Projekter om corona

Main research questions

How did interest groups and companies represent their political interests under the Corona crisis?
How has this crisis affected biases in mobilisation, access and influence?

Abstract

The project will assess how lobbying has changed under the Corona crisis. How did lobbying efforts adapt? What do lobbying strategies look like under social distancing? How does this affect patterns of access to policymakers and, ultimately, biases in representation and lobbying success? We will attend to these questions by conducting comparative surveys among samples from the interest group population and large companies in 10 polities in Europe (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Ireland, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, France, and the EU-level). Ultimately, we also assess whether lobbying is a plausible explanation for different policy responses in these countries, incl. economic rescue packages, and the timing of opening different sectors.

Participating researchers

Wiebke Marie Junk (Assistant Professor, IFS)
Marcel Hanegraaff (Associate Professor, University of Amsterdam)
Michele Crepaz (Postdoc, Trinity College Dublin)
Joost Berkhout (Assistant Professor, University of Amsterdam)
Ellis Aizenberg (PhD candidate, University of Amsterdam)

The project will map the layman economic models that citizens believe in.

Participating researchers

Asmus Leth Olsen (Professor MSO)
Anders Woller Nielsen (Postdoc)

A set of experimental studies on the generational divides over COVID-19 and related policy issues. The studies taps into theories on reciprocity and issue comparability. The project is funded by the Faculty of Social Science at the University of Copenhagen.

Participating researchers

Asmus Leth Olsen (Professor MSO)
Frederik Hjorth (Tenure track adjunkt)

The Danish data collection for a large multi-country study organized by Yale University: Global moral messaging to change the public’s behavioral intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The project is funded by the Danish Research Fund. 

Participating researchers

Professor MSO Asmus Leth Olsen
Tenure track adjunkt Frederik Hjorth

Abstract

Taking COVID-19 as its case, three interrelated propositions of general relevance to research on risk and crisis management, depoliticiziation, technocracy and populism are developed. The first proposition states that risk management of latent crisis increases depoliticization - the result is increased antagonism and polarization between technocracy and populism. This proposition concerns the broader reorientation of public policy toward risk management of latent crisis as the contemporary context for emergency management of acute crisis. The dynamics of the latter, secondly, are summarized in the proposition that emergency management af manifest crisis involves radical depoliticization and (re)politicization - depending on the populist stance toward the crisis, the result is either radical antagonism and polarization or a techno-populist compromise. National responses to COVID-19 includes instances of radical populist denial, as well as acceptance. The latter makes a techno-populist compromise possible. This compromise may appear politically and administratively attractive to diffuse antagonism and polarization. However, the third and more normative proposition asserts that the techno-populist compromise is not democratically attractive or sustainable - hence, it should be rejected in favor of democratic forms of (re)politicization.

Participating researcher

Anders Esmark (Associate Professor)

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is a major challenge facing societies around the world. Citizen engagement in “social distancing” is a key containment measure for curtailing the spread of the virus. But what kind of information should governments use for encouraging social distancing compliance? Using data from a pre-registered survey experiment among US residents (n = 1,502), we examine how five distinct COVID-19 information cues - which each appeal to prosocial motivation and empathy in varying degree - affect people’s willingness to social distance. We find no significant differences across experimental conditions in terms of

(a) the duration that respondents are willing to maintain social distancing,
(b) intended social distancing behavior, or
(c) COVID-19-related attitudes and beliefs.

Our findings should not necessarily discourage decision-makers from priming prosocial motivation and empathy as means for promoting social distancing, but they do suggest a current need for more engaging medium than simple textual messages for such appeals.

