制度类型与数据操纵:来自 COVID-19 大流行病的证据。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-11373750
Simon Wigley
{"title":"制度类型与数据操纵:来自 COVID-19 大流行病的证据。","authors":"Simon Wigley","doi":"10.1215/03616878-11373750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>This study examines whether autocratic governments are more likely than democratic governments to manipulate health data. The COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity for examining this question because of its global impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three distinct indicators of COVID-19 data manipulation were constructed for nearly all sovereign states. Each indicator was then regressed on democracy and controls for unintended misreporting. A machine learning approach was then used to determine whether any of the specific features of democracy are more predictive of manipulation.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Democracy was found to be negatively associated with all three measures of manipulation, even after running a battery of robustness checks. Absence of opposition party autonomy and free and fair elections were found to be the most important predictors of deliberate undercounting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The manipulation of data in autocracies denies citizens the opportunity to protect themselves against health risks, hinders the ability of international organizations and donors to identify effective policies, and makes it difficult for scholars to assess the impact of political institutions on population health. These findings suggest that health advocates and scholars should use alternative methods to estimate health outcomes in countries where opposition parties lack autonomy or must participate in uncompetitive elections.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"989-1014"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regime Type and Data Manipulation: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Simon Wigley\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/03616878-11373750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>This study examines whether autocratic governments are more likely than democratic governments to manipulate health data. The COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity for examining this question because of its global impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three distinct indicators of COVID-19 data manipulation were constructed for nearly all sovereign states. Each indicator was then regressed on democracy and controls for unintended misreporting. A machine learning approach was then used to determine whether any of the specific features of democracy are more predictive of manipulation.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Democracy was found to be negatively associated with all three measures of manipulation, even after running a battery of robustness checks. Absence of opposition party autonomy and free and fair elections were found to be the most important predictors of deliberate undercounting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The manipulation of data in autocracies denies citizens the opportunity to protect themselves against health risks, hinders the ability of international organizations and donors to identify effective policies, and makes it difficult for scholars to assess the impact of political institutions on population health. These findings suggest that health advocates and scholars should use alternative methods to estimate health outcomes in countries where opposition parties lack autonomy or must participate in uncompetitive elections.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"989-1014\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-11373750\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-11373750","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究探讨专制政府是否比民主政府更有可能操纵健康数据。由于 COVID-19 的全球影响,它为研究这一问题提供了一个独特的机会:方法:为几乎所有主权国家构建了三个不同的 COVID-19 数据操纵指标。然后,将每个指标与民主和非故意误报控制进行回归。然后使用机器学习方法确定民主的具体特征是否更能预测操纵行为:即使在进行了一系列稳健性检查后,民主仍与所有三项操纵指标呈负相关。没有反对党自治和自由公正的选举被认为是预测故意少计的最重要因素:专制国家对数据的篡改剥夺了公民保护自己免受健康风险的机会,阻碍了国际组织和捐助者确定有效政策的能力,3 使学者们难以评估政治体制对人口健康的影响。这表明,在反对党缺乏自主权或必须参加非竞争性选举的国家,健康倡导者和学者应使用其他方法来估计健康结果。
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
Regime Type and Data Manipulation: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Context: This study examines whether autocratic governments are more likely than democratic governments to manipulate health data. The COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity for examining this question because of its global impact.

Methods: Three distinct indicators of COVID-19 data manipulation were constructed for nearly all sovereign states. Each indicator was then regressed on democracy and controls for unintended misreporting. A machine learning approach was then used to determine whether any of the specific features of democracy are more predictive of manipulation.

Findings: Democracy was found to be negatively associated with all three measures of manipulation, even after running a battery of robustness checks. Absence of opposition party autonomy and free and fair elections were found to be the most important predictors of deliberate undercounting.

Conclusions: The manipulation of data in autocracies denies citizens the opportunity to protect themselves against health risks, hinders the ability of international organizations and donors to identify effective policies, and makes it difficult for scholars to assess the impact of political institutions on population health. These findings suggest that health advocates and scholars should use alternative methods to estimate health outcomes in countries where opposition parties lack autonomy or must participate in uncompetitive elections.

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
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Explaining Political Differences in Attitudes to Vaccines in France: Partisan Cues, Disenchantment with Politics, and Political Sophistication. Implementing Primary Care Reform in France: Bargaining, Policy Adaptation, and the Maisons de Santé Pluriprofessionnelles. Policy Feedback and the Politics of Childhood Vaccine Mandates: Conflict and Change in California, 2012-2019. Regime Type and Data Manipulation: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Why Some Nonelderly Adult Medicaid Enrollees Appear Ineligible Based on Their Annual Income.
×
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