Authoritarian populism and response to COVID-19: A comparative study of the United States, India, and Brazil

IF 2.7 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Public Affairs Pub Date : 2023-11-22 DOI:10.1002/pa.2898
Sumeera Imran, Humayun Javed
{"title":"Authoritarian populism and response to COVID-19: A comparative study of the United States, India, and Brazil","authors":"Sumeera Imran,&nbsp;Humayun Javed","doi":"10.1002/pa.2898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As the phenomenon of populism is in the preliminary stages of exploratory research, the present study involves an empirical investigation involving a case study of the United States, India, and Brazil to examine whether a correlation exists between populism and management of COVID-19. The study adopts the ideational approach of populism as a set of ideas or discourse to review how core conceptual features of populism have impacted on management of COVID-19. The study has two main objectives: (1) to examine whether populism in the United States, India, and Brazil has determined “a populist response” to the pandemic in dealing with the health crises and (2) to explore the management of COVID-19 in the states led by right-wing populism and the commonality of populist approaches adopted in handling the health crisis. Comparing the three states' statistical data of management models, the study has argued that common populist mechanisms such as distrust for experts, contempt for institutions, and suspicion of “others” have guided the US, India, and Brazilian leadership response to COVID-19. It further argues that leadership in the United States, India, and Brazil has prevented effective management by politicizing the crisis, aggravating social polarization, and contradicting expert advice. Moreover, populist and nationalist orientation of the leadership has evaded responsibility in these states with the leadership blaming ethnicities for spreading the virus and by weakening societal solidarity.</p>","PeriodicalId":47153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Affairs","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.2898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the phenomenon of populism is in the preliminary stages of exploratory research, the present study involves an empirical investigation involving a case study of the United States, India, and Brazil to examine whether a correlation exists between populism and management of COVID-19. The study adopts the ideational approach of populism as a set of ideas or discourse to review how core conceptual features of populism have impacted on management of COVID-19. The study has two main objectives: (1) to examine whether populism in the United States, India, and Brazil has determined “a populist response” to the pandemic in dealing with the health crises and (2) to explore the management of COVID-19 in the states led by right-wing populism and the commonality of populist approaches adopted in handling the health crisis. Comparing the three states' statistical data of management models, the study has argued that common populist mechanisms such as distrust for experts, contempt for institutions, and suspicion of “others” have guided the US, India, and Brazilian leadership response to COVID-19. It further argues that leadership in the United States, India, and Brazil has prevented effective management by politicizing the crisis, aggravating social polarization, and contradicting expert advice. Moreover, populist and nationalist orientation of the leadership has evaded responsibility in these states with the leadership blaming ethnicities for spreading the virus and by weakening societal solidarity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
威权民粹主义与应对COVID-19:美国、印度和巴西的比较研究
由于民粹主义现象尚处于探索性研究的初级阶段,本研究以美国、印度和巴西为例进行实证调查,以检验民粹主义与COVID-19管理之间是否存在相关性。本研究采用民粹主义作为一套思想或话语的理念方法,考察民粹主义的核心概念特征对新冠肺炎防控的影响。该研究有两个主要目的:(1)研究美国、印度和巴西的民粹主义是否在应对卫生危机时决定了对大流行的“民粹主义反应”;(2)探索在右翼民粹主义领导下的各州对COVID-19的管理以及在应对卫生危机时采取的民粹主义方法的共性。通过比较这三个国家的管理模式统计数据,该研究认为,不信任专家、蔑视机构和怀疑“他人”等常见的民粹主义机制指导了美国、印度和巴西领导层对COVID-19的应对。它进一步认为,美国、印度和巴西的领导层通过将危机政治化、加剧社会两极分化和与专家建议相矛盾,阻碍了有效的管理。此外,领导层的民粹主义和民族主义取向逃避了这些国家的责任,领导层指责种族传播病毒并削弱了社会团结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Affairs
Journal of Public Affairs PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Affairs provides an international forum for refereed papers, case studies and reviews on the latest developments, practice and thinking in government relations, public affairs, and political marketing. The Journal is guided by the twin objectives of publishing submissions of the utmost relevance to the day-to-day practice of communication specialists, and promoting the highest standards of intellectual rigour.
期刊最新文献
The Roles of Relational Leadership and Employee Satisfaction in the Linkage Between Social Capital and Employee Turnover: A Moderated-Mediation Analysis Authentic Leadership and Physical Asset Management Practices in the Public Sector: The Mediating Role of Stakeholder Engagement The Political Economy of China's Special Economic Zones and Adaptability of Developmental State Model of Industrialisation in Africa: Evidence From Nigeria Tall Tales or Success Stories? A Scrutiny of the Business Incubation Policy and Landscape in India Are Cities in Advanced Countries Saturated in Population Size?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1