cases because they are both developed democracies with a robust healthcare system. However, different contextual factors in the two countries have created different crisis responses by shaping different crisis leadership and political and social solidarity. This study collected data from different sources, including government documents, official websites, leaders' speeches, research reports, academic articles and news media. We tried to enhance the reliability of the data by comparing different data sources.

Results

We found that individual, institutional and cultural dimensions of contextual factors can influence different crisis responses of democratic countries by shaping crisis leadership and political and social solidarity. On the individual and institutional dimensions, leadership style and governance structure shape crisis leadership (sense making, decision making and coordinating, and meaning making), which in turn influences crisis management. On the cultural dimension, political and social solidarity measured by political polarization and social cooperation are shaped by cultural and social norms.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that democracies require strong crisis leadership and a high degree of political and social solidarity to tackle public health crises. A centralized and coordinated system, as well as a political elite leadership style shaped by rich crisis response experience, expertise and high sensitivity to crises are conducive to crisis management. Fostering a cultural and social norm that facilitates state-society collaboration can promote crisis management. These findings provide valuable insights for decision-makers to effectively respond to future pandemics.

Public Health Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: The Role of the Morrison Government

The Australian Commonwealth government has four health-related responsibilities during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: to provide national leadership; to manage external borders; to protect residents of residential aged care facilities; and to approve, procure and roll-out tests and vaccines. State governments are responsible for determining what public health measures are appropriate and implementing them-including managing the border quarantine arrangements and the testing, tracing, and isolation regime-and managing the hospital response. This paper analyses the national government's response to the pandemic and discusses why it has attracted a thesaurus of negative adjectives.