Neoliberalism and governmental and individual responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic: A cross‐national analysis

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Psychology Pub Date : 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1111/pops.12927
Yuanze Liu, Zhongda Wu, Yuying Wang, Zhiwen Dong, Zhaoyang Sun, Yiqun Gan
{"title":"Neoliberalism and governmental and individual responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic: A cross‐national analysis","authors":"Yuanze Liu, Zhongda Wu, Yuying Wang, Zhiwen Dong, Zhaoyang Sun, Yiqun Gan","doi":"10.1111/pops.12927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the deficiencies of traditional government capacity indicators and cultural factors (e.g., individualism) in explaining the discrepancies of different agents' responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the present study proposed and examined the role of neoliberalism, a novel cultural tradition of knowledge emphasizing the principles of free markets and self‐governance, as an additional explanation of the discrepancies in the governmental and individual responses to the pandemic. Analyzing policy responses of 106 nations and personal responses from 105,203 individuals in 104 nations during the first wave of the pandemic, we found that nation‐level neoliberalism (delineated by the economic freedom index) negatively predicted the nonlinear trajectories of government policy responses to contain the pandemic. Specifically, in more neoliberal countries, stringent containment policy responses showed a sharper decline in the later stage of the first wave of the pandemic. Moreover, nation‐level neoliberalism negatively predicted individuals' pandemic‐protective attitudes and behaviors. All these effects are independent of and incremental to those of nation‐level individualism. In conclusion, this study sheds light on how neoliberalism could lead to negative consequences during large‐scale, long‐lasting public threats, offering practical guidance for adjusting public crisis management in the future.","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12927","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given the deficiencies of traditional government capacity indicators and cultural factors (e.g., individualism) in explaining the discrepancies of different agents' responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the present study proposed and examined the role of neoliberalism, a novel cultural tradition of knowledge emphasizing the principles of free markets and self‐governance, as an additional explanation of the discrepancies in the governmental and individual responses to the pandemic. Analyzing policy responses of 106 nations and personal responses from 105,203 individuals in 104 nations during the first wave of the pandemic, we found that nation‐level neoliberalism (delineated by the economic freedom index) negatively predicted the nonlinear trajectories of government policy responses to contain the pandemic. Specifically, in more neoliberal countries, stringent containment policy responses showed a sharper decline in the later stage of the first wave of the pandemic. Moreover, nation‐level neoliberalism negatively predicted individuals' pandemic‐protective attitudes and behaviors. All these effects are independent of and incremental to those of nation‐level individualism. In conclusion, this study sheds light on how neoliberalism could lead to negative consequences during large‐scale, long‐lasting public threats, offering practical guidance for adjusting public crisis management in the future.
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
新自由主义与政府和个人对COVID - 19大流行的反应:一项跨国分析
鉴于传统政府能力指标和文化因素(如个人主义)在解释不同主体对2019冠状病毒病(COVID - 19)大流行的反应差异方面的不足,本研究提出并检验了新自由主义的作用,新自由主义是一种强调自由市场和自我治理原则的新型知识文化传统。作为政府和个人在应对大流行病方面存在差异的另一个解释。通过分析106个国家的政策反应和104个国家105203人的个人反应,我们发现,国家层面的新自由主义(由经济自由指数描述)对政府控制疫情的政策反应的非线性轨迹有负面预测。具体而言,在新自由主义程度较高的国家,严格的遏制政策反应在第一波大流行的后期阶段出现了更大幅度的下降。此外,国家层面的新自由主义负向预测个体的流行病保护态度和行为。所有这些影响都独立于国家层面的个人主义,并且是递增的。总之,本研究揭示了新自由主义如何在大规模、长期的公共威胁中导致负面后果,为未来调整公共危机管理提供了实践指导。
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
8.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
When saying sorry is not enough: The paradox of a political apology offered to Irish mother and baby home survivors Political censorship feels acceptable when ideas seem harmful and false Dealing with uncertainty and cognitive biases in international politics Overcoming (vegan) burnout: Mass gatherings can provide respite and rekindle shared identity and social action efforts in moralized minority groups Perceived threat, compassion, and public evaluations toward refugees
×
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