What accounts for the different regional responses to COVID-19 in China? Exploring the role of institutional environment, governance capacity and legitimacy.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought enormous challenges for public health crisis management in China. Crisis responses vary greatly among provinces. Many studies focus on the role of the central government in crisis management. However, how regional governments respond to such pandemic crises is underexplored. The existing literature lacks extensive comparative studies explaining why different regions respond differently to the crisis and how different regional institutional environments affect crisis management. By proposing an analytical framework based on governance capacity and legitimacy theory, this article seeks to address these questions. This study mainly focuses on provincial governments because they play a crucial role in coordinating various organizations and different levels of government in response to the crisis. By comparing the different COVID-19 responses of Hubei and Zhejiang provinces, this study finds that different regional institutional environments based on the triangular linkage of government, business and society influence regional crisis management by shaping different governance capacities (coordination, analytical, regulation and delivery capacity) and legitimacy (input, throughput and output legitimacy). Regional governments with strong governance capacity can promote crisis management through cross-organizational collaboration, scientific analysis and timely decision-making and effective policy implementation. Promoting citizen participation and information disclosure in the policy process and enhancing citizens' support can improve governance legitimacy, thereby facilitating crisis management. Governance capacity and legitimacy also affect each other. These findings contribute to the literature on public health crisis management. They also shed light on how regional governments in China and other countries with regional variation can effectively tackle public health crises under different institutional environments.

Highlighting the Main Poles of Political Performance and Governance Capacity at EU Level. Implications in the Context of COVID-19 Crisis

The paper aims to examine the political performance and governance capacity at EU level. The study is conducted using data from Sustainable Governance Indicators Database (SGI). Statistical methods based on composing aggregate indices are proposed using 21 indicators grouped in 11 dimensions, and countries are classified according to the performance obtained by the cluster method. The principal component analysis revealed six main factors: “PCT Patent Applications,” “Life expectancy,” “Old age dependency ratio,” “Tax system complexity,” “Inflation,” and “Fertility rate.” After calculating the final value of the index of political performance and governance capacity, we have identified three main groups of countries, as follows: Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Austria, Germany, Spain, Belgium, France, Italy, and the Netherlands with high political and governance performance, countries with an increasing trend (Estonia, Croatia, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom), and countries with poor performance (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary). Romania ranks last in terms of political performance and governance capacity. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Do governance capacity and legitimacy affect citizens' satisfaction with COVID-19 management? Some evidence from South Asia

Purpose>Theoretically, both democ/ratic legitimacy and government capacity are necessary for successful crisis management, like the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors argue that there are important variations for pandemic management in the developed and democratic world. However, are these equally needed in the developing world where democracy and capacity are present in varying degrees and in some countries with a vast deficit? This article analyzes how legitimacy and capacity affect citizens' satisfaction with the pandemic management in South Asia.Design/methodology/approach>The study is based on a survey of 3,423 randomly selected respondents from Facebook users in South Asia. The survey data are presented and discussed along with information derived from secondary sources to put the data in the broader context of the South Asian countries. The authors apply ordinary linear regression for statistical analysis.Findings>The findings suggest that citizens are content with the performance of government institutions in COVID-19 management. They emphasize material well-being, such as relief provisions and financial incentives during the crisis period. They are, however, less concerned about the legitimacy dimension, although democracy in South Asia is flawed with excessive restrictions on public freedom during the pandemic. The contradictory findings may be due to the public orientation towards authoritarian culture and their preference for strongman rule in crisis management.Practical implications>The governments in South Asia may systematically use army and police forces to manage crises as people are more satisfied with their performance during COVID-19 management.Originality/value>This is the first time data across South Asia have been collected and analyzed about crisis management.

The Transformation of Global Governance System from the Perspective of National Governance: China's Participation in Global Governance as an Example

In the year of 2020. the Covid-19 global epidemic poses a major challenge to national and global governance. On the one hand, this epidemic is a test of national responses to major public emergencies, and on the other hand, it exposes the dilemma of global governance in non-traditional security areas. International health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), have not played their proper role in the prevention and control of the epidemic, while national actors have been brought back to the center of global governance. After the Covid-19, non-traditional security threats have brought harm to countries and international communities even beyond the traditional security threats. Against this backdrop, the failure of global governance by international organizations and major power politics has been demonstrated, while the governance capacity of national state has provided the strongest support for the global governance system in terms of cross-border solutions, and diversified development ideas. China's concept of global governance is rooted in its national governance philosophy. It has evolved from its original position as a participant in the global governance system to a recent position as a defender and facilitator, and then to the current position as an innovator and leader after several transformations of governmental functions. Being a responsible power, China is continuously strengthening the modernization of its national governance capacity, advocating the concept of consultation, contribution and shared benefits, and promoting the reform of the global governance system. © 2022 Aalborg University. All rights reserved.

What determines urban resilience against COVID-19: City size or governance capacity?

This study analyzed the effects of urban governance and city size on COVID-19 prevention and control measures. Based on real-time data in 276 prefecture-level Chinese cities, we used the ordinary least squares plus robust standard error strategy. It was found that: (1) despite the non-significant effect of city size, urban governance capacity was an important factor affecting the prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic; urban governance capacity was particularly significant in the late control of the pandemic, but not significant in the early prevention; for every unit increase of urban governance capacity, the number of recovered COVID-19 cases per capita increased by 2.4%. Moreover, (2) the influence mechanism of anti-pandemic measures in cities could be divided into the workforce, financial, and material effects, and their contribution rates were 26.15%, 32.55%, and 37.20%, respectively; namely, the effective/timely assistance from Chinese central government regarding the workforce, financial, and material resources in key pandemic areas and nationwide played a major role in pandemic control. Additionally, (3) cities with a high level of smart city construction were more capable of enhancing the pandemic prevention and control effect, indicating that smart city construction is conducive to enhanced coping with public crises.