{"title":"Neoliberalism and governmental and individual responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic: A cross‐national analysis","authors":"Yuanze Liu, Zhongda Wu, Yuying Wang, Zhiwen Dong, Zhaoyang Sun, Yiqun Gan","doi":"10.1111/pops.12927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the deficiencies of traditional government capacity indicators and cultural factors (e.g., individualism) in explaining the discrepancies of different agents' responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the present study proposed and examined the role of neoliberalism, a novel cultural tradition of knowledge emphasizing the principles of free markets and self‐governance, as an additional explanation of the discrepancies in the governmental and individual responses to the pandemic. Analyzing policy responses of 106 nations and personal responses from 105,203 individuals in 104 nations during the first wave of the pandemic, we found that nation‐level neoliberalism (delineated by the economic freedom index) negatively predicted the nonlinear trajectories of government policy responses to contain the pandemic. Specifically, in more neoliberal countries, stringent containment policy responses showed a sharper decline in the later stage of the first wave of the pandemic. Moreover, nation‐level neoliberalism negatively predicted individuals' pandemic‐protective attitudes and behaviors. All these effects are independent of and incremental to those of nation‐level individualism. In conclusion, this study sheds light on how neoliberalism could lead to negative consequences during large‐scale, long‐lasting public threats, offering practical guidance for adjusting public crisis management in the future.","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12927","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Given the deficiencies of traditional government capacity indicators and cultural factors (e.g., individualism) in explaining the discrepancies of different agents' responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the present study proposed and examined the role of neoliberalism, a novel cultural tradition of knowledge emphasizing the principles of free markets and self‐governance, as an additional explanation of the discrepancies in the governmental and individual responses to the pandemic. Analyzing policy responses of 106 nations and personal responses from 105,203 individuals in 104 nations during the first wave of the pandemic, we found that nation‐level neoliberalism (delineated by the economic freedom index) negatively predicted the nonlinear trajectories of government policy responses to contain the pandemic. Specifically, in more neoliberal countries, stringent containment policy responses showed a sharper decline in the later stage of the first wave of the pandemic. Moreover, nation‐level neoliberalism negatively predicted individuals' pandemic‐protective attitudes and behaviors. All these effects are independent of and incremental to those of nation‐level individualism. In conclusion, this study sheds light on how neoliberalism could lead to negative consequences during large‐scale, long‐lasting public threats, offering practical guidance for adjusting public crisis management in the future.
期刊介绍:
Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.