Covid‐19 and the Blunders of our Governments: Long‐run System Failings Aggravated by Political Choices

Abstract

More urgently than ever we need an answer to the question posed by the late Mick Moran in The Political Quarterly nearly two decades ago: ‘if government now invests huge resources in trying to be smart why does it often act so dumb?’. We reflect on this question in the context of governmental responses to Covid‐19 in four steps. First, we argue that blunders occur because of systemic weaknesses that stimulate poor policy choices. Second, we review and assess the performance of governments on Covid‐19 across a range of advanced democracies. Third, in the light of these comparisons we argue that the UK system of governance has proved itself vulnerable to failure at the time when its citizens most needed it. Finally, we outline an agenda of reform that seeks to rectify structural weaknesses of that governance capacity.

Institutional Responsibility is Prior to Personal Responsibility in a Pandemic

“…To take just a few examples, the government’s advice was repeatedly criticized for being unclear and, at times, self-contradictory [ 46 ], while the behaviour of individual people at the top of government was sometimes at odds with the official line, which some research suggested filtered down to reduced public compliance [ 47 ], and which came on top of other inconsistencies or confusions in messaging [ 48 , p. 530]. Logistical decisions were criticized for being overly centralized, often ignoring existing local networks [ 25 , 48 , pp. 524–525] and relying on targets that served political rather than public health goals [ 31 , p. 4].…”

Responding to the COVID-19 crisis: a principled or pragmatist approach?

“…Prime Minister Johnson entered the crisis with a principled approach that was premised on the critical importance of continued economic activity (Gaskell et al, 2020). A lockdown was out of the question.…”

The challenges of providing certainty in the face of wicked problems: Analysing the UK government's handling of the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…This is not a black and white picture, however Lilleker et al ( 2021a , p. 336) found that ‘some authoritarian and conservative administrations demonstrated a greater tendency to underestimate the pandemic … [but] there is not a simple correlation between the style and ideology of a government and the impact experienced during the COVID‐19 pandemic’. There is evidence that ‘hypermasculine leadership’, not least the UK version of ‘overweaning self‐confidence and groupthink’ (Gaskell et al, 2020 ; Waylen, 2021 , p. 1169) led to failures in public policy not experienced in other contexts. Some raise this as a problem with the masculine style of leadership suggesting female leaders offer more effective leadership although we recognise the selection bias in the choices of examples, and underlying factors bringing women into leadership roles in the first place (Windsor et al, 2020 ).…”