Existing commentaries on government responses to COVID-19 have focused on such factors as competent leadership, policy instruments, or cultural dispositions. Yet, few have provided a synthesis that examines how these factors relate to each other. This article fills this gap in the debate by comparing COVID-19 responses among five advanced economies in East Asia: Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Japan. Although agile actions and competence of top leadership are necessary to confront an unprecedented crisis, they are by themselves insufficient. Equally critical is whether a society has the necessary institutional infrastructure in place when a crisis strikes. Policy instruments are more likely to succeed when existing institutional infrastructure supports their administration and implementation. For an instrument to generate enduring impact, it must be compatible with a polity’s underlying culture; instruments that accommodate the underlying cultural orientations are more likely to elicit public cooperation and voluntary compliance over time. Policy instruments must also address equity issues by reaching marginalized groups across all layers of the population. Progress in emergency management may be visible in mainstream society but masking brewing problems among marginalized groups. A comparison across the five advanced economies in East Asia yields several implications for comparative research and policy.

To understand the extent to which a policy instrument’s early adoption is crucial in crisis management, we leverage unique worldwide data that record the daily evolution of policy mandate adoptions and COVID‐19 infection and mortality rates. The analysis shows that the mask mandate is consistently associated with lower infection rates in the short term, and its early adoption boosts the long‐term efficacy. By contrast, the other five policy instruments—domestic lockdowns, international travel bans, mass gathering bans, and restaurant and school closures—show weaker efficacy. Governments prepared for a public health crisis with stronger resilience or capacity and those with stronger collectivist cultures were quicker to adopt nationwide mask mandates. From a policy design perspective, policymakers must avoid overreacting with less effective instruments and underreacting with more effective ones during uncertain times, especially when interventions differ in efficacy and cost.

Policy termination has received less scholarly attention than policy diffusion, and empirical state-level studies that examine the rise and fall of the same policy are mostly absent from the literature. This study assesses the factors that led more than 45 states to enact and some to later repeal Motion Picture Incentive programs, a collection of tax incentives aimed at facilitating job creation and economic diversification. We find program enactments were driven by rising unemployment and national but not bordering state imitation. Falling unemployment and national trends drove subsequent terminations, but in many states, their impact was overwhelmed by the influence of incentive spending, which greatly reduced termination likelihood. These results not only shed light on policy enactments and terminations in general, but also inform scholarship on state tax incentives and the role of competitive factors in their creation and repeal—or lack thereof.

No abstract

Recent research shows that inequality between racial groups is a critical determinant of redistributive policy in the United States. Using various measures of local and state spending and examining multiple levels of geographical and political jurisdictions, we extend this research to government spending on local public goods. Specifically, we examine (1) whether the extent to which income inequality falls along racial lines dampens local and state government spending on public goods, (2) which types of public goods are most affected by the racial structure of inequality, and (3) whether political variables such as local leaders’ racial identities and party affiliation mediate the relationship between racial inequality and spending on public goods. The findings reaffirm the need to consider racial diversity and inequality jointly as influences on policy.