The Limits of Institutions and the Reliance on Heuristics during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Q3 Social Sciences
C. Hartwell
{"title":"The Limits of Institutions and the Reliance on Heuristics during the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"C. Hartwell","doi":"10.1177/19367244221077410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Leadership matters, but even more so in the midst of a crisis, where institutional mechanisms may be unequipped to deal with fast-moving circumstances. During such times, leaders are also prone to satisficing and relying on heuristics in order to come to decisions. This paper surveys the use of political heuristics and asserts that their use is directly proportional to the abilities of institutions; where institutions have no formal mechanisms to deal with a crisis, heuristics are relied on more heavily. In such a situation, policies tend to be more extreme than otherwise. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as the background, and in particular the decision to enter into a lockdown of varying degrees, this paper examines the use of heuristics by leaders during the crisis. Combining a case study approach with an empirical exercise, I show that institutional mechanisms were important for determining the response to the coronavirus as the pandemic began. However, once the full extent of the crisis was apparent, the attributes of leaders—relying on their pre-formed heuristics and playing out according to their ideologies, background, and experience—played a much more important role in determining the lockdown policy in a particular nation.","PeriodicalId":39829,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Social Science","volume":"44 1","pages":"419 - 441"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19367244221077410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Leadership matters, but even more so in the midst of a crisis, where institutional mechanisms may be unequipped to deal with fast-moving circumstances. During such times, leaders are also prone to satisficing and relying on heuristics in order to come to decisions. This paper surveys the use of political heuristics and asserts that their use is directly proportional to the abilities of institutions; where institutions have no formal mechanisms to deal with a crisis, heuristics are relied on more heavily. In such a situation, policies tend to be more extreme than otherwise. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as the background, and in particular the decision to enter into a lockdown of varying degrees, this paper examines the use of heuristics by leaders during the crisis. Combining a case study approach with an empirical exercise, I show that institutional mechanisms were important for determining the response to the coronavirus as the pandemic began. However, once the full extent of the crisis was apparent, the attributes of leaders—relying on their pre-formed heuristics and playing out according to their ideologies, background, and experience—played a much more important role in determining the lockdown policy in a particular nation.
COVID-19大流行期间制度的局限性与对启发式的依赖
领导力很重要,但在危机期间更是如此,因为体制机制可能无法应对快速变化的环境。在这种情况下,领导者也倾向于满足和依赖启发式来做出决定。本文调查了政治启发式的使用,并断言它们的使用与机构的能力成正比;如果机构没有处理危机的正式机制,则更依赖启发式。在这种情况下,政策往往比其他情况更加极端。本文以2019冠状病毒病大流行为背景,特别是以进入不同程度封锁的决定为背景,研究了危机期间领导人对启发式方法的使用。我将案例研究方法与实证研究相结合,表明在大流行开始时,体制机制对于决定对冠状病毒的反应非常重要。然而,一旦危机的全面程度显现出来,领导者的属性——依赖于他们预先形成的启发式,并根据他们的意识形态、背景和经验发挥作用——在确定特定国家的封锁政策方面发挥了更重要的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Social Science
Journal of Applied Social Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Social Science publishes research articles, essays, research reports, teaching notes, and book reviews on a wide range of topics of interest to the social science practitioner. Specifically, we encourage submission of manuscripts that, in a concrete way, apply social science or critically reflect on the application of social science. Authors must address how they either improved a social condition or propose to do so, based on social science research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信