Battling COVID-19 with dysfunctional federalism: Lessons from India

The making of India's COVID-19 disaster: A Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Assemblage analysis

This article analyses the suite of policies and measures enacted by the Indian Union Government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic through apparatuses of disaster management. We focus on the period from the onset of the pandemic in early 2020, until mid-2021. This holistic review adopts a Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Assemblage conceptual approach to make sense of how the COVID-19 disaster was made possible and importantly how it was responded to, managed, exacerbated, and experienced as it continued to emerge. This approach is grounded in literature from critical disaster studies and geography. The analysis also draws on a wide range of other disciplines, ranging from epidemiology to anthropology and political science, as well as grey literature, newspaper reports, and official policy documents. The article is structured into three sections that investigate in turn and at different junctures the role of governmentality and disaster politics; scientific knowledge and expert advice, and socially and spatially differentiated disaster vulnerabilities in shaping the COVID-19 disaster in India. We put forward two main arguments on the basis of the literature reviewed. One is that both the impacts of the virus spread and the lockdown-responses to it affected already marginalised groups disproportionately. The other is that managing the COVID-19 pandemic through disaster management assemblage/apparatuses served to extend centralised executive authority in India. These two processes are demonstrated to be continuations of pre-pandemic trends. We conclude that evidence of a paradigm shift in India's approach to disaster management remains thin on the ground.

Risk-reducing strategies and labour vulnerability during the pandemic in India

The Covid-19 health disaster has created a labour crisis. We examine the impact of the Covid-19 induced state-level direct (such as providing free food, minimum income, and transportation services for the labourers) and indirect (such as skill mapping of the return migrants and allowing extended hour shifts in the factories) risk-reducing labour strategies on urban and rural employment rates in India. These risk-reducing labour strategies secure livelihood and discourage labourers from risking their lives by joining the workplace of high interpersonal human contact during the pandemic. This reduces employment rates. Specifically, direct risk-reducing labour strategies reduce employment in urban and rural areas, while indirect risk-reducing labour strategies lessen employment only in urban areas. The mitigating effect justifies the importance of the Keynesian interventionist resilience techniques that safeguard the labourers and reduce the risks during the disaster.

Association of government effectiveness, logistics performance, IT systems and income with COVID-19 mortality

The COVID-19 pandemic has unprecedentedly shaken the public health system worldwide. It has been one of the greatest humanitarian crises faced by all countries, regardless of their economic prosperity. However, some countries have been able to minimize the deaths caused by the coronavirus even in the face of a large number of cases, while others have failed to control the death rate even in a comparatively small number of cases. This study explores possible causes of this disparity using cross-sectional data from 126 countries associated with demography, governance, income level, the extent of ICT maturity and the geographical divide. The results of this study suggest that while government effectiveness is negatively associated with the COVID-19 death rate, the logistics performance of governments is positively linked to the COVID-19 mortality rate. The ICT maturity proxied through online service delivery did not confirm its association with the COVID-19 mortality rate. This study informs that poverty and the location of countries do not necessarily influence COVID-19 deaths. Hence, it behoves governments to focus on improving government effectiveness and putting in place more effective and efficient mobility systems, healthcare supply chains and digital administration to address the global health crisis posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate its harsh effects, including mortality.

Analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons towards a more effective response to public health emergencies

Background

The pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a timely reminder of the nature and impact of Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. As of 12 January 2022, there were over 314 million cases and over 5.5 million deaths notified since the start of the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic takes variable shapes and forms, in terms of cases and deaths, in different regions and countries of the world. The objective of this study is to analyse the variable expression of COVID-19 pandemic so that lessons can be learned towards an effective public health emergency response.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand the heterogeneity of cases and deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Correlation analysis and scatter plot were employed for the quantitative data. We used Spearman’s correlation analysis to determine relationship strength between cases and deaths and socio-economic and health systems. We organized qualitative information from the literature and conducted a thematic analysis to recognize patterns of cases and deaths and explain the findings from the quantitative data.

Results

We have found that regions and countries with high human development index have higher cases and deaths per million population due to COVID-19. This is due to international connectedness and mobility of their population related to trade and tourism, and their vulnerability related to older populations and higher rates of non-communicable diseases. We have also identified that the burden of the pandemic is also variable among high- and middle-income countries due to differences in the governance of the pandemic, fragmentation of health systems, and socio-economic inequities.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that every country remains vulnerable to public health emergencies. The aspiration towards a healthier and safer society requires that countries develop and implement a coherent and context-specific national strategy, improve governance of public health emergencies, build the capacity of their (public) health systems, minimize fragmentation, and tackle upstream structural issues, including socio-economic inequities. This is possible through a primary health care approach, which ensures provision of universal and equitable promotive, preventive and curative services, through whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.

