Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are important public health tools to fight against COVID-19. Governments around the world have instituted a variety of NPIs to modify individuals’ behavior, giving rise to four distinct pandemic response strategies: nudge, mandate, decree, and boost. To better understand the different policy choices involved in these strategies, four countries including Sweden, China, France, and Japan were compared to identify the critical institutional and cultural determinants of national response strategy. The finding shows that various responses regarding same threat are dependent on the distinctive institutional arrangements and cultural orientation of each country, and thus, there is no One-Size-Fits-All strategy.
BavelJ. J. V.BaickerK.BoggioP. S.CapraroV.CichockaA.CikaraM.. . . WillerR. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471.
2.
BerkmanA.GarciaJ.Muñoz-LaboyM.PaivaV.ParkerR. (2005). A critical analysis of the Brazilian response to HIV/AIDS: Lessons learned for controlling and mitigating the epidemic in developing countries. American Journal of Public Health, 95(7), 1162–1172.
3.
BradtJ. (2019). Comparing the effects of behaviorally informed interventions on flood insurance demand: An experimental analysis of “boosts” and “nudges.”Behavioural Public Policy, 1–31. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.31
4.
CarayannopoulosG. (2017). Whole of government: The solution to managing crises?Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(2), 251–265.
5.
ChristensenT.LægreidP.RykkjaL. H. (2016). Organizing for crisis management: Building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897.
6.
CluneW. H. (1993). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralized or differentiated/decentralized?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 233–254.
7.
GaenslenF. (1986). Culture and decision making in China, Japan, Russia, and the United States. World Politics, 39(1), 78–103.
8.
GelfandM. J. (2012). Culture’s constraints: International differences in the strength of social norms. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(6), 420–424.
9.
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. M.LunJ.LimB. C.. . . YamaguchiS. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104.
10.
Geva-MayI. (2002). Cultural theory: The neglected variable in the craft of policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 4(3), 243–265.
11.
GoelR. K.MazharU.NelsonM. A.RamR. (2017). Different forms of decentralization and their impact on government performance: Micro-level evidence from 113 countries. Economic Modelling, 62, 171–183.
12.
HaleT.AngristN.KiraB.PetherickA.PhillipsT.WebsterS. (2020). Variation in government responses to Covid-19 Version 5.0. Blavatnik School of Government Working Paper. University of Oxford.
13.
HayasakiE. (2020). Covid-19: How Japan squandered its early jump on the pandemic. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 369, m1625.
14.
HertwigR.Grüne-YanoffT. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973–986.
15.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
16.
JacobsA. J. (2003). Devolving authority and expanding autonomy in Japanese prefectures and municipalities. Governance, 16(4), 601–623.
17.
JessopB. (2010). Redesigning the state, reorienting state power, and rethinking the state. In LeichtK. T.JenkinsJ. C. (Eds.), Handbook of politics: State and society in global perspective (pp. 41–61). Springer New York.
18.
KandelN.ChungongS.OmaarA.XingJ. (2020). Health security capacities in the context of COVID-19 outbreak: An analysis of international health regulations annual report data from 182 countries. The Lancet, 395(10229), 1047–1053.
19.
KatzR.VaughtA.SimmensS. J. (2019). Local decision making for implementing social distancing in response to outbreaks. Public Health Reports, 134(2), 150–154.
20.
KeelerJ. T. S. (1993). Opening the window for reform: Mandates, crises, and extraordinary policy-making. Comparative Political Studies, 25(4), 433–486.
21.
KraemerM. U. G.YangC.-H.GutierrezB.WuC.-H.KleinB.PigottD. M.. . . ScarpinoS. V. (2020). The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science, 368(6490), 493–497.
22.
LeónS.OrriolsL. (2019). Attributing responsibility in devolved contexts. Experimental evidence from the UK. Electoral Studies, 59, 39–48.
23.
LuriaG.CnaanR. A.BoehmA. (2015). National culture and prosocial behaviors: Results from 66 countries. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(5), 1041–1065.
24.
MarkusH.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
25.
MayP. J. (2015). Implementation failures revisited: Policy regime perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 277–299.
26.
MigdalJ. S. (2009). Researching the state. In ZuckermanA. S.LichbachM. I. (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure (2nd ed., pp. 162–192). Cambridge University Press.
27.
NasirK. M.TurnerB. S. (2013). Governing as gardening: Reflections on soft authoritarianism in Singapore. Citizenship Studies, 17(3–4), 339–352.
28.
NygrenK. G.OlofssonA. (2020). Managing the COVID-19 pandemic through individual responsibility: The consequences of a world risk society and enhanced ethopolitics. Journal of Risk Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1756382
29.
PillemerF. M.BlendonR. J.ZaslavskyA. M.LeeB. Y. (2015). Predicting support for non-pharmaceutical interventions during infectious outbreaks: A four region analysis. Disasters, 39(1), 125–145.
30.
PooleE. G. (2019). How institutional culture trumps tier effects: Evidence from government responsiveness to FOI requests. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 210–226.
31.
ShawR.KimY-kHuaJ. (2020). Governance, technology and citizen behavior in pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19 in East Asia. Progress in Disaster Science, 6, 1–10.
TummersL. (2019). Public policy and behavior change. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 925–930.
34.
WeibleC. M.NohrstedtD.CairneyP.CarterD. P.CrowD. A.DurnováA. P.. . . StoneD. (2020). COVID-19 and the policy sciences: Initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sciences, 53, 225–241.
35.
Wilder-SmithA.FreedmanD. O. (2020). Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: Pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-Ncov) outbreak. Journal of Travel Medicine, 27, taaa020. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa020
36.
WimmerA. (2018). Nation building: Why some countries come together while others fall apart. Princeton University Press.
37.
WollmannH. (2004). Local government reforms in Great Britain, Sweden, Germany and France: Between multi-function and single-purpose organisations. Local Government Studies, 30(4), 639–665.
38.
ZhangF.WelchE. W.MiaoQ. (2018). Public organization adaptation to extreme events: Mediating role of risk perception. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 371–387.
39.
ZhangS.WangZ.ChangR.WangH.XuC.YuX.. . .CaiY. (2020). COVID-19 containment: China provides important lessons for global response. Frontiers of Medicine, 14, 215–219.
40.
ZhangX.WangF.ZhuC.WangZ. (2020). Willingness to self-isolate when facing a pandemic risk: Model, empirical test, and policy recommendations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 197.
41.
ZhaoD. (2009). The mandate of heaven and performance legitimation in historical and contemporary China. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 416–433.
