The Nordic governments' responses to the Covid-19 pandemic: A comparative study of variation in governance arrangements and regulatory instruments.

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Regulation & Governance Pub Date : 2022-10-02 DOI:10.1111/rego.12497
Tom Christensen, Mads Dagnis Jensen, Michael Kluth, Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, Kennet Lynggaard, Per Lægreid, Risto Niemikari, Jon Pierre, Tapio Raunio, Gústaf Adolf Skúlason
{"title":"The Nordic governments' responses to the Covid-19 pandemic: A comparative study of variation in governance arrangements and regulatory instruments.","authors":"Tom Christensen, Mads Dagnis Jensen, Michael Kluth, Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, Kennet Lynggaard, Per Lægreid, Risto Niemikari, Jon Pierre, Tapio Raunio, Gústaf Adolf Skúlason","doi":"10.1111/rego.12497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Government responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in the Nordic states-Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden-exhibit similarities and differences. This article investigates the extent to which crisis policymaking diverges from normal policymaking <i>within</i> the Nordic countries and whether variations <i>between</i> the countries are associated with the role of expertise and the level of politicization. Government responses are analyzed in terms of governance arrangements and regulatory instruments. Findings demonstrate some deviation from normal policymaking <i>within</i> and considerable variation <i>between</i> the Nordic countries, as Denmark, Finland, and to some extent Norway exhibit similar patterns with hierarchical command and control governance arrangements, while Iceland, in some instances, resembles the case of Sweden, which has made use of network-based governance. The article shows that the higher the influence of experts, the more likely it is that the governance arrangement will be network-based.</p>","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538262/pdf/REGO-9999-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12497","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Government responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in the Nordic states-Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden-exhibit similarities and differences. This article investigates the extent to which crisis policymaking diverges from normal policymaking within the Nordic countries and whether variations between the countries are associated with the role of expertise and the level of politicization. Government responses are analyzed in terms of governance arrangements and regulatory instruments. Findings demonstrate some deviation from normal policymaking within and considerable variation between the Nordic countries, as Denmark, Finland, and to some extent Norway exhibit similar patterns with hierarchical command and control governance arrangements, while Iceland, in some instances, resembles the case of Sweden, which has made use of network-based governance. The article shows that the higher the influence of experts, the more likely it is that the governance arrangement will be network-based.

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
北欧各国政府应对 Covid-19 大流行病的措施:治理安排和监管手段差异的比较研究。
北欧国家--丹麦、芬兰、冰岛、挪威和瑞典--政府应对 Covid-19 大流行的措施既有相似之处,也有不同之处。本文研究了北欧国家危机决策与正常决策的差异程度,以及国家之间的差异是否与专业知识的作用和政治化程度有关。从治理安排和监管手段的角度分析了政府的应对措施。研究结果表明,北欧国家内部的决策偏离了正常的决策模式,而北欧国家之间的决策也存在很大差异,丹麦、芬兰以及挪威在一定程度上表现出了类似的等级制指挥和控制治理安排模式,而冰岛在某些情况下与瑞典相似,采用了基于网络的治理方式。文章表明,专家的影响力越大,治理安排就越有可能以网络为基础。
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
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
期刊最新文献
Procedural constraints and regulatory ossification in the US states Digitalization and the green transition: Different challenges, same policy responses? To sandbox or not to sandbox? Diverging strategies of regulatory responses to FinTech Self‐enforcing path dependent trajectories? A comparison of the implementation of the EU energy packages in Germany and the Netherlands From a cultural to a distributive issue: Public climate action as a new field for comparative political economy
×
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