国家能力与新冠肺炎三重危机:国际比较

IF 1.1 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Pub Date : 2022-05-04 DOI:10.1080/08039410.2022.2071334
Fernando de la Cruz, Sergio Tezanos, Rogelio Madrueño
{"title":"国家能力与新冠肺炎三重危机:国际比较","authors":"Fernando de la Cruz, Sergio Tezanos, Rogelio Madrueño","doi":"10.1080/08039410.2022.2071334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n The COVID-19 multidimensional crisis poses a formidable challenge for human society as it is simultaneously and globally damaging the public health, the economic activity and the social wellbeing. The complexity and severity of this crisis has revealed the weaknesses and heterogeneities of States’ capacities to respond to the global pandemic. In this article, we raise the important question about which type of State capacity has been more effective for dealing with the negative effects of the pandemic. Our research proposes a hierarchical cluster analysis of countries that distinguishes three dimensions of the crisis (the health, the economic and the social crises) and measures both the States’ efforts (the ‘inputs’) for containing these crises, and the corresponding effects (the ‘outputs’) that result from the previous inputs. We classify 99 countries worldwide into four groups in 2020. Our results reveal that there is no simple ‘linear’ representation of the COVID-19 multi-crises in terms of State capacity (each cluster of countries has its own and specific State characteristics and crisis effects). We thus reject the hypothesis that strong State capacity was a sine qua non condition for tackling the negative effects of the COVID-19 multi-crises during the first phase of the pandemic. In the end, the global emergency has emphasized the need to rethink the research on State capacity as the previous theoretical constructions have been unable to explain the significative international differences in terms of the public performances in minimizing the negative effects of the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":45207,"journal":{"name":"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"State Capacity and the Triple COVID-19 Crises: An International Comparison\",\"authors\":\"Fernando de la Cruz, Sergio Tezanos, Rogelio Madrueño\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08039410.2022.2071334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n The COVID-19 multidimensional crisis poses a formidable challenge for human society as it is simultaneously and globally damaging the public health, the economic activity and the social wellbeing. The complexity and severity of this crisis has revealed the weaknesses and heterogeneities of States’ capacities to respond to the global pandemic. In this article, we raise the important question about which type of State capacity has been more effective for dealing with the negative effects of the pandemic. Our research proposes a hierarchical cluster analysis of countries that distinguishes three dimensions of the crisis (the health, the economic and the social crises) and measures both the States’ efforts (the ‘inputs’) for containing these crises, and the corresponding effects (the ‘outputs’) that result from the previous inputs. We classify 99 countries worldwide into four groups in 2020. Our results reveal that there is no simple ‘linear’ representation of the COVID-19 multi-crises in terms of State capacity (each cluster of countries has its own and specific State characteristics and crisis effects). We thus reject the hypothesis that strong State capacity was a sine qua non condition for tackling the negative effects of the COVID-19 multi-crises during the first phase of the pandemic. In the end, the global emergency has emphasized the need to rethink the research on State capacity as the previous theoretical constructions have been unable to explain the significative international differences in terms of the public performances in minimizing the negative effects of the pandemic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2022.2071334\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2022.2071334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要新冠肺炎多层面危机对人类社会构成了严峻挑战,因为它同时在全球范围内损害公共健康、经济活动和社会福祉。这场危机的复杂性和严重性揭示了各国应对全球疫情能力的弱点和异质性。在这篇文章中,我们提出了一个重要问题,即哪种类型的国家能力在应对疫情的负面影响方面更有效。我们的研究提出了对国家的分层聚类分析,区分了危机的三个维度(健康、经济和社会危机),并衡量了各国为遏制这些危机所做的努力(“投入”)以及先前投入所产生的相应影响(“产出”)。2020年,我们将全球99个国家分为四组。我们的研究结果表明,就国家能力而言,新冠肺炎多重危机并不存在简单的“线性”表现(每个国家集群都有自己的具体国家特征和危机影响)。因此,我们反对这样一种假设,即强大的国家能力是在疫情第一阶段应对新冠肺炎多重危机负面影响的必要条件。最后,全球紧急情况强调了重新思考国家能力研究的必要性,因为以前的理论构建无法解释在最大限度地减少疫情负面影响方面的公共表现方面的重大国际差异。
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
State Capacity and the Triple COVID-19 Crises: An International Comparison
ABSTRACT The COVID-19 multidimensional crisis poses a formidable challenge for human society as it is simultaneously and globally damaging the public health, the economic activity and the social wellbeing. The complexity and severity of this crisis has revealed the weaknesses and heterogeneities of States’ capacities to respond to the global pandemic. In this article, we raise the important question about which type of State capacity has been more effective for dealing with the negative effects of the pandemic. Our research proposes a hierarchical cluster analysis of countries that distinguishes three dimensions of the crisis (the health, the economic and the social crises) and measures both the States’ efforts (the ‘inputs’) for containing these crises, and the corresponding effects (the ‘outputs’) that result from the previous inputs. We classify 99 countries worldwide into four groups in 2020. Our results reveal that there is no simple ‘linear’ representation of the COVID-19 multi-crises in terms of State capacity (each cluster of countries has its own and specific State characteristics and crisis effects). We thus reject the hypothesis that strong State capacity was a sine qua non condition for tackling the negative effects of the COVID-19 multi-crises during the first phase of the pandemic. In the end, the global emergency has emphasized the need to rethink the research on State capacity as the previous theoretical constructions have been unable to explain the significative international differences in terms of the public performances in minimizing the negative effects of the pandemic.
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
FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Forum for Development Studies was established in 1974, and soon became the leading Norwegian journal for development research. While this position has been consolidated, Forum has gradually become an international journal, with its main constituency in the Nordic countries. The journal is owned by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the Norwegian Association for Development Research. Forum aims to be a platform for development research broadly defined – including the social sciences, economics, history and law. All articles are double-blind peer-reviewed. In order to maintain the journal as a meeting place for different disciplines, we encourage authors to communicate across disciplinary boundaries. Contributions that limit the use of exclusive terminology and frame the questions explored in ways that are accessible to the whole range of the Journal''s readership will be given priority.
期刊最新文献
A Quest for State Contracts: Public Procurement and the Shaping of Competitiveness in Development Consulting Bridging the Divides? How Christian Faith-Based Antitrafficking Organizations Construct Co-Ownership in Buddhist South-East Asia The Current Role of Western Development Actors as Knowledge and Policy Providers: The Making of Good Governance of Natural Gas Resources in Tanzania Welfare Goes Global: Making progress and catching up Power, Politics, and the Supernatural: Exploring the Role of Witchcraft Beliefs in Governance for Development
×
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