Participating researchers

Mogens Jin Pedersen (Associate professor)
Nathan Favero (Assistant Professor at American University)

Abstract

From a policy instrumentation and design perspective, the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to compare different uses of the governmental toolbox in relation to the same objective. Research on policy design is rich on general taxonomies mapping the ‘tools of government’ and studies of program-specific effects. However, systematic comparative studies have been few and largely subsumed under comparative policy studies heavily inspired by the focus on political systems and culture in comparative politics. Hence, there is a need for systematic comparative analyis focused specifically on the use of combination of policy instruments. QCA represents a valuable and underutilized methodology in this enterprise, and the near-global implementation of national responses to COVID-19 is ideally suited to this appraoch. For one, the measure of regulatory success is clear (if harsh): once the pandemic has abated, national responses can be compared on relative mortality, deviations from standard mortality rates and economic loss. Secondly, national responses to COVID-19 run the full gammut from the crudest and rarely used ‘sticks’ in the governmental toolbox to the most advanced and up-to-date behavioral instruments based on new information technology. All aspects of the governmental toolbox have thus been activated in different national combinations, the effect of which can be systematically tested through QCA. Finally, QCA does not exclude the meso- and macro-level, but can incoporate these as additionals conditions for regulatory effects together with specific tools.

Participating researcher

Anders Esmark (Associate Professor)

A Conceptual Replication of Whether Disease Threats Increase Preferences for Attractive Leaders During the COVID-19 Crisis.

Participating researchers

Asmus Leth Olsen (Professor MSO)
Lasse Laustsen (PhD, Associate Professor at AU)

Abstract

The corona crisis is a major and global public policy and public management challenge. The crisis can be seen as a “wicked problem” not easily dealt with due to ambiguity, complexity and knowledge limitations related to handling strategies. Further the corona crisis is a multifaceted policy problem transcending national and organizational boundaries both ministerial areas or “siloes” and administrative levels.

Crisis are likely to produce a variety of responses from governments and public organizations. Increased coordination and development of collaborative arrangements across organizational boundaries are preconditions for developing crisis responses aimed at handling “wicked problems” (Head, 2008; Lagreid & Rykkja, 2015). In the wake of the financial crisis a series of dichotomies or dilemmas were developed to describe and explain crisis responses (Peters et al., 2011). These included whether politicians emphasized their own commitment or chose to rely on expertise within or without the public administration, whether governments centralized governance or tried to move responsibility to lower levels of government, whether increased coordination and collaboration worked or became blocked by ministries and organizations defending their own “turf” and whether governments went for short-term “quick fixes” or more long-term approaches.

In the light of knowledge of prior major crisis such as the financial crisis the research project “Corona crisis management – and governance beyond” addresses the following key research questions: 1) How has government responded to the corona crisis? 2) Which kind of management tools (e.g. rules, expertise, coordination, financial means, norms, interaction) have been introduced to meet the crisis? 3) Is corona crisis management characterized by the same or other types of dilemmas as the prior financial crisis?

In the wake of the financial crisis a public management paradigm shift was observed in many countries as austerity led to centralization and formalization especially in relation to budgetary and financial management (Grøn et al., 2014; Ghin et al., 2018). In the years to come the research project further aims at analyzing whether the corona crisis also in the longer perspective will reform public management. Will the corona crisis lead to path-breaking or path-dependent patterns of change?

The empirical focus of the project is the case of Denmark. In this phase project activities concern collection of data about crisis responses in the different stages of the crisis from the lock-down to the re-opening of society as well as preliminary analyses of the data.  Crises responses data are collected systematically from governmental webpages and these data are supplemented by data from newspapers elucidating public discussions of dilemmas related to crisis responses.

Participating researcher

Hanne Foss Hansen (Professor)

Abstract

Social distancing is an effective means for containing the spread of COVID-19, but only so if we all participate. Who are the individuals who are the least likely to adhere to social distancing recommendations, presently and in the long-term? Such knowledge is important for policymakers looking to sustain the public’s buy-in to social distancing.

Using survey data from sample U.S. residents (n = 1,449), we show that some demographic factors (gender, age, race, political party) help predict intent to adhere to social distancing. Yet demographic factors are relatively poor predictors compared to individual attitudes and media diets. We argue that public officials should make efforts to inform and persuade the public of the importance of social distancing, targeting mediums like TV and radio where audiences are less likely to currently engage in social distancing or are less likely to envision themselves sustaining strict social distancing for several weeks or months.

