Federal Institutions and Strategic Policy Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic

This is the final version. Available on open access from Frontiers Media via the DOI in this recordData Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.This essay examines the policy response of the federal and regional governments in federations to the COVID-19 crisis. We theorize that the COVID-19 policy response in federations is an outcome of strategic interaction among the federal and regional incumbents in the shadow of their varying accountability for health and the repercussions from the disruptive consequences of public health measures. Using the data from the COVID-19 Public Health Protective Policy Index Project, we study how the variables suggested by our theory correlate with the overall stringency of public health measures in federations as well as the contribution of the federal government to the making of these policies. Our results suggest that the public health measures taken in federations are at least as stringent as those in non-federations, and there is a cluster of federations on which a bulk of crisis policy making is carried by subnational governments. We find that the contribution of the federal government is, on average, higher in parliamentary systems; it appears to decline with the proximity of the next election in presidential republics, and to increase with the fragmentation of the legislative party system in parliamentary systems. Our analysis also suggests that when the federal government carries a significant share of responsibility for healthcare provision, it also tends to play a higher role in taking non-medical steps in response to the pandemic

Institutional Origins of Protective COVID-19 Public Health Policy Responses: Informational and Authority Redundancies and Policy Stringency

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Now Publishers via the DOI in this recordIn this essay, we argue that institutional systems that allow redundancies in information channels and in policy-making are more likely to generate a rapid policy response to crises such as the onset of COVID-19 pandemic than more streamlined systems. Since democracies and decentralized polities feature higher informational and authority redundancies, we theorize improved crisis response in democracies, and in more decentralized democracies. To assess our theoretical expectations, we construct an original data set of stringency of policy measures that were adopted in response to COVID-19 by governments at different levels in 64~countries between January and May 2020. We find that democracies and liberal democracies responded to COVID-19 stronger and faster. Federalism and decentralization in addition to democratic institutions played a less uniform, but still a positive role. Beyond their other acknowledged merits, democratic institutions have superior capacity to mount a quick policy response to unqualified threats

COVID-19 Policy Response and the Rise of the Sub-National Governments

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from University of Toronto Press via the DOI in this recordData availability: The data used in this article are available as online Appendices C–G.We examine the roles of sub-national and national governments in Canada and the United States vis-à-vis the protective public health response in the onset phase of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This period was characterized in both countries by incomplete information as well as by uncertainty regarding which level of government should be responsible for which policies. The crisis represents an opportunity to study how national and sub-national governments respond to such policy challenges. In this article, we present a unique dataset that catalogues the policy responses of US states and Canadian provinces as well as those of the respective federal governments: the Protective Policy Index (PPI). We then compare the United States and Canada along several dimensions, including the absolute values of subnational levels of the index relative to the total protections enjoyed by citizens, the relationship between early threat (as measured by the mortality rate near the start of the public health crisis) and the evolution of the PPI, and finally the institutional and legislative origins of the protective health policies. We find that the sub-national contribution to policy is more important for both the United States and Canada than are their national-level policies, and it is unrelated in scope to our early threat measure. We also show that the institutional origin of the policies as evidenced by the COVID-19 response differs greatly between the two countries and has implications for the evolution of federalism in each

Protective Policy Index (PPI) global dataset of origins and stringency of COVID 19 mitigation policies

This the final version. Available on open access from Nature Research via the DOI in this recordData Records: We have created a Github repository (https://github.com/COVID-policy-response-lab/PPI-data) to store the datasets with the Public Health Protective Policy Index and its components. A copy of the included datafiles, as described below, was deposited with openICPSR15. It presently requires creating an account with the depository. Data access is free. Data location is at https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/123401. The datasets are stored as csv files with five types of layouts. “PPI_country_m1.csv” is a file with country-level aggregates of region-level PPIs, computed using method 1, and their components. Each row corresponds to a country-date. The rows are identified using the country name (cname), numeric and 2-letter ISO 3166-1 codes (isocode and isoabbr respectively), as well as a date variable. The names of the policy variables contain four components: the name of the broader category, the name of the category, the level of issuing government (“nat” refers to the national policies, “reg” refers to the subnational policies, and “tot” refers to the combination of national and subnational policies), as well as suffix “ave”. For example, the average Total PPI is denoted as “ppi.all.tot.ave”, and the average stringency of the closures of air borders by the national government is denoted as “borders.air_bord.nat.ave”. See the codebook for the complete list of variables. “PPI_country_m2.csv” is a file with country-level aggregates of region-level PPIs, computed using method 2, and their components. The identifying variables and the naming convention for the policy variables is the same as in “PPI_country_m1.csv”, with the addition of suffix “0.2” at the end of the policy variable names. “PPI_regions_XX_m1.csv” (replace XX with the 2-letter ISO 3166-1 country codes) are country-specific files with region-specific PPIs, computed using method 1, and their components. The identifying variables include the numeric and 2-letter ISO 3166-1 codes of the country (isocode and isoabbr respectively), the name of the region (state_province), its ISO 3166-2 code (iso_state), as well as a date variable. The names of the policy variables contain three components: the name of the broader category, the name of the category, and the level of issuing government (“nat” refers to the national policies, “reg” refers to the subnational policies, and “tot” refers to the combination of national and subnational policies). For example, the average Total PPI is denoted as “ppi.all.tot”, and the stringency of the closures of air borders by the national government is denoted as “borders.air_bord.nat”. “PPI_regions_XX_m2.csv” (replace XX with the 2-letter ISO 3166-1 country codes are country-specific files with region-specific PPIs, computed using method 2, and their components. The identifying variables and the naming convention for the policy variables is the same as in “PPI_regions_XX_m1.csv”, with the addition of the suffix “0.2” at the end of the policy variable names. “changes_regions_m1.csv” is an auxiliary file that describes the changes in the policy states, as recorded in the “PPI_regions_XX_m1.csv” files. Each row in this file corresponds to a change in a value of a policy state variable in a region and of a specific government level. The case identifying variables include the name of the country (cname), the numeric and 2-letter ISO 3166-1 code of the country (isocode and isoabbr, respectively), the name of the region (state_province) and its ISO 3166-2 code, date, policy dimension, and a marker of policies issued by a regional government (subnational). Among others, the attributes included in this file include the branch of the government (branch) and the date when the change was announced (report_date).Code availability; The code used to produce our calculations is available at https://github.com/COVID-policy-response-lab/PPI-dataWe have developed and made accessible for multidisciplinary audience a unique global dataset of the behavior of political actors during the COVID-19 pandemic as measured by their policy-making efforts to protect their publics. The dataset presents consistently coded cross-national data at subnational and national levels on the daily level of stringency of public health policies by level of government overall and within specific policy categories, and reports branches of government that adopted these policies. The data on these public mandates of protective behaviors is collected from media announcements and government publications. The dataset allows comparisons of governments’ policy efforts and timing across the world and can serve as a source of information on policy determinants of pandemic outcomes–both societal and possibly medical

The Impact of Party-Constituent Relationships on Executive and Legislative Influence Over Policymaking

In this analysis, we examine the effect of party-voter linkages on executive and legislative influence over policymaking in democracies throughout the world. We expect committees in legislatures with programmatic parties to have more power over the public policymaking process than committees in legislatures with clientelistic parties. We also expect executives in countries with programmatic parties to have less power over the public policymaking process than executives in countries with clientelistic parties. Using data from the Varieties of Democracy Dataset and controlling for relevant factors, we find support for our expectations. The results of this paper shed light on how party linkages to constituents can affect executive and legislative influence over policymaking