危机和不确定性中不成比例的政策动态:2019冠状病毒病应对政策的国际比较分析

IF 2.2 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Studies Pub Date : 2022-03-16 DOI:10.1080/01442872.2022.2053093
Saahir Shafi, Daniel J. Mallinson
{"title":"危机和不确定性中不成比例的政策动态:2019冠状病毒病应对政策的国际比较分析","authors":"Saahir Shafi, Daniel J. Mallinson","doi":"10.1080/01442872.2022.2053093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Differences in policy responses have enabled some nations to successfully mitigate COVID-19 cases and deaths while others continue to struggle. In their efforts to contain the virus, nations have pursued disparate policy responses with policy stringency ranging from policy over-reactions to under-reactions. As nations look towards recovery, a retroactive evaluation of the relationship between policy responses and outcomes can provide much-needed insight on disparities in pandemic-related outcomes. Using time series data for 2020, we employ pooled panel linear regression to analyze the relationship between policy choices and COVID-19 outcomes. This study uses stringency measures of government policy responses across three dimensions—containment, economic, and health policies—to assess the impact of these policies on COVID-19 cases and deaths. Our results indicate that increased income support and debt relief policies are associated with a reduction in the rate of COVID-19 deaths that lasts up to four weeks, while broad policy interventions are associated with a short-term reduction in the rate of deaths.","PeriodicalId":47179,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies","volume":"43 1","pages":"90 - 111"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disproportionate policy dynamics in crisis and uncertainty: an international comparative analysis of policy responses to COVID-19\",\"authors\":\"Saahir Shafi, Daniel J. Mallinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01442872.2022.2053093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Differences in policy responses have enabled some nations to successfully mitigate COVID-19 cases and deaths while others continue to struggle. In their efforts to contain the virus, nations have pursued disparate policy responses with policy stringency ranging from policy over-reactions to under-reactions. As nations look towards recovery, a retroactive evaluation of the relationship between policy responses and outcomes can provide much-needed insight on disparities in pandemic-related outcomes. Using time series data for 2020, we employ pooled panel linear regression to analyze the relationship between policy choices and COVID-19 outcomes. This study uses stringency measures of government policy responses across three dimensions—containment, economic, and health policies—to assess the impact of these policies on COVID-19 cases and deaths. Our results indicate that increased income support and debt relief policies are associated with a reduction in the rate of COVID-19 deaths that lasts up to four weeks, while broad policy interventions are associated with a short-term reduction in the rate of deaths.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Studies\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"90 - 111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2053093\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2053093","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

政策应对的差异使一些国家成功地减少了COVID-19病例和死亡人数,而另一些国家则继续挣扎。在遏制病毒的努力中,各国采取了不同的政策应对措施,政策从严,从反应过度到反应不足。在各国展望复苏之际,对政策反应与成果之间的关系进行追溯性评价,可以为了解大流行病相关成果的差异提供急需的洞见。使用2020年的时间序列数据,我们采用汇总面板线性回归分析政策选择与COVID-19结果之间的关系。本研究从三个维度(遏制、经济和卫生政策)对政府政策反应进行严格衡量,以评估这些政策对COVID-19病例和死亡的影响。我们的研究结果表明,增加收入支持和债务减免政策与持续长达四周的COVID-19死亡率下降有关,而广泛的政策干预与死亡率的短期下降有关。
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
Disproportionate policy dynamics in crisis and uncertainty: an international comparative analysis of policy responses to COVID-19
ABSTRACT Differences in policy responses have enabled some nations to successfully mitigate COVID-19 cases and deaths while others continue to struggle. In their efforts to contain the virus, nations have pursued disparate policy responses with policy stringency ranging from policy over-reactions to under-reactions. As nations look towards recovery, a retroactive evaluation of the relationship between policy responses and outcomes can provide much-needed insight on disparities in pandemic-related outcomes. Using time series data for 2020, we employ pooled panel linear regression to analyze the relationship between policy choices and COVID-19 outcomes. This study uses stringency measures of government policy responses across three dimensions—containment, economic, and health policies—to assess the impact of these policies on COVID-19 cases and deaths. Our results indicate that increased income support and debt relief policies are associated with a reduction in the rate of COVID-19 deaths that lasts up to four weeks, while broad policy interventions are associated with a short-term reduction in the rate of deaths.
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
Policy Studies
Policy Studies PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: These changes at the structural level of the global system have impacted upon the work of public organizations either directly or indirectly and have broadened the field of action in policy studies. It has five main areas of intellectual interest: 1.To broaden the lens of policy analysis through the publication of research which locates policy-making within a theoretical, historical or comparative perspective. 2.To widen the field of enquiry in policy analysis through the publication of research that examines policy issues in a British, comparative, international or global context. 3.To promote constructive debate on theoretical, methodological and empirical issues in policy analysis.
期刊最新文献
Opposition windows in Delhi’s water utility privatization: going beyond the multiple streams framework The origins of social protection in healthcare: classifying healthcare systems at introduction in 165 countries Digital political campaigning: contemporary challenges and regulation Do intergovernmental interactions increase government spending? Institutional diversity and the immigrant wage gap? A comparison between the German and British experience with statutory minimum wages
×
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