Participating researchers

Mogens Jin Pedersen (Associate professor)
Nathan Favero (Assistant Professor at American University)

Abstract

European countries have differed significantly in their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy content and timing is important for management of the crisis and has implications for stretched healthcare resources, as well as corona related morbidity and mortality. In this project we will collect and compare data about policy responses across the Nordic countries and relate this to COVID-19 developments in each country. The aim is to identify potential systematic policy differences and their effects based on near real time data.

A key issue in understanding policy responses is securing detailed knowledge about the interaction between politicians and experts in relevant health agencies. This is highly critical, as the operational practices and the decision capacity of national political systems are stress tested in times of crises. We will investigate decision structures and dynamics in the Nordic countries as examples of relatively similar systems, which have nevertheless responded differently to COVID-19. Our aim is to provide insights that may be used to optimize the capacity to provide efficient, evidence based and legitimate policy responses to health crises.

Participating researchers

Karsten Vrangbæk (Professor)
Pål Martinussen (NTNU)
Ulrika Winblad (Uppsala University)
Liina-Kaisa Tynkkynen (Tampere University)
Sigrun Olafsdottir (University of Iceland)
Collaborators at UCPH DPS: Peter Nedergaard and Anders Esmark

Joint paper about re-opening strategies w/researchers from Austria, Norway, Czechia and England.

Participating researchers

Karsten Vrangbæk (Professor)
Thomas Czypionka (MD, Visiting Senior Fellow at London School of Economics and Political Science)
Miriam Reiss (MSc at The Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna)
Terje P. Hagen (PhD at University of Oslo)
Olga Löblová (PhD, Research Associate at University of Cambridge)
Liubovė Murauskienė (Associate professor at University of Vilnius)

Hvordan oplever medarbejdere i danske jobcentre, at COVID-19-nedlukningen påvirker kvaliteten i deres arbejde?

Deltagende forskere 

Paw Havgaard Hansen (Ph.d.-stipendiat)
Mogens Jin Pedersen (Lektor)

Abstract

Coronapandemien er en global trussel mod sundhed og stabilitet. Verdens lande imødegår pandemien med forskellige tiltag, der søger at mindske udbredelsen af smitten og afbøde konsekvenserne heraf. Behovet for sådanne tiltag for at tackle den største folkesundhedskrise i nyere tid er umiddelbart forståeligt. Men samtidigt rejser det spørgsmålet om, hvor langt man er villig til at gå i sikker- og sundhedens navn. Tiltagene for at adressere coronaepidemien rummer således brud på fundamentale borgerrettigheder, herunder forsamlingsfriheden, retten til at bevæge sig frit omkring, samt privatlivets ukrænkelighed. Populært, og lidt forsimplet, kan man sige, at man ofrer borgerrettigheder for sundhed og sikkerhed. Afvejningen mellem borgerrettigheder og sikkerhed har været problematiseret i medierne, men vi ved på nuværende tidspunkt ikke, hvordan den bredde befolkning forholder sig til det spørgsmål. Formålet med det foreslåede projekt er at undersøge dette I en række lande, der varierer i demokratisk konsolidering.

Deltagende forskere

Peter Thisted Dinesen (Professor)
Jacob Gerner Hariri (Professor MSO)
Ole Wæver (Professor)
Kim Mannemar Sønderskov (Professor på AU)

Abstract

It is widely agreed that the Corona crisis has shifted power toward governments, and has left opposition parties in a difficult situation. Governments have taken the lead in decisions on lock downs, special emergency measures, recovery funding and, most recently, plans for reopening societies. Yet although the opposition has gradually become more involved in many countries, criticism of the lack of democratic control remains, and the necessity of some rigorous measures that governments have adopted has been called into question. But Covid19 has not only affected the relationship between governments and their opponents in governments and civil society. It has also affected lobbying and the way that interest groups and firms interact with policy-makers. The crisis has threatened the earnings of a wide range of industries and companies and had profound effects on the daily lives of citizens. This has stimulated both interest organizations and businesses to mobilize, and governments to actively reach out to them for their expertise.

