Using Switzerland and England’s responses to COVID-19, Jen Gaskell and Gerry Stoker explain how decentralised capacity, combined with a constructive relationship at different levels of governance, may result in a more effective strategy during a crisis

Gaskell, Jen

Stoker, Gerry

English

LSE Research Online

Centralised or multi-level: which governance systems are having a ‘good’ pandemic?LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/104639/Version: Published VersionOnline resource:Gaskell, Jen and Stoker, Gerry (2020) Centralised or multi-level: which governance systems are having a ‘good’ pandemic? British Policy and Politics at LSE (16 Apr 2020). Blog Entry. lseresearchonline@lse.ac.ukhttps://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ ReuseItems deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item.Centralised	or	multi-level:	which	governance	systemsare	having	a	‘good’	pandemic?Using	Switzerland	and	England’s	responses	to	COVID-19,	Jen	Gaskell	and	GerryStoker	explain	how	decentralised	capacity,	combined	with	a	constructive	relationship	atdifferent	levels	of	governance,	may	result	in	a	more	effective	strategy	during	a	crisis.There	is	growing	awareness	that	the	current	crisis	caused	by	the	novel	coronavirus	isimpacting	the	very	foundations	of	many	of	the	world’s	democracies,	which	suggests	thereis	a	debate	to	be	had	on	the	strengths	and	weaknesses	of	different	governance	arrangements	leveraged	inresponse	to	the	crisis.	It	feels	like	it	might	be	a	profound	learning	opportunity	–	but	is	it?It	is	helpful	not	to	simply	focus	on	the	constitutional	features	of	various	democratic	governments.	As	colleagueshave	previously	shown,	those	may	not	matter	much	in	attempts	to	avoid	severe	policy	or	other	disasters.	Rather,	itis	better	to	focus	on	the	ways	these	structures	are	arranged	into	working	governance	systems.	Even	then,	equatinggood	governance	arrangements	to	good	covid-19	response	outcomes	is	not	straightforward,	nor	are	we	arguing	forsuch	a	simplistic	view.	Instead,	we	highlight	how	four	positive	qualities	of	multi-level	governance	can	contribute,when	combined,	to	greater	chances	of	positive	practical	outcomes	in	times	of	crisis:Central	capacityDecentralised	capacityMutual	learning	and	integrationCelebrating	differencesTo	illustrate	our	point,	we	take	the	examples	of	Switzerland	and	England	(and	more	generally	the	UK),	whoseresponses	to	the	coronavirus	pandemic	highlight	advantages	and	disadvantages	within	their	respective	governancesystems.Central	capacityThere	are	clear	benefits	to	having	a	strong	central	capacity	in	terms	of	the	ability	to	implement	rapid,	decisiveaction.	In	the	UK	for	example,	measures	designed	to	mitigate	the	spread	and	impacts	of	the	coronavirus	werecentrally	issued	on	3	March	2020	when	the	government	unveiled	its	plan	to	tackle	the	outbreak.	At	the	time,	therewere	51	cases	and	no	fatalities.	This	was	then	followed	two	weeks	later	by	a	rapid	change	in	tone	and	course	inresponse	to	a	model	by	a	team	at	Imperial	College	in	London	predicting	high	levels	of	death	unless	more	stringentmeasures	were	adopted.	Indeed	some	have	argued	that	over-centralisation	has	resulted	in	a	greater	tendency	forpolicy	mistakes.	This	is	echoed	in	a	recent	assessment	of	the	length	of	time	it	took	Boris	Johnson’s	scientificadvisors	to	raise	the	alarm	regarding	the	coronavirus	threat.By	contrast,	it	took	the	Swiss	Federal	Council	until	13	March	to	declare	an	‘extraordinary	situation’	thus	reclaimingthe	ability	to	adopt	stringent	measures	designed	to	curb	the	spread	of	the	virus.	By	that	point,	it	had	1,176	casesand	8	fatalities,	and	was	receiving	heavy	criticism	from	the	medical	community	for	its	lack	of	coordinated	action.While	the	declaration	legitimated	the	Swiss	Federal	Council’s	ability	to	lead	the	response,	it	had	to	continue	doingso	in	close	collaboration	with	its	26	Cantons,	who	had	until	then	led	their	own	responses.Decentralised	capacityThe	evident	tension	between	speed	of	reaction	and	the	need	to	include	a	broader	range	of	stakeholders	indecision-making	was	counter-balanced	by	the	strength	of	Switzerland’s	decentralised	capabilities.	Indeed,	all	threegovernance	levels	–	Federal,	Cantonal	(regional)	and	Communal	(equivalent	to	county	or	city	councils)	–	havemobilised	different	resources	to	tackle	the	outbreak.	Each	‘commune’	can	issue	its	own	specific	guidance	in	linewith	Federal	and	Cantonal	ones.	Evolène,	in	Valais,	for	example,	has	a	dedicated	page	on	its	website	for	localmeasures	in	place	which	go	far	beyond	reposting	links	to	the	Federal	ones.	According	to	the	Swiss	press,	they	areat	the	frontline	of	the	response	effort.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Centralised or multi-level: which governance systems are having a ‘good’ pandemic? Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-04-16Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/governance-systems-covid19/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/By	contrast,	it	is	not	clear	what	role	or	agency	local	councils	or	other	bodies	have	in	the	UK’s	response	to	the	crisison	the	ground.	Local	authorities	in	England	have	through	the	austerity	measures	of	the	last	decade	lost	a	great	dealof	capacity.	NHS	bodies	seemed	tied	up	in	a	complex	system	that	seems	to	discourage	initiative	in	favour	ofregulation	and	performance	measurement.	