IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/7swqe.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Locked Down or Locked In? Institutionalized Public Preferences and Pandemic Policy Feedback in 32 Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen, Hung
  • Breznau, Nate

    (University of Bremen)

  • Heukamp, Lisa

Abstract

The Novel Coronavirus Pandemic provides a unique opportunity to test theories of policy feedback in times of national emergency. An important question in this field is whether the discrepancy between public attitudes and emergency rules makes ordinary citizens less likely to comply, which in turn can undermine the goals of that national emergency policies such as the recent lockdown. In this study, we first compare 2016 institutionalized non-Covid related public preferences for government intervention to government actions taken at the outbreak of this pandemic in early March 2020 across 32 middle to high income countries, using aggregated data from the International Social Survey Program and country-level Blavatnik Coronavirus Government Response Tracker data. Then, we use the relative discrepancy between them to predict public behaviors shortly after the initial outbreak in late-March into early April using the Measuring Worldwide COVID-19 Attitudes and Beliefs survey. We find no association between public preferences and government response at the outbreak; however, we find some tentative evidence that the discrepancy between them shows a relationship with public behaviors in the subsequent stage, after adjusting for the local severity of the outbreak and the current level of government intervention. Where the government took much stronger interventions in the outbreak stage relative to public preferences for non-Covid government interventions, the public were more likely to engage in risky social behaviors, such as going out when asked not to, attending social gatherings, or not keeping a safe distance from others. In contrast, where the government took weaker measures, the public were instead more likely to avoid risky social behaviors. Although we cannot conclude whether this means that the enforced measures were more or less effective, our results may suggest that governments took stronger measures in countries where they expected more risky behaviors and that there may be a tradeoff between institutionalized public preferences and the ability to curtail social behaviours.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen, Hung & Breznau, Nate & Heukamp, Lisa, 2021. "Locked Down or Locked In? Institutionalized Public Preferences and Pandemic Policy Feedback in 32 Countries," SocArXiv 7swqe, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:7swqe
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/7swqe
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6012d6a0dd2225029958d442/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/7swqe?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adams, James & Clark, Michael & Ezrow, Lawrence & Glasgow, Garrett, 2004. "Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 589-610, October.
    2. Martin Baekgaard & Julian Christensen & Jonas Krogh Madsen & Kim Sass Mikkelsen, 2020. "Rallying around the flag in times of COVID-19: Societal lockdown and trust in democratic institutions," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    3. Stimson, James A. & Mackuen, Michael B. & Erikson, Robert S., 1995. "Dynamic Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 543-565, September.
    4. James Adams & Michael Clark & Lawrence Ezrow & Garrett Glasgow, 2006. "Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties' Policy Shifts, 1976–1998," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 513-529, July.
    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. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    2. Christopher Williams & Jae-Jae Spoon, 2015. "Differentiated party response: The effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party positions," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 176-193, June.
    3. Susanne Karstedt & Rebecca Endtricht, 2022. "Crime And Punishment: Public Opinion And Political Law-And-Order Rhetoric In Europe 1996–2019," The British Journal of Criminology, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, vol. 62(5), pages 1116-1135.
    4. Roman Senninger & Daniel Bischof, 2018. "Working in unison: Political parties and policy issue transfer in the multilevel space," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 140-162, March.
    5. Jae-Jae Spoon, 2012. "How salient is Europe? An analysis of European election manifestos, 1979–2004," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 558-579, December.
    6. Gaetan Fournier & Alberto Grillo & Yevgeny Tsodikovich, 2023. "Strategic flip-flopping in political competition," Papers 2305.02834, arXiv.org.
    7. Jelle Koedam, 2021. "Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 655-675, December.
    8. Adam, Antonis & Ftergioti, Stamatia, 2019. "Neighbors and friends: How do European political parties respond to globalization?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 369-384.
    9. Edoardo Cefalà, 2022. "The political consequences of mass repatriation," Discussion Papers 2022-05, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    10. Bilge Öztürk Göktuna, 2019. "A dynamic model of party membership and ideologies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(2), pages 209-243, April.
    11. Brusco, Sandro & Roy, Jaideep, 2016. "Cycles in public opinion and the dynamics of stable party systems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 413-430.
    12. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers, 2013. "Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Benjamin Michallet & Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & François Facchini, 2015. "Greening Up or Not? The Determinants Political Parties’ Environmental Concern: An Empirical Analysis Based on European Data (1970-2008)," Working Papers 2015.25, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    14. Anda Rožukalne & Vineta Kleinberga & Alise Tīfentāle & Ieva Strode, 2022. "What Is the Flag We Rally Around? Trust in Information Sources at the Outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Latvia," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Fuchs, Dieter, 1997. "Kriterien demokratischer Performanz in Liberalen Demokratien," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 97-203, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    16. Selim Jürgen Ergun, 2015. "Centrist’S Curse? An Electoral Competition Model With Credibility Constraints," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    17. Nam, Hoseok & Konishi, Satoshi & Nam, Ki-Woo, 2021. "Comparative analysis of decision making regarding nuclear policy after the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Case study in Germany and Japan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Roy Kwon, 2015. "Does Radical Partisan Politics Affect National Income Distributions? Congressional Polarization and Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–2008," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(1), pages 49-64, March.
    19. Thomas Bernauer & Liang Dong & Liam F. McGrath & Irina Shaymerdenova & Haibin Zhang, 2016. "Unilateral or Reciprocal Climate Policy? Experimental Evidence from China," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 152-171.
    20. Apostoaie Constantin-Marius, 2016. "Relevant Determinants of the Political Parties’ Environmental Preference," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 63(s1), pages 51-69, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:socarx:7swqe. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.