IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i3p499-517..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Democratic and expert legitimacy: Science, politics and the public during the COVID-19 pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Weingart
  • François van Schalkwyk
  • Lars Guenther

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an extraordinary test case for an analysis of the interrelations between policymakers and scientific experts faced with grave decisions and given the respective levels of trust they enjoy. The article provides a comparative analysis between three countries—Germany, the USA and South Africa (SA)—of the interrelation between the public’s perceptions of the threat posed by the pandemic, the trust in governments and in scientific experts formally organized to advise governments, and the acceptance of governments’ decisions to mitigate the pandemic. These scientific experts enjoyed a high degree of acceptance even when admitting uncertainty and the need for further research. Support for politicians also remained high in spite of the severity of the measures implemented and their increasingly evident departure from their experts’ advice. However, trust in politicians deteriorated as the pandemic progressed, most dramatically in the USA, less so in SA and Germany, due to the politicization of the pandemic. The analysis is limited to events during 2020.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Weingart & François van Schalkwyk & Lars Guenther, 2022. "Democratic and expert legitimacy: Science, politics and the public during the COVID-19 pandemic," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 499-517.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:3:p:499-517.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:3:p:499-517.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.