Why Some Countries Have Responded More Effectively to COVID-19 Than Others

Success during a pandemic depends on striking 鈥渁 fine balance鈥� between the powers of central governments and those at the state and local level.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, some countries have consistently received accolades for their rapid, coordinated responses, while others have been roundly condemned as laggards.

, , , and the were able to 鈥渇latten the curve鈥� and limit the outbreak. By contrast , , and the have struggled to contain the virus鈥檚 spread.

What do the countries that have dealt effectively with COVID-19 have in common?

Many factors have likely contributed to their success, including , , and .

Equally important, in my view as a , are each country鈥檚 political institutions鈥攚hether top-down autocracies, federalized democracies, or something else. Determining which ones work best is the tricky part.

Of autocracies and democracies

Some autocratic regimes have argued that they are to deal with the pandemic, prompting of in the democratic world.

But the success of democratic countries such as , combined with the failure of autocracies like , make it clear that things are not so simple. Indeed, the crisis arose in part because autocratic China did not to contain it.

A related but more subtle argument is that governments are better able to confront crises such as the coronavirus. According to this take, countries with strong regional and local governments鈥攁nd especially like the U.S.鈥攁re at a disadvantage. By contrast, strongly centralized democracies like and high-functioning autocracies like are in a better position to act.

The benefits of central coordination

Centralized leadership鈥攅ven when exercised coercively鈥攑rovides certain real benefits during a public health crisis.

This is because pandemics are an example of a policy area with . A resident could be infected in a city or state with weak social distancing rules and transmit the disease when traveling to another city or state. Or the efforts of one state to hoard masks could produce a critical shortage in another.

U.S. states, for example, have been for personal protective equipment, which has generated inefficiencies and a bidding war. And some places businesses against the advice of experts. If this move causes a spike in transmission, it could spill over into other states that have taken more risk-adverse stances.

The critical role of local governments

But the results of that I鈥檓 conducting with two colleagues suggests that success during a pandemic is not just a question of strong national leadership.

Our findings indicate that the countries best able to provide local public goods鈥攊ncluding primary health care, critical during a pandemic鈥攁re not those that are most centralized. Rather, they are ones that strike 鈥渁 fine balance鈥� between the powers of central governments and those at the state and local level.

There are several reasons for this.

A more decentralized approach to government will facilitate the targeting of policy to the needs of . When the pandemic is concentrated in certain areas of a single country, for example, it for sub-national authorities to decide when to reopen. And the better information and stronger accountability enjoyed by local and regional governments are likely to matter even more during the economic recovery.

Germany, for its part, has enjoyed the of Angela Merkel, but it is relying also on the individual states to decide how to .

Decentralized and federal systems also allow states and locales from each other and to emulate what works. They that are doing poorly to do better.

Moreover, strong regional and local governments can serve as a backstop when national policy is insufficient, limiting the damage of central misgovernment.

The most of this phenomenon is the United States, where the Trump administration鈥檚 mixed signals, incorrect information, and slow reaction time arguably made the U.S. to the coronavirus. At the same time, states including California, Oregon, and Washington have succeeded in limiting local cases enough that they are to places where they are needed more.

In France, too, regional and city governments have for the perceived failures of the central government in Paris. But the country鈥檚 highly centralized political institutions have put strong limits on their freedom of action.

It鈥檚 not too late

It鈥檚 no surprise, then, that most countries that have succeeded in containing the virus鈥�, , and for example鈥攃ombine central coordination with active regional and local involvement.

Of course, some centralized鈥攁nd autocratic鈥攃ountries are coronavirus success stories. Interestingly, however, these tend to be relatively small countries with very strong governments, such as and especially Singapore. Larger centralized countries like China and tend not to perform as well. Put differently, the larger a country鈥檚 territory and population, the less effective a purely top-down strategy will be.

While the United States and most decentralized democracies aren鈥檛 yet on the list of success stories, it鈥檚 not too late to take advantage of their inherent strengths for the recovery. To accomplish this, my research shows, their leaders should guard the autonomy of local authorities, while building cooperation and trust across all levels of government.

This article was originally published by . It has been published here with permission.

Charles Hankla is an associate professor of Political Science at Georgia State University in Atlanta.