{"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}
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.
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.