Author
Listed:
- Arnošt Veselý
- Ivan Petrúšek
- Petr Soukup
Abstract
An individual's political attitudes have been documented as the most important predictor of acceptance of government measures against the COVID‐19 pandemic. Their effect, however, is somewhat unclear and cannot be reduced to one dimension. In this article, we test whether general attitudes toward policy instruments might, together with left–right orientation, authoritarianism, social liberalism, and attitudes to state intervention, explain attitudes to policy instruments used to combat COVID‐19. The predictiveness of models of attitudes toward three different types of policy instruments to address the COVID‐19 pandemic was tested using a study of Czech university students). We found that individuals' general attitudes toward policy instruments are best measured by posing direct survey questions. Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the independent effects of general attitudes toward three different types of policy instruments on attitudes toward specific policy instruments for combating COVID‐19. We found that an individuals' general tendency to prefer an information, regulatory, or economic instrument significantly affects their attitude toward specific policy solutions, even after controlling for political orientation. These results provide novel empirical evidence for the autonomy of policy instruments attitudes (APIA) theory. The general attitudes toward policy instrument types are reflected in individuals' attitudes toward specific policy instruments, such as those used to combat COVID‐19. 个人的政治态度已被证明是“2019冠状病毒病(COVID‐19)大流行政府应对措施接受度”的最重要预测因素。然而,个人政治态度的影响并不清晰,并且不能简化为一个维度进行解读。本文中,我们检验了对政策工具的普遍态度、左倾和右倾、威权主义、社会自由主义以及对国家干预的态度,是否能解释对“用于抗击COVID‐19的政策工具”的态度。通过对捷克大学生的研究,检验了关于“应对COVID‐19大流行的三种政策工具”的态度模型的预测性。我们发现,提出直接的调查问题最能衡量个人对政策工具的一般态度。使用结构方程建模来估计“三种不同类型政策工具的一般态度”对“抗击COVID‐19的特定政策工具的态度”的独立影响。我们发现,即使在控制政治取向之后,个人对信息工具、监管工具或经济工具的一般偏好也会显著影响其对特定政策解决方案的态度。这些结果为政策工具态度自主性(APIA)理论提供了新的实证证据。对政策工具类型的一般态度反映在个人对特定政策工具的态度上,例如那些用于抗击COVID‐19的政策工具。. Se ha documentado que las actitudes políticas de un individuo son el predictor más importante de la aceptación de las medidas gubernamentales contra la pandemia de COVID‐19. Sin embargo, su efecto no está claro y no puede reducirse a una sola dimensión. En este artículo, probamos si las actitudes generales hacia los instrumentos políticos podrían, junto con la orientación izquierda‐derecha, el autoritarismo, el liberalismo social y las actitudes hacia la intervención estatal, explicar las actitudes hacia los instrumentos políticos utilizados para combatir el COVID‐19. La capacidad de predicción de los modelos de actitudes hacia tres tipos diferentes de instrumentos políticos para abordar la pandemia de COVID‐19 se probó mediante un estudio de estudiantes universitarios checos. Descubrimos que las actitudes generales de los individuos hacia los instrumentos políticos se miden mejor planteando preguntas directas en una encuesta. Se utilizó un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales para estimar los efectos independientes de las actitudes generales hacia tres tipos diferentes de instrumentos de política sobre las actitudes hacia instrumentos de política específicos para combatir el COVID‐19. Descubrimos que la tendencia general de un individuo a preferir un instrumento informativo, regulatorio o económico afecta significativamente su actitud hacia soluciones políticas específicas, incluso después de controlar la orientación política. Estos resultados proporcionan evidencia empírica novedosa para la teoría de las actitudes sobre los instrumentos de política (APIA). Las actitudes generales hacia los tipos de instrumentos de política se reflejan en las actitudes de los individuos hacia instrumentos de política específicos, como los utilizados para combatir el COVID‐19.
Suggested Citation
Arnošt Veselý & Ivan Petrúšek & Petr Soukup, 2025.
"Policy instruments attitudes and support for government responses against Covid‐19,"
Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 42(4), pages 982-1007, July.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:4:p:982-1007
DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12581
Download full text from publisher
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:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:4:p:982-1007. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.