政制分权与应对新冠肺炎:美国与韩国的比较

Sanghee Park, Luke Fowler
{"title":"政制分权与应对新冠肺炎:美国与韩国的比较","authors":"Sanghee Park, Luke Fowler","doi":"10.1108/IJOTB-02-2021-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study explains the variation of government responses to the pandemic by focusing on how centralization/decentralization in politics and administration creates conflicts and coordination problems. Specifically, the authors make comparisons between the U.S. and South Korea to reveal differences in macro-level structures and associated responses. One of the key points of comparison is the centralized, hierarchical governance system, which may thwart or facilitate a coordinated response.Design/methodology/approachThis is an in-depth comparative case study of the two countries that showed different trajectories during the initial response to COVID-19. The comparison allows us to highlight the long-standing debate about centralization/decentralization and offers implications for government responses to crises shaped by political systems and administrative structures.FindingsWhile there are inherent pros and cons to decentralization, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the institutional limitations in American federalism and the advantages that centralized administrative coordination creates during times of crisis. American federalism has unveiled systematic problems in coordination, along with the leadership crisis in polarized politics. The response from South Korea also reveals several issues in the administratively centralized and politically polarized environment.Research limitations/implicationsWhile the authors risk comparing apples and oranges, the variation unveils systematic contradictions in polarized politics and offers important implications for government responses in times of crisis. However, this article did not fully account for individual leadership as an independent factor that interacts with existing political/administrative institutions.Practical implicationsThere is certainly no one best way or one-size-fits-all solution to mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic in countries under different circumstances. This article demonstrates that one of the essential determining factors in national responses to the pandemic is how the political and administrative dimensions of centralization/decentralization are balanced against each other.Originality/valueUnlike previous studies explaining the country-level responses to COVID-19, this study focuses on the variance of political and administrative decentralization within each country from the political-administrative perspective and reveals the systematic contradictions in coordination and the leadership crisis in polarized politics.","PeriodicalId":35239,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political and administrative decentralization and responses to COVID-19: comparison of the United States and South Korea\",\"authors\":\"Sanghee Park, Luke Fowler\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/IJOTB-02-2021-0022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis study explains the variation of government responses to the pandemic by focusing on how centralization/decentralization in politics and administration creates conflicts and coordination problems. Specifically, the authors make comparisons between the U.S. and South Korea to reveal differences in macro-level structures and associated responses. One of the key points of comparison is the centralized, hierarchical governance system, which may thwart or facilitate a coordinated response.Design/methodology/approachThis is an in-depth comparative case study of the two countries that showed different trajectories during the initial response to COVID-19. The comparison allows us to highlight the long-standing debate about centralization/decentralization and offers implications for government responses to crises shaped by political systems and administrative structures.FindingsWhile there are inherent pros and cons to decentralization, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the institutional limitations in American federalism and the advantages that centralized administrative coordination creates during times of crisis. American federalism has unveiled systematic problems in coordination, along with the leadership crisis in polarized politics. The response from South Korea also reveals several issues in the administratively centralized and politically polarized environment.Research limitations/implicationsWhile the authors risk comparing apples and oranges, the variation unveils systematic contradictions in polarized politics and offers important implications for government responses in times of crisis. However, this article did not fully account for individual leadership as an independent factor that interacts with existing political/administrative institutions.Practical implicationsThere is certainly no one best way or one-size-fits-all solution to mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic in countries under different circumstances. This