A whole-of-nation approach to COVID-19: Taiwan’s National Epidemic Prevention Team

Abstract

This article analyzes Taiwan’s National Epidemic Prevention Team, a collective synergy between government and society in fighting COVID-19. We draw on a model of collaborative governance to dissect the collaboration between National Epidemic Prevention Team members; that is, central government, local governments, private enterprises and citizens. We argue that the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak, democratic deepening and continual diplomatic isolation despite the global health crisis contributed to Taiwan’s National Epidemic Prevention Team capacity and cohesiveness. Our analysis contributes to the heated discourse on democratic resilience in these turbulent times, suggesting that outbreak control can succeed only if there is an integrated system of interdepartmental, central–local, intersectoral and citizen–state collaboration. Overall, this article shows how liberal democracies can control and counteract COVID-19 without resorting to authoritarian methods of containment.

Managing the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Fragmented Local Government Setting: a Study from Ogan Ilir Regency, Indonesia

“…Taken to a higher level, namely cooperation, various problems arise when each actor begins to pursue individual targets which are the main performance indicators for each organization. (Hsieh et al, 2021;Xiao et al, 2021). Although the actors realize that long-term relationships will have considerable benefits, the relationships found in this study tend to be short-term relationships with relatively lower risks.…”

“…Local governments that are too fragmented may on the one hand make the government more focused on work, and on the other hand make work more centralized and prevent frontline bureaucrats from working. (Hsieh et al, 2021). This is not only happening in the COVID-19 pandemic situation because local governments have long received such criticism, it is the result of decentralization of power and new public management.…”

Strong government responses? Reflections on the management of COVID-19 in Hong Kong and Taiwan

“…The legacy of the government's role in public service delivery is not on the same track as previously though in these two places. Realpolitik pushed Taiwanese leaders to commit to a "powerful and centralised" mechanism of governance, and government coordination and interventions in enterprises were prominent (Hsieh et al, 2021). In contrast, the British colonial and early China's SAR Hong Kong regimes advocated for the "minimal government" philosophy and witnessed the expanding role of the private sector in public service provision through market principles.…”

“…Making use of legal regimes, Hong Kong still imposes effective supervision and intervention in the performance of these quasi-public/private service providers by means of budget control and auditing requirements. COVID-19 has underlined a great number of involvements from "non-public personnel, but they are actually the contractors of the government" (Hsieh et al, 2021;Ho and Chan, 2021). This anti-pandemic model marks a sharp departure from the general emphasis of centrally administered, mass mobilisation of practices in most non-democratic Asian regimes.…”

“…The "strong government" also received divergent reactions from society. There has been extensive cross-sectoral collaboration in Taiwan under the centralised "National Team" advocacy (Hsieh et al, 2021) or a collaborative governance model (Huang, 2020) emphasising top-down government command, with collaboration and voluntary assistance from the community. There is notable, spontaneous mobilisation from front-line local units to villages, cities and district governments.…”