The	country’s	lack	of	decentralised	capabilities	at	the	local	levels	alsoled	to	confusion	in	how	to	implement	central	government’s	orders	in	various	sectors.	For	example	for	a	time	NHS111	contradicted	information	provided	by	Ministers;	more	recently	in	the	construction	sector,	the	governmentpublished	guidelines	to	close	sites	where	the	2m	distancing	rule	could	not	be	followed	but	withdrew	them	hourslater	following	protests	that	the	rules	could	not	be	implemented.Decentralised	capacity	alone	is	moreover	not	sufficient	to	generate	a	response	like	the	one	seen	in	Switzerland.	Inthe	United	States	for	example,	the	Washington	Post’s	long	exposé	on	the	‘denial	and	dysfunction’	thatcharacterised	the	American	response	to	the	pandemic	emphasises	how	power	struggles	and	mistrust	between	thevarious	department	and	agencies	responsible	for	dealing	with	such	an	outbreak	led	to	delays	and	failures	that	arecentral	to	the	dire	situation	the	country	currently	faces.	The	way	the	relationship	between	different	centre	of	poweris	constructed	seems	equally	as	important	to	the	effectiveness	of	a	response.Mutual	learning	and	integrationIn	the	Swiss	example,	mutual	learning	is	institutionalised	in	the	consultation	processes	at	the	Cantonal	andCommunal	levels,	which	informs	and	is	integrated	into	central	decision-making.	During	the	crisis,	these	consultationmechanisms	have	been	accelerated	rather	than	abandoned,	and	continue	to	feed	into	central	decision-makingalbeit	with	a	much	faster	turnaround.Perhaps	cultural	differences	account	for	the	discrepancy	in	capacity	for	mutual	learning	among	different	governancelevels	and	centres.	Swiss	historian	and	political	commentator	Claude	Longchamp	notes	the	long-standing	traditionof	consensus	building	in	Swiss	political	life,	whereas	Lowndes	identifies	that	relationships	between	local	and	centralgovernment	departments	and	agencies	in	the	UK	have	notoriously	been	characterised	by	a	lack	of	trust,	conflictand	competition.	And	it	is	the	institutionalisation	of	processes	of	mutual	learning,	that	occur	on	an	ad	hoc	basis	inthe	UK,	that	has	been	leveraged	successfully	in	the	Swiss	case	to	ensure	locally-relevant	and	appropriateresponses	are	not	only	welcome,	they	are	able	to	influence	the	general	course	of	the	country’s	strategy.Celebrating	differencesThis	is	combined	finally	by	a	commitment	to	celebrating	differences	by	providing	local	governance	centre	with	thefreedom	and	resources	to	undertake	what	they	feel	is	needed	for	their	communities.	The	Commune	of	Bovernier,for	instance,	a	small	village	with	900	inhabitants	in	the	Canton	of	Valais,	decided	to	call	each	of	the	110	householdswith	a	resident	over	the	age	of	65	to	arrange	food	and	medicine	deliveries.	In	Geneva,	the	immediate	focus	was	onjob	security	and	support	for	commercial	organisations.	In	this	way,	different	approaches	are	celebrated	for	theirlocalised	capacity	to	innovate	rapid,	relevant	responses,	in	contrast	to	centralised	edicts	such	as	the	constructionsite	closure	example	discussed	earlier	which	struggled	to	get	implemented	effectively	as	the	realisation	emergedamong	various	stakeholders	that	‘one-size	might	not	fit	all’.These	and	other	examples	such	as	Germany’s	demonstrated	success	in	case	testing	capabilities,	which	relies	on	anetwork	of	400	public	health	offices	capable	of	testing	three	times	as	many	patients	per	head	of	population	than	theUK,	illustrate	that	decentralised	capacity,	combined	with	a	constructive	relationship	at	different	levels	ofgovernance,	might	provide	a	more	effective	strategy	throughout	a	crisis	set	to	last	for	the	foreseeable	future.We	are	at	early	stages	in	the	process	and	lack	enough	evidence	to	be	able	make	clear,	let	alone	definitivejudgments.	But	is	does	seem	worth	asking	whether	we	can	start	a	process	of	learning	from	an	event	causingimmense	human	suffering	to	help	us	understand	whether	better	governance	systems,	supporting	human	welfare,can	be	identified	for	the	future.______________________About	the	AuthorsBritish Politics and Policy at LSE: Centralised or multi-level: which governance systems are having a ‘good’ pandemic? Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-04-16Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/governance-systems-covid19/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/Jen	Gaskell	is	Research	Fellow	with	the	TrustGov	project	at	the	University	of	Southampton.		Gerry	Stoker	is	Professor	of	Politics	and	Governance	at	the	University	of	Southampton.		All	articles	posted	on	this	blog	give	the	views	of	the	author(s),	and	not	the	position	of	LSE	British	Politics	and	Policy,nor	of	the	London	School	of	Economics	and	Political	Science.	Featured	image	credit:	engin	akyurt	on	Unsplash.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Centralised or multi-level: which governance systems are having a ‘good’ pandemic? Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2020-04-16Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/governance-systems-covid19/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

Centralised or multi-level: which governance systems are having a ‘good’ pandemic?

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/104639/1/politicsandpolicy_governance_systems.pdf

Centralised or multi-level: which governance systems are having a ‘good’ pandemic?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online