IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v56y2023i4d10.1007_s11077-023-09509-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Climbing the 'ladder of intrusiveness': the Italian government's strategy to push the Covid-19 vaccination coverage further

Author

Listed:
  • Stefania Profeti

    (University of Bologna)

  • Federico Toth

    (University of Bologna)

Abstract

In all Western countries, the vaccination campaign against COVID-19 encountered some resistance. To overcome vaccine inertia and hesitancy, governments have used a variety of strategies and policy instruments. These instruments can be placed on a 'ladder of intrusiveness', starting from voluntary tools based on simple information and persuasion, through material incentives and disincentives of varying nature and magnitude, to highly coercive tools, such as lockdown for the unvaccinated and the introduction of the vaccination mandate. Italy's experience during the vaccination campaign against Covid provides an ideal observational point for starting to investigate this issue: not only was Italy among the top countries with the highest percentage of people vaccinated at the beginning of 2022, but—at least compared to other European countries—it was also one of the countries that had gradually introduced the most intrusive measures to increase vaccination compliance. In the article the different steps of the ‘intrusiveness ladder’ are presented, providing examples from various countries, and then tested on the Italian Covid-19 vaccination campaign between 2021 and the first months of 2022. For each phase of the campaign, the instrument mixes adopted by the Italian government are described, as well as the contextual conditions that led to their adoption. In the final section, an assessment of the composition and evolution of the Italian vaccination strategy is provided, based on the following criteria: legitimacy, feasibility, effectiveness, internal consistency and strategic coherence. Conclusions highlight the pragmatic approach adopted by the Italian government and underline the effects—both positive and negative—of scaling up the intrusiveness ladder.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefania Profeti & Federico Toth, 2023. "Climbing the 'ladder of intrusiveness': the Italian government's strategy to push the Covid-19 vaccination coverage further," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 709-731, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:56:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-023-09509-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-023-09509-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-023-09509-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-023-09509-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    2. Miquel Oliu-Barton & Bary S. R. Pradelski & Nicolas Woloszko & Lionel Guetta-Jeanrenaud & Philippe Aghion & Patrick Artus & Arnaud Fontanet & Philippe Martin & Guntram B. Wolff, 2022. "The effect of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake, health outcomes, and the economy," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Claudio Deiana & Andrea Geraci & Gianluca Mazzarella & Fabio Sabatini, 2022. "Perceived risk and vaccine hesitancy: Quasi‐experimental evidence from Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1266-1275, June.
    4. repec:bre:wpaper:46695 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Cass Sunstein, 2014. "Nudging: A Very Short Guide," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 583-588, December.
    6. Marc Debus & Jale Tosun, 2021. "Political ideology and vaccination willingness: implications for policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 477-491, September.
    7. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    8. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    9. Margarete Redlin, 2022. "Differences in NPI strategies against COVID-19," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Lorena Charrier & Jacopo Garlasco & Robin Thomas & Paolo Gardois & Marco Bo & Carla Maria Zotti, 2022. "An Overview of Strategies to Improve Vaccination Compliance before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-13, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    2. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    3. Naimeh Mohammadi & Hamid Mostofi & Hans-Liudger Dienel, 2023. "Policy Chain of Energy Transition from Economic and Innovative Perspectives: Conceptual Framework and Consistency Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-27, August.
    4. Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Fischer, Richard & Tamayo, Fabian & Navarrete, Bolier Torres & Günter, Sven, 2022. "Analyzing forest policy mixes based on the coherence of policies and the consistency of legislative policy instruments: A case study from Ecuador," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    5. Vollebergh, Herman & van der Werf, Edwin & Vogel, Johanna, 2023. "A descriptive framework to evaluate instrument packages for the low-carbon transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    6. Kris Hartley & Michael Howlett, 2021. "Policy Assemblages and Policy Resilience: Lessons for Non-Design from Evolutionary Governance Theory," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 451-459.
    7. Chohan, Usman W., 2022. "Analyzing sound COVID-19 policy responses in developing countries: the case study of Pakistan," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, August.
    8. Marques, Marcelo, 2021. "How do policy instruments generate new ones? Analysing policy instruments feedback and interaction in educational research in England, 1986-2014," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    9. Ilana Shpaizman, 2020. "The end–means nexus and policy conversion: evidence from two cases in Israeli immigrant integration policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 713-733, December.
    10. Edmond Daramy-Williams & Jillian Anable & Susan Grant-Muller, 2019. "Car Use: Intentional, Habitual, or Both? Insights from Anscombe and the Mobility Biography Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Boncinelli, Fabio & Bartolini, Fabio & Casini, Leonardo, 2018. "Structural factors of labour allocation for farm diversification activities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 204-212.
    12. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    13. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    14. Weingarten, Nina & Bach, Leonie & Wang, Wen-Xiu & Roosen, Jutta & Hartmann, Monika, 2023. "Every Step You Take: Nudging Animal Welfare Product Sales in a Virtual Supermarket," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335733, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. J. Veldwijk & J. Exel & E. W. Bekker-Grob & N. Mouter, 2023. "Public Preferences for Introducing a COVID-19 Certificate: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Netherlands," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 603-614, July.
    16. Barbanente, Angela & Grassini, Laura, 2022. "Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    17. Artur Santoalha & Ron Boschma, 2021. "Diversifying in green technologies in European regions: does political support matter?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(2), pages 182-195, February.
    18. Shumon Zihady, 2023. "Dupchanchia Model of Students' drop-out control through engagement and appreciation after Covid-19: A Behavioral Policy intervention in the field administration of Bangladesh," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 43(1), pages 136-148, May.
    19. Gillitzer, Christian & Sinning, Mathias, 2020. "Nudging businesses to pay their taxes: Does timing matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 284-300.
    20. Frank, Alejandro Germán & Gerstlberger, Wolfgang & Paslauski, Carolline Amaral & Lerman, Laura Visintainer & Ayala, Néstor Fabián, 2018. "The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 353-365.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:56:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-023-09509-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.