Our project will explore both the on- and offline strategies of interest groups before, during, and after Covid19. It uses a unique dataset that will include information about digital and non-digital lobbying for approximately 10,000 interest groups and firms registered in the EU transparency register over a longer period of time. Digital lobbying will be investigated by examining variation in the tweets sent by these actors over time, and offline lobbying, using a database of meetings between organized interests and high-level members of the European Commission.

With these data, we will be able to examine a number of questions in the coming years in multiple papers, and we will also use these data for non-Covid19 research. With respect to Covid19, we are interested in examining, for example:

• Whether and how Covid19 has affected (the mix of) digital and offline lobbying
   
• Whether and how Covid19 has affected resource inequalities between interest groups
   
• Whether and how Covid19 has affected bias in the representation of different types of interest groups
   
• Examine how the sentiment and framing of digital advocacy has changed during the Covid19 period

Participating researchers

Gregory Eady (Assistant professor, tenure track)
Anne Rasmussen (Professor)

Abstract

A rapidly growing body of research investigates the social and political responses of citizens to the coronavirus pandemic. At the state level, we see dramatic differences in the policies put in place across Europe and over the world. At present, we know much less about the positioning of political parties on these topics. The CHES team will fill this gap by fielding a brief, follow-up supplement to our regular 2019 survey wave on party positioning. Our five-item battery will examine the stances of political parties on potential trade-offs between public health and economic performance, civil liberties vs. concentrated government power, parties' trust in citizens, and EU responses to the pandemic. For several of these questions, we will be able to compare European responses to comparable expert surveys currently in the field in Latin American and North America.

Participating researchers

Jonathan Polk (Associate professor)

• Find more information about the researchers involved

Professor MSO Lars Tønder vil bidrage med et kapitel til bogen "Det epidemiske samfund" (redigeret af Nikolaj Schultz og Ole B. Jensen), som vil udkomme i november 2020.

Kapitlet hedder "Biopolitikkens dobbelthed: om magt og magtesløshed i det epidemiske samfund"

Abstract

Formålet med dette projekt er at undersøge iscenesættelsen af statsmagt via et kritisk engagement med Foucaults begreb om biopolitik. Projektet er i udgangspunktet sympatisk indstillet overfor dette begrebs forklaringskraft, men ønsker samtidig også at videreudvikle det for derigennem bedre at kunne vise, hvordan coronapandemien er symptomatisk for udøvelsen af magt i det epidemiske samfund. Det mest centrale i den sammenhæng er, at biopolitikken ikke betyder et definitivt farvel til de traditionelle autoritetsformer, men snarere indebærer en sublimering af disse former for magtudøvelse – hvad projektet betegner som ”biopolitikkens dobbelthed.” Samtidig viser projektet også, hvordan selve begrebet om biopolitik er begrænset i sit entydige fokus på menneskeliv, hvilket forhindrer inddragelsen af en lang række af ikke-menneskelige faktorer, der også har spillet (og fortsat spiller) en vigtig rolle for pandemiens udvikling og konsekvenser. Projektet viser, hvordan en bedre forståelse af begge aspekter afgørende for en biopolitisk kritik, der erstatter oplevelsen af magtesløshed med en kollektiv og decideret demokratisk stillingstagen til udøvelsen af magt i det epidemiske samfund. Projektets hovedbudskab er, at en sådan stillingstagen er nødvendig, hvis vi ønsker at bevare muligheden for et fælles liv, der er åbent og betydningsfyldt for alle parter. Projektet er en del af antologien ”Det Epidemiske Samfund” redigeret af Nikolaj Schultz og Ole B. Jensen. Antologien udgives af Hans Reitzels Forlag og ventes at udkomme i september 2020.

Deltagende forsker

Lars Tønder (Professor MSO)