Institutional origins of COVID-19 public health protective policy response (PPI) data set v. 1.2 (countries)

This is an original dataset of stringency of public health policy measures that were adopted in response to COVID-19 worldwide by governments at different levels January 24 and April 30 2020. The national file includes daily national level aggregates for 64 countries. The regional file includes daily sub-national level aggregates for Canada and the USA. To measure COVID-19 mitigation policy responses, we gathered data on policies that national and subnational policymakers adopted within fifteen public health categories: state of emergency, self-isolation and quarantine, border closures, limits on social gatherings, school closings, closure of entertainment venues, closure of restaurants, closure of non-essential businesses, closure of government offices, work from home requirements, lockdowns and curfews, public transportation closures, and mandatory wearing of PPE. We identify and code national and subnational public health policies for each subnational unit in 64 countries (subnational aggregates are presently published of USA and Canada only), including countries in North America, Central America, South America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. We rely primarily on government resources, press releases, and news sources, dating policies based on first announcement. Note that between and within the policy categories, there is variation on stringency, with some policy adoptions being more stringent than others (i.e. self-isolation versus lockdowns, partial school closings versus full school closings). To this end, we weighed more stringent policies in each category in the index more heavily. Based on coded public health policy responses to COVID-19, we calculate the Public Health Protective Policy Indices (PPI): Regional PPI for each subnational unit on each day; National PPI for a country on each day, based on national level policies; and Total PPI for each subnational unit on each day. The Total PPI reflects the strictest between the national and subnational policies adopted within each category for that unit for that day. The indices are scaled to range between 0 and 1. The Average Total PPI for each country-day is computed by weighing the different units’ Total PPI values by the units’ population shares. The indices apply solely to the measurable subnational and national public-health COVID-19 mitigation policy responses

CONSTITUTIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURAL DETERMINANTS OF POLICY RESPONSIVENESS TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM EXISTENTIAL THREATS: COVID-19 AND BEYOND

A multitude of government forms and institutional variations have the same aims of serving their countries and citizens but vary in outcomes. What it means to best serve the citizens is, however, a matter of broad interpretation and so the disagreements persist. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic creates new metrics for comparing government performance – the metrics of human deaths, or, alternatively and as we pursue it here, the metrics of the speed of government response in preventing human deaths through policy adoption. We argue in this essay that institutional and government systems with more authority redundancies are more likely to rapidly generate policy in response to crisis and find better policy solutions compared to centralized systems with minimal authority redundancies. This is due to a multiplicity of access points to policy making, which increase the chances of a policymaker crafting the “correct” response to crisis, which can be replicated elsewhere. Furthermore, citizens in centralized and unitary governments must rely on national policymakers to get the correct response as subnational policymakers are highly constrained compared to their counterparts in decentralized systems. As policy authority is institutionally defined, these policy authority redundancies correspond to specific institutional and constitutional forms. In this paper, we provide a mathematical/formal model where we specifically analyze the contrast in the speed of policy response between more centralized and autocratic states versus democratic federations

Federal Institutions and Strategic Policy Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic

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

Cumhuriyet dönemi Luthierlik mesleği

Ankara : İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent Üniversitesi İktisadi, İdari ve Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi, Tarih Bölümü, 2015.This work is a student project of the The Department of History, Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University.by Sheridan, Rukiye Aslıhan Aksoy

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

In 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

Institutional origins of COVID-19 public health protective policy response (PPI) data set v. 1.2 - regional U.S. and Canada

This is an original dataset of stringency of public health policy measures that were adopted in response to COVID-19 worldwide by governments at different levels January 24 and April 30 2020. The national file includes daily national level aggregates for 64 countries. The regional file includes daily sub-national level aggregates for Canada and the USA. To measure COVID-19 mitigation policy responses, we gathered data on policies that national and subnational policymakers adopted within fifteen public health categories: state of emergency, self-isolation and quarantine, border closures, limits on social gatherings, school closings, closure of entertainment venues, closure of restaurants, closure of non-essential businesses, closure of government offices, work from home requirements, lockdowns and curfews, public transportation closures, and mandatory wearing of PPE. We identify and code national and subnational public health policies for each subnational unit in 64 countries (subnational aggregates are presently published of USA and Canada only), including countries in North America, Central America, South America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. We rely primarily on government resources, press releases, and news sources, dating policies based on first announcement. Note that between and within the policy categories, there is variation on stringency, with some policy adoptions being more stringent than others (i.e. self-isolation versus lockdowns, partial school closings versus full school closings). To this end, we weighed more stringent policies in each category in the index more heavily. Based on coded public health policy responses to COVID-19, we calculate the Public Health Protective Policy Indices (PPI): Regional PPI for each subnational unit on each day; National PPI for a country on each day, based on national level policies; and Total PPI for each subnational unit on each day. The Total PPI reflects the strictest between the national and subnational policies adopted within each category for that unit for that day. The indices are scaled to range between 0 and 1. The Average Total PPI for each country-day is computed by weighing the different units’ Total PPI values by the units’ population shares. The indices apply solely to the measurable subnational and national public-health COVID-19 mitigation policy responses