Explaining Intergovernmental Conflict in the COVID-19 Crisis: The United States, Canada, and Australia

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic produced more significant immediate intergovernmental conflict in the U.S. than in Australia and Canada. This article considers three variables for this cross-national divergence: presidentialism versus parliamentarism; vertical party integration; and strength of intergovernmental arrangements. We find that the U.S. presidential system, contrary to parliamentarism in Canada and Australia, provided an opportunity for a populist outsider skeptical of experts to win the presidency and pursue a personalized style that favored intergovernmental conflict in times of crisis. Then, the intergovernmental conflict-inducing effect of the Trump presidency during the pandemic was compounded by the vertical integration of political parties, which provided incentives for the President to criticize Democratic governors and vice-versa. Third, the virtual absence of any structure for intergovernmental relations in the United States meant that, unlike Australian states and Canadian provinces, American states struggled to get the federal government’s attention and publicly deplored its lack of leadership.

Relationship of political ideology of US federal and state elected officials and key COVID pandemic outcomes following vaccine rollout to adults: April 2021–March 2022

“…1 , 2 , 3 , 12 Although we focus solely on the US, our approach is relevant to other country contexts, for which evidence of impacts of political polarization and tensions between levels of governance on COVID-19 response exists, but research on political geography, politicians’ votes, and COVID-19 outcomes is lacking. 3 , 8 , 13 …”

Three years of COVID‐19 pandemic: Coping with crisis governance in the long term

“…在世界大部分地区因流行病的相对缓解和应急制度的结束而恢复正常之际，出现了两个问题:从治理的角度来看，COVID‐19危机对政治制度有何影响？从政治学角度来看，这场危机如何增加了我们的反思？就第一个问题而言，这场危机阐明了反应过度和反应不足的可能性，以及公众对“政府以社会可接受的方式应对大流行一事”的信任程度的重要性(Capano et al, 2020)。由于情况的特殊性，事件的时间发展也显示出第一阶段政策趋同的效果，随后出现治理路径的多样化，这些路径有关于每个国家的政策反馈如何影响政治考量(Sayers et al, 2022)。在“需要使用科学证据来治理这场存在高度不确定性的危机（其中大量数据被密切监测）”，与“需要避免‘决策过程被技术官僚化’这类指责”之间，出现了重大的紧张关系(Kuhlmann et al, 2022)。在这方面，鉴于民粹主义政府在面对突发公共卫生事件时的反科学态度的后果，大流行的民粹主义治理引起了学术界的关注(Bayerlein et al, 2021)。从更一般的角度来看，还评估了政治制度和系统的特征如何解释大流行的管理方式。与总统制相比，议会制不太可能引发强烈的政治个性化——考虑到凝聚力和非极化对于成功的危机管理的重要性，这可能是一种优势(Lecours et al, 2021)。联邦系统遭遇了特定的挑战:纵向与横向协调(Schnabel and Hegele, 2012)、以及需要在联邦解决方案和地方偏好之间找到平衡点(Bandelow et al, 2021)。不过，中心化的系统也面临着独特挑战，即政治责任集中在中央政府（同上）。此外，这场危机提醒人们，尽管事件的发生非常特殊，但先前存在的政策和权力关系也助长了当前的问题(Bergeron et al, 2020)。这场危机还表明，我们仍然在应对健康方面的社会不平等问题时能力欠佳，基于社会建构的健康资源重新分配这一角度，这些不平等是可避免的。(Aïach & Fassin, 2004)。…”

“…De manera más general, también se ha evaluado la forma en que las características de los regímenes y sistemas políticos dan cuenta del estilo de gestión de la pandemia. Es menos probable que los sistemas parlamentarios desencadenen una fuerte personalización de la política que los presidenciales, lo que puede ser una ventaja dada la importancia de la cohesión y la no polarización para una gestión de crisis exitosa (Lecours et al, 2021). Se ha descubierto que los sistemas federales enfrentan desafíos específicos: coordinación vertical y horizontal (Schnabel and Hegele, 2012) y la necesidad de encontrar un equilibrio entre las soluciones federales y las preferencias locales (Bandelow et al, 2021).…”

“…More generally, the way features of political systems account for the pandemic management style has also been assessed. Parliamentary systems are less likely to trigger a strong personalization of politics than presidential ones, which can be an asset given the importance of cohesion and nonpolarization for successful crisis management (Lecours et al, 2021). Federal systems have been found to encounter specific challenges: vertical and horizontal coordination (Schnabel & Hegele, 2012) and the need to find a balance between federal solutions and local preferences (Bandelow et al, 2021).…”

The origin, rationale, and impacts of regulations on robots and AI in tourism and hospitality

“…For example, in the US Federal system, state and federal laws on marijuana often conflict creating a situation in which a state may have legalized the substance for recreational or medicinal use while it is still considered an illegal substance by the Federal Government authorities (Nickles, 2015). In the recent covid pandemic, there were many instances of contradictory governmental regulations creating some confusion regarding the rules for the conduct of business during the pandemic (Lecours et al, 2021).…”