During a global pandemic, individual views of government can be linked to citizens' trust and cooperation with government and their propensity to resist state policies or to take action that influences the course of a pandemic. This article explores citizens' assessments of government responses to COVID‐19 as a function of policy substance (restrictions on civil liberties), information about performance, and socioeconomic inequity in outcomes. We conducted a survey experiment and analyzed data on over 7000 respondents from eight democratic countries. We find that across countries, citizens are less favorable toward COVID‐19 policies that are more restrictive of civil liberties. Additionally, citizens' views of government performance are significantly influenced by objective performance information from reputable sources and information on the disproportionate impacts of COVID‐19 on low‐income groups. This study reinforces the importance of policy design and outcomes and the consideration of multiple public values in the implementation of public policies.
Structuring managerial discretion has been a key government policy tool in contemporary regulation and governance. This paper explores how a policy that constrains managers' discretion in recruitment influences the performance of public services. The National Background Check Program (NBCP) is a federal program aimed at strengthening states' criminal background checks targeting direct patient access employees in nursing homes, where abuse, neglect and misappropriations have been a persistent concern. We combine secondary administrative panel data on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing facilities with primary data collected from states on their NBCP efforts. We find that NBCP participation, funding and the implementation of fingerprinting requirement, in particular, are associated with fewer deficiencies and higher star ratings. These findings suggest that, while constraining managerial discretion, government regulation is an important tool that federal and state agencies can use to control the performance of public and private entities in some markets and provide market enhancing signals to consumers.
This study explores whether public personnel systems, particularly their compensation systems, are flexible and responsive to market wages in a competitive labor market. Focusing on registered nurses, we explore whether and how the public, private nonprofit, and for-profit labor markets influence each other in determining wages. We also examine if sector plays a role in determining wages. We use American Community Survey data from 2016 and 2017 to test these expectations. Fixed effects regressions and seemingly unrelated regressions with Chow tests reveal that higher wages in the dominant for-profit sector appear to drive up wages in the other two sectors, and vice versa. The results imply that public personnel systems are not so rigid and inflexible as perceived. Rather, they are sensitive to supply and demand and offer wages responding to competition from other sectors. Moreover, public employees do not ignore competitive opportunities in alternative employment markets in the private sectors. Students of public employment should not overlook the private sectors either. The markets are distinctive but not independent.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.