如何解决玛丽亚这样的问题?波多黎各、佛罗里达州和得克萨斯州的救灾政治。

IF 1.7 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH World Medical & Health Policy Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-17 DOI:10.1002/wmh3.476
Charley E Willison, Phillip M Singer, Melissa S Creary, Soha Vaziri, Jerry Stott, Scott L Greer
{"title":"如何解决玛丽亚这样的问题?波多黎各、佛罗里达州和得克萨斯州的救灾政治。","authors":"Charley E Willison, Phillip M Singer, Melissa S Creary, Soha Vaziri, Jerry Stott, Scott L Greer","doi":"10.1002/wmh3.476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>COVID-19 is not the first, nor the last, public health challenge the US political system has faced. Understanding drivers of governmental responses to public health emergencies is important for policy decision-making, planning, health and social outcomes, and advocacy. We use federal political disaster-aid debates to examine political factors related to variations in outcomes for Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida after the 2017 hurricane season. Despite the comparable need and unprecedented mortality, Puerto Rico received delayed and substantially less aid. We find bipartisan participation in floor debates over aid to Texas and Florida, but primarily Democrat participation for Puerto Rican aid. Yet, deliberation and participation in the debates were strongly influenced by whether a state or district was at risk of natural disasters. Nearly one-third of all states did not participate in any aid debate. States' local disaster risk levels and political parties' attachments to different racial and ethnic groups may help explain Congressional public health disaster response failures. These lessons are of increasing importance in the face of growing collective action problems around the climate crisis and subsequent emergent threats from natural disasters.</p>","PeriodicalId":44943,"journal":{"name":"World Medical & Health Policy","volume":"14 3","pages":"490-506"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/06/7c/WMH3-14-490.PMC9545961.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do you solve a problem like Maria? The politics of disaster response in Puerto Rico, Florida and Texas.\",\"authors\":\"Charley E Willison, Phillip M Singer, Melissa S Creary, Soha Vaziri, Jerry Stott, Scott L Greer\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wmh3.476\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>COVID-19 is not the first, nor the last, public health challenge the US political system has faced. Understanding drivers of governmental responses to public health emergencies is important for policy decision-making, planning, health and social outcomes, and advocacy. We use federal political disaster-aid debates to examine political factors related to variations in outcomes for Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida after the 2017 hurricane season. Despite the comparable need and unprecedented mortality, Puerto Rico received delayed and substantially less aid. We find bipartisan participation in floor debates over aid to Texas and Florida, but primarily Democrat participation for Puerto Rican aid. Yet, deliberation and participation in the debates were strongly influenced by whether a state or district was at risk of natural disasters. Nearly one-third of all states did not participate in any aid debate. States' local disaster risk levels and political parties' attachments to different racial and ethnic groups may help explain Congressional public health disaster response failures. These lessons are of increasing importance in the face of growing collective action problems around the climate crisis and subsequent emergent threats from natural disasters.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Medical & Health Policy\",\"volume\":\"14 3\",\"pages\":\"490-506\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/06/7c/WMH3-14-490.PMC9545961.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Medical & Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.476\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Medical & Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.476","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

COVID-19 并不是美国政治系统面临的第一个,也不是最后一个公共卫生挑战。了解政府应对公共卫生突发事件的驱动因素对于政策决策、规划、卫生和社会成果以及宣传都非常重要。我们利用联邦政治灾难援助辩论来研究与波多黎各、得克萨斯州和佛罗里达州在 2017 年飓风季节后的结果变化有关的政治因素。尽管波多黎各的需求相当,死亡率也前所未有,但其获得的援助却被延迟且大幅减少。我们发现,两党都参与了对得克萨斯州和佛罗里达州援助的议会辩论,但主要是民主党参与了对波多黎各援助的辩论。然而,州或地区是否面临自然灾害风险对辩论的审议和参与有很大影响。近三分之一的州没有参加任何援助辩论。各州的地方灾害风险水平以及政党对不同种族和民族群体的依附关系可能有助于解释国会公共卫生救灾工作的失败。面对日益严重的围绕气候危机的集体行动问题以及随之而来的自然灾害威胁,这些经验教训的重要性与日俱增。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
How do you solve a problem like Maria? The politics of disaster response in Puerto Rico, Florida and Texas.

COVID-19 is not the first, nor the last, public health challenge the US political system has faced. Understanding drivers of governmental responses to public health emergencies is important for policy decision-making, planning, health and social outcomes, and advocacy. We use federal political disaster-aid debates to examine political factors related to variations in outcomes for Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida after the 2017 hurricane season. Despite the comparable need and unprecedented mortality, Puerto Rico received delayed and substantially less aid. We find bipartisan participation in floor debates over aid to Texas and Florida, but primarily Democrat participation for Puerto Rican aid. Yet, deliberation and participation in the debates were strongly influenced by whether a state or district was at risk of natural disasters. Nearly one-third of all states did not participate in any aid debate. States' local disaster risk levels and political parties' attachments to different racial and ethnic groups may help explain Congressional public health disaster response failures. These lessons are of increasing importance in the face of growing collective action problems around the climate crisis and subsequent emergent threats from natural disasters.

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
World Medical & Health Policy
World Medical & Health Policy PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
7.30%
发文量
65
期刊最新文献
Exploring critical factors in referral systems at different health‐care levels Mapping out a direction: India's G20 presidency propels global promotion of traditional medicine Rethinking and advancing the movement of resistance, activism, and advocacy in health in four central arenas of the Middle East Region “Patriarchy permeating health policymaking”: Influence of gender on involvement in health policymaking from nurse leaders' perspective Breast cancer screening and early detection programs in Iran: A health policy analysis and recommendations
×
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