信任之路:在COVID - 19大流行期间解释公民对专家的信任和基于证据的政策制定

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Public Administration Pub Date : 2023-09-13 DOI:10.1111/padm.12962
Angelos Angelou, Stella Ladi, Dimitra Panagiotatou, Vasiliki Tsagkroni
{"title":"信任之路:在COVID - 19大流行期间解释公民对专家的信任和基于证据的政策制定","authors":"Angelos Angelou, Stella Ladi, Dimitra Panagiotatou, Vasiliki Tsagkroni","doi":"10.1111/padm.12962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic brought forward new questions about the efficient implementation of arduous public policies. Drawing evidence from the pandemic, this article argues that, during crises, policymakers will often opt for evidence‐informed policymaking, hoping for better results. In line with previous studies, we show that citizens trust more policies coming from experts rather than policymakers and elected politicians. We also add nuance to these claims as we attribute this tendency to the technocratic legitimacy thesis, referring to the symbolic significance of expert authority. Employing a public opinion survey conducted across four European countries, Germany, Greece, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, we show that independently of prior levels of political trust and each country's mortality rate, citizens welcomed evidence‐informed policies during the pandemic's first wave. Politicians can leverage these insights to increase public compliance with crisis management policies.","PeriodicalId":48284,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paths to trust: Explaining citizens' trust to experts and evidence‐informed policymaking during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Angelos Angelou, Stella Ladi, Dimitra Panagiotatou, Vasiliki Tsagkroni\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/padm.12962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic brought forward new questions about the efficient implementation of arduous public policies. Drawing evidence from the pandemic, this article argues that, during crises, policymakers will often opt for evidence‐informed policymaking, hoping for better results. In line with previous studies, we show that citizens trust more policies coming from experts rather than policymakers and elected politicians. We also add nuance to these claims as we attribute this tendency to the technocratic legitimacy thesis, referring to the symbolic significance of expert authority. Employing a public opinion survey conducted across four European countries, Germany, Greece, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, we show that independently of prior levels of political trust and each country's mortality rate, citizens welcomed evidence‐informed policies during the pandemic's first wave. Politicians can leverage these insights to increase public compliance with crisis management policies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Administration\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12962\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12962","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2019冠状病毒病大流行对艰巨的公共政策的有效实施提出了新的问题。本文以此次大流行为例,认为在危机期间,决策者往往会选择基于证据的决策,希望获得更好的结果。与之前的研究一致,我们表明公民更信任专家的政策,而不是政策制定者和民选政治家。我们还为这些主张添加了细微差别,因为我们将这种倾向归因于技术官僚的合法性论点,指的是专家权威的象征意义。通过在德国、希腊、瑞典和英国四个欧洲国家进行的民意调查,我们发现,在大流行的第一波期间,公民对循证政策表示欢迎,这与之前的政治信任水平和每个国家的死亡率无关。政治家们可以利用这些见解来提高公众对危机管理政策的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Paths to trust: Explaining citizens' trust to experts and evidence‐informed policymaking during the COVID‐19 pandemic
Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic brought forward new questions about the efficient implementation of arduous public policies. Drawing evidence from the pandemic, this article argues that, during crises, policymakers will often opt for evidence‐informed policymaking, hoping for better results. In line with previous studies, we show that citizens trust more policies coming from experts rather than policymakers and elected politicians. We also add nuance to these claims as we attribute this tendency to the technocratic legitimacy thesis, referring to the symbolic significance of expert authority. Employing a public opinion survey conducted across four European countries, Germany, Greece, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, we show that independently of prior levels of political trust and each country's mortality rate, citizens welcomed evidence‐informed policies during the pandemic's first wave. Politicians can leverage these insights to increase public compliance with crisis management policies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
17.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Public Administration is a major refereed journal with global circulation and global coverage. The journal publishes articles on public administration, public policy and public management. The journal"s reach is both inclusive and international and much of the work published is comparative in nature. A high percentage of articles are sourced from the enlarging Europe and cover all aspects of West and East European public administration.
期刊最新文献
Algorithmic formalization: Impacts on administrative processes Making nonpunitive accountability matter: Exploring behavioral effects of nonpunitive accountability in a conjoint experiment Why do politicians perceive the same financial conditions differently? How to extend pilot innovation in public services: A case of children's social care innovation Street‐level bureaucrats' perceptions of “the job”: Deviation from professional particularities and micro creation of public value
×
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