Suchergebnisse

Despite the relevance of qualitative methods in political science, the process of teaching qualitative research has received relatively little attention in the literature. What is it like to teach qualitative research in political science? This paper focuses on the teaching of qualitative research by exploring examples from Brazil. The country is home to some of the largest higher education providers of political science in Latin America; however, the teaching of appropriate research methods is still incomplete. This paper identifies challenges to qualitative methods education in the country and its evolution. It provides lessons about the teaching of qualitative methods that can be relevant to educators in less institutionalized political science departments, to non-English speaking learners, and to Global South scholars. ; FAPESP

In contrast to analyses that regard health policy and industrial policy as anathema to each other, either because an emphasis on health implies neglect of industry or because gains in industrialization come at the expense of health, we show positive synergies between the two realms. Government intervention into the health sector can catalyze interventions to promote industrial development in the pharmaceutical sector, which in turn can make health policies more effective. We focus on two pathways by which health policies can trigger industrial policies. A demand-driven pathway entails government commitments in health revealing weaknesses and deficiencies in pharmaceutical production, and thus inspiring efforts to build capabilities to stabilize the flow of drugs to the public sector. A regulation-induced pathway consists of sanitary policies revealing mismatches between what is required for firms to continue to participate in the market and pharmaceutical producers' prevailing levels of capabilities, and government measures then being developed and deployed to address the mismatch. We demonstrate both pathways with the case of Brazil.

COVID-19 has created a ramifying public health, economic, and political crisis throughout many countries in the world. While globally the pandemic is at different stages and far from under control in some countries, now is the time for public health researchers and political scientists to start understanding how and why governments responded the way they have, explore how effective these responses appear to be, and what lessons we can draw about effective public health policymaking in preparation of the next wave of COVID-19 or the next infectious disease pandemic. We argue that there will be no way to understand the different responses to COVID-19 and their effects without understanding policy and politics. We propose four key focuses to understand the reasons for COVID-19 responses: social policies to crisis management as well as recovery, regime type (democracy or autocracy), formal political institutions (federalism, presidentialism), and state capacity (control over health care systems and public administration). A research agenda to address the COVID-19 pandemic that takes politics as a serious focus can enable the development of more realistic, sustainable interventions in policies and shape our broader understanding of the politics of public health.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for healthcare systems and political leaders across the globe. In this case study of Brazil, we argue that