The Chinese Government's Response to the Pandemic: Measures, Dynamic Changes, and Main Patterns

(1) Background: The governance measures that governments deploy vary substantially across countries and even within countries; there is, however, limited knowledge of the responses of local governments or from different areas in the same country. (2) Methods: By using grounded theory and an automatic text processing method, this study analyses the pandemic governance measures, the pandemic governance pattern, and possible factors across 28 provinces in mainland China based on the text of 28 official provincial government Sina microblogs dating from 20 January to 1 July 2020. (3) Results and discussion: The provincial pandemic governance patterns in China are divided into a pathogen-control pattern, a diagnosis and treatment consolidation pattern, a balanced promotion pattern, a quick-adjustment response pattern, and a recovery-oriented pattern. The pandemic severity, economic development, public health service, and population structure may all have an impact on pandemic governance measures. (4) Conclusions: The conclusions of this study may help us to reconstruct governance systems related to global public health emergencies from the perspective of normalisation, as well as providing important clarification for management and a reference for countries seeking to curb the global spread of a pandemic.

Optimizing Decision-Making Processes in Times of COVID-19: Using Reflexivity to Counteract Information-Processing Failures

The effectiveness of policymakers' decision-making in times of crisis depends largely on their ability to integrate and make sense of information. The COVID-19 crisis confronts governments with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public health and safety. Essentially, policymakers have to react to a threat, of which the extent is unknown, and they are making decisions under time constraints in the midst of immense uncertainty. The stakes are high, the issues involved are complex and require the careful balancing of several interests, including (mental) health, the economy, and human rights. These circumstances render policymakers' decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. Prior research has identified three main information-processing failures that can distort group decision-making processes and can lead to negative outcomes: (1) failure to search for and share information, (2) failure to elaborate on and analyze information that is not in line with earlier information and (3) failure to revise and update conclusions and policies in the light of new information. To date, it has not yet been explored how errors and biases underlying these information-processing failures impact decision-making processes in times of crisis. In this narrative review, we outline how groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment may pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in widespread societal damages. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. We propose group reflexivity-a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes-as an antidote to these biases and errors in decision-making. Specifically, we recommend several evidence-based reflexivity tools that could easily be implemented to counter these information-processing errors and improve decision-making processes in uncertain times.

The Federal Reserve's response to the COVID-19 contraction: An initial appraisal

We provide an initial assessment of the Federal Reserve's policy response to the COVID-19 contraction. We briefly review the historical episode and consider the standard textbook treatment of a pandemic on the macroeconomy. We summarize and then evaluate the Fed's monetary and emergency lending policies through the end of 2020. We credit the Fed with promoting monetary stability while maintaining that it could have done more. We argue that the Fed could have achieved stability without employing its emergency lending facilities. Although some facilities likely helped to promote general liquidity, others were primarily intended to allocate credit, which blurs the line between monetary and fiscal policy. These credit allocation facilities were unwarranted and unwise.

Essential or not? Knowledge problems and COVID-19 stay-at-home orders

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world issued stay-at-home orders, which required that individuals stay at home unless they were engaging in certain activities. Often these orders would designate certain goods and services as "essential" and would permit individuals engaged in the production, delivery, and purchase of those goods and services to leave their homes to do so. Implicit in these policies, of course, is the assumption that policymakers can know ex ante which goods and services are essential. As proved true while these stay-at-home orders were in effect, essentialness is necessarily subjective and depends on knowledge that is often dispersed, inarticulate, and changes over time. Policymakers, however, do not and often cannot have access to the local knowledge needed to determine ex ante which goods and services are essential, and they lack the feedback mechanisms they would need to adroitly adapt when circumstances change. This paper examines these knowledge problems associated with designating certain goods and services as "essential" when crafting and implementing stay-at-home orders.

Separation of power and expertise: Evidence of the tyranny of experts in Sweden's COVID-19 responses

Whereas most countries in the COVID-19 pandemic imposed shutdowns and curfews to mitigate the contagion, Sweden uniquely pursued a more voluntarist approach. In this article, our interest is primarily on how and why Sweden's approach to the pandemic was so unique. There are two parts to this research question: (1) why did virtually all other nations follow a radical lockdown protocol despite limited evidence to its effectiveness and (2) why did Sweden not follow this same protocol despite strong political pressures? The answers to these questions lie within typical government technocracy versus Sweden's constitutional separation of government and technocracy. We review the history of the responses to the pandemic and show how the "tyranny of experts" was severe within the typical technocratic policy response, and attenuated in Sweden's. Thus, the recent pandemic offers empirical evidence and insights regarding the role of Hayekian knowledge problems in engendering a technocratic "tyranny of experts" and how such effects can be structurally mitigated.

The political economy of the COVID-19 pandemic

We argue that the policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic by all levels of government around the world is not consistent with recommendations from standard welfare economics. Thus, it is important to ask why such policies have been adopted. That opens the door to examining the political economy of the COVID-19 pandemic. This requires examining the incentives and information that confront policymakers and voters and the institutional environments that shape their incentives and information. This lead article frames questions addressed in the remainder of the symposium.