article demonstrates that one of the essential determining factors in national responses to the pandemic is how the political and administrative dimensions of centralization/decentralization are balanced against each other.Originality/valueUnlike previous studies explaining the country-level responses to COVID-19, this study focuses on the variance of political and administrative decentralization within each country from the political-administrative perspective and reveals the systematic contradictions in coordination and the leadership crisis in polarized politics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-02-2021-0022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-02-2021-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本研究通过关注政治和行政中的集权/分权如何产生冲突和协调问题,解释了政府应对疫情的差异。具体而言,作者将美国和韩国进行了比较,以揭示宏观层面结构和相关反应的差异。比较的一个关键点是集中的、分层的治理系统,它可能阻碍或促进协调的反应。设计/方法/方法这是对在COVID-19初期应对过程中表现出不同轨迹的两个国家的深入比较案例研究。这种比较使我们能够突出长期以来关于集权/分权的争论,并为政府应对政治制度和行政结构造成的危机提供启示。尽管权力下放有利有弊,但新冠肺炎疫情凸显了美国联邦制的制度局限性,以及危机时期集中行政协调所带来的优势。美国联邦制暴露出协调方面的系统性问题,以及两极分化政治中的领导危机。韩国的反应也暴露了行政集权和政治两极化环境下的几个问题。虽然作者冒着拿苹果和橘子作比较的风险,但这种差异揭示了两极分化政治中的系统性矛盾,并为政府在危机时期的反应提供了重要启示。然而,这篇文章并没有充分考虑到个人领导力作为与现有政治/行政机构相互作用的独立因素。在不同情况下,缓解COVID-19大流行当然没有一个最好的方法或一刀切的解决方案。这篇文章表明,国家应对这一流行病的关键决定因素之一是,中央集权/权力下放的政治和行政层面如何相互平衡。独创性/价值与以往解释国家层面应对COVID-19的研究不同,本研究从政治-行政的角度关注每个国家内部政治和行政分权的差异,揭示了协调中的系统性矛盾和极化政治中的领导危机。
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
Political and administrative decentralization and responses to COVID-19: comparison of the United States and South Korea
PurposeThis study explains the variation of government responses to the pandemic by focusing on how centralization/decentralization in politics and administration creates conflicts and coordination problems. Specifically, the authors make comparisons between the U.S. and South Korea to reveal differences in macro-level structures and associated responses. One of the key points of comparison is the centralized, hierarchical governance system, which may thwart or facilitate a coordinated response.Design/methodology/approachThis is an in-depth comparative case study of the two countries that showed different trajectories during the initial response to COVID-19. The comparison allows us to highlight the long-standing debate about centralization/decentralization and offers implications for government responses to crises shaped by political systems and administrative structures.FindingsWhile there are inherent pros and cons to decentralization, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the institutional limitations in American federalism and the advantages that centralized administrative coordination creates during times of crisis. American federalism has unveiled systematic problems in coordination, along with the leadership crisis in polarized politics. The response from South Korea also reveals several issues in the administratively centralized and politically polarized environment.Research limitations/implicationsWhile the authors risk comparing apples and oranges, the variation unveils systematic contradictions in polarized politics and offers important implications for government responses in times of crisis. However, this article did not fully account for individual leadership as an independent factor that interacts with existing political/administrative institutions.Practical implicationsThere is certainly no one best way or one-size-fits-all solution to mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic in countries under different circumstances. This article demonstrates that one of the essential determining factors in national responses to the pandemic is how the political and administrative dimensions of centralization/decentralization are balanced against each other.Originality/valueUnlike previous studies explaining the country-level responses to COVID-19, this study focuses on the variance of political and administrative decentralization within each country from the political-administrative perspective and reveals the systematic contradictions in coordination and the leadership crisis in polarized politics.
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
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior brings together researchers and practitioners, both within and outside the United States, who are in the areas of organization theory, management, development, and behavior. This journal covers all private, public and not-for-profit organizations’ theories and behavior.
期刊最新文献
Workplace mitigators of the negative relationship between stress and health How do workplace stressors during COVID-19 affect health frontline employees in Iran: Investigating the role of employee resilience and constituent attachment Exploring context-related challenges and adaptive responses while working from home during COVID-19 Helicopter helping in the organization: its conceptualization, key characteristics and possible antecedents and consequences “Can politics really be beneficial?” Toward a model for positive politics through consensus
×
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