TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Hellström, Mikael A1 - Ramberg, Ulf A1 - Reiter, Renate T1 - Tracing divergence in crisis governance BT - responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared JF - International review of administrative sciences N2 - This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of ‘normal governance’ and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less – as in Germany and France – on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures. KW - administrative culture KW - containment KW - crisis KW - governance KW - multi-level system KW - policy advice KW - public health KW - window of opportunity Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320979359 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 556 EP - 575 PB - Sage CY - Los Angeles, California ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Hellstrom, Mikael A1 - Ramberg, Ulf A1 - Reiter, Renate T1 - Tracing divergence in crisis governance BT - responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared JF - International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration N2 - This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of 'normal governance' and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less - as in Germany and France - on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures. Points for practitioners COVID-19 has shown that national political and administrative standard operating procedures in preparation for crises are, at best, partially helpful. Notwithstanding the fact that dealing with the unpredictable is a necessary part of crisis management, a need to further improve the institutional preparedness for pandemic crises in all three countries examined here has also become clear. This should be done particularly by way of shifting resources to the health and care sectors, strengthening the decentralized management of health emergencies, stocking and/or self-producing protection material, assessing the effects of crisis measures, and opening the scientific discourse to broader arenas of experts. KW - administrative culture KW - containment KW - crisis KW - governance KW - multi-level system KW - policy advice KW - public health KW - window of opportunity Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320979359 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 556 EP - 575 PB - Sage Publ. CY - London ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Forster, Timon A1 - Heinzel, Mirko Noa T1 - Reacting, fast and slow BT - how world leaders shaped government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic JF - Journal of European public policy N2 - The COVID-19 pandemic created extraordinary challenges for governments to safeguard the well-being of their people. To what extent has leaders' reliance on scientific advice shaped government responses to the COVID-19 outbreak? We argue that leaders who tend to orient themselves on expert advice realized the extent of the crisis earlier. Consequently, these governments would adopt containment measures relatively quickly, despite the high uncertainty they faced. Over time, differences in government responses based on the use of science would dissipate due to herding effects. We test our argument on data combining 163 government responses to the pandemic with national- and individual-level characteristics. Consistent with our argument, we find that countries governed by politicians with a stronger technocratic mentality, approximated by holding a PhD, adopted restrictive containment measures faster in the early, but not in the later, stages of the crisis. This importance of expert-based leadership plausibly extends to other large-scale societal crises. KW - crisis KW - leadership KW - expertise KW - COVID-19 KW - policy-making KW - public health Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1942157 SN - 1350-1763 SN - 1466-4429 VL - 28 IS - 8 SP - 1299 EP - 1320 PB - Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group CY - Abingdon ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Franzke, Jochen T1 - Multi-level responses to COVID-19 BT - crisis coordination in Germany from an intergovernmental perspective JF - Local government studies N2 - This article is aimed at analysing local and intergovernmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany during the ‘first wave’ of the pandemic. It will answer the question of how the intergovernmental system in Germany responded to the crisis and to what extent the pandemic has changed patterns of multi-level governance (MLG). The article argues that the coordination of pandemic management in Germany shifted between two ideal types of multi-level governance. While in the first phase of the pandemic the territorially defined multi-level system with the sub-national and local authorities as key actors of crisis management was predominant, in the second phase a more functional orientation with increased vertical coordination gained in importance. Later on, more reliance was given again on local decision-making. Based on this analysis, we will draw some preliminary conclusions on how effective MLG in Germany has been for coordinating pandemic management and point out the shortcomings. KW - intergovernmental relations KW - crisis KW - covid-19 KW - federalism KW - coordination KW - multi-level governance Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.1904398 SN - 0300-3930 SN - 1743-9388 VL - 48 IS - 2 SP - 312 EP - 334 PB - Taylor & Francis CY - London ER -