为什么印度政府对疫情管理不力?社会状态方法

IF 1.4 4区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES Pacific Affairs Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.5509/2022954707
J. Harriss
{"title":"为什么印度政府对疫情管理不力?社会状态方法","authors":"J. Harriss","doi":"10.5509/2022954707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Administrative \"success\" or \"failure\" during the pandemic are hard to assess given uncertainties both of criteria and of data. But there can be no doubt about the mishandling of the pandemic at crucial junctures by the Indian government, or about the culpability of prime minister Narendra\n Modi himself. He has this in common with other \"strongmen\" of contemporary world politics, but Modi was unusually successful in turning the events of the pandemic to reinforce his dominance. The immediate political factors that influenced the Indian response had to do with political leadership\n and with the \"decisionism\" that characterised Modi's actions, but in the context of the pursuit of the goals of Hindu nationalism. This article explains the responses of the Indian government drawing on a framework based on the comparative analysis of Baum and her co-authors. It shows how\n the events of the pandemic reflect on India's politics and on the character of the Indian state, using a state-in-society approach suggested by the interlocking arguments of Migdal, Mann and Evans. This highlights and explains the very different responses of the major states of the country.","PeriodicalId":47041,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Was the Pandemic Poorly Managed by the Government of India? A State-in-Society Approach\",\"authors\":\"J. Harriss\",\"doi\":\"10.5509/2022954707\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Administrative \\\"success\\\" or \\\"failure\\\" during the pandemic are hard to assess given uncertainties both of criteria and of data. But there can be no doubt about the mishandling of the pandemic at crucial junctures by the Indian government, or about the culpability of prime minister Narendra\\n Modi himself. He has this in common with other \\\"strongmen\\\" of contemporary world politics, but Modi was unusually successful in turning the events of the pandemic to reinforce his dominance. The immediate political factors that influenced the Indian response had to do with political leadership\\n and with the \\\"decisionism\\\" that characterised Modi's actions, but in the context of the pursuit of the goals of Hindu nationalism. This article explains the responses of the Indian government drawing on a framework based on the comparative analysis of Baum and her co-authors. It shows how\\n the events of the pandemic reflect on India's politics and on the character of the Indian state, using a state-in-society approach suggested by the interlocking arguments of Migdal, Mann and Evans. This highlights and explains the very different responses of the major states of the country.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacific Affairs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacific Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5509/2022954707\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5509/2022954707","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

考虑到标准和数据的不确定性,很难评估疫情期间的行政“成功”或“失败”。但毫无疑问,印度政府在关键时刻对疫情的处理不当,或者总理纳伦德拉·莫迪本人的罪责。他与当代世界政治中的其他“强人”有着共同点,但莫迪异常成功地扭转了疫情事件,加强了他的统治地位。影响印度反应的直接政治因素与政治领导力和莫迪行动的“决策主义”有关,但这是在追求印度教民族主义目标的背景下发生的。本文根据Baum和她的合著者的比较分析,以一个框架为基础,解释了印度政府的回应。它展示了疫情事件如何反映印度的政治和印度国家的特征,使用了Migdal、Mann和Evans的连锁论点所提出的国家与社会的方法。这突出并解释了该国主要州截然不同的反应。
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
Why Was the Pandemic Poorly Managed by the Government of India? A State-in-Society Approach
Administrative "success" or "failure" during the pandemic are hard to assess given uncertainties both of criteria and of data. But there can be no doubt about the mishandling of the pandemic at crucial junctures by the Indian government, or about the culpability of prime minister Narendra Modi himself. He has this in common with other "strongmen" of contemporary world politics, but Modi was unusually successful in turning the events of the pandemic to reinforce his dominance. The immediate political factors that influenced the Indian response had to do with political leadership and with the "decisionism" that characterised Modi's actions, but in the context of the pursuit of the goals of Hindu nationalism. This article explains the responses of the Indian government drawing on a framework based on the comparative analysis of Baum and her co-authors. It shows how the events of the pandemic reflect on India's politics and on the character of the Indian state, using a state-in-society approach suggested by the interlocking arguments of Migdal, Mann and Evans. This highlights and explains the very different responses of the major states of the country.
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
Pacific Affairs
Pacific Affairs AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Pacific Affairs has, over the years, celebrated and fostered a community of scholars and people active in the life of Asia and the Pacific. It has published scholarly articles of contemporary significance on Asia and the Pacific since 1928. Its initial incarnation from 1926 to 1928 was as a newsletter for the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), but since May 1928, it has been published continuously as a quarterly under the same name. The IPR was a collaborative organization established in 1925 by leaders from several YMCA branches in the Asia Pacific, to “study the conditions of the Pacific people with a view to the improvement of their mutual relations.”
期刊最新文献
Department of Error. Management of Recurrent and Refractory Posterior Epistaxis by Transnasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Cauterization: a Prospective Cohort Study. "Ambiguous" Network Monarchy as Problematic Euphoric Couplet Governing the COVID-19 Pandemic in Malaysia: Shifting Capacity under a Fragmented Political Leadership Presidential Personality and Foreign Policy Decision-Making: The Sunshine Policy under Kim Dae-jung (1998–2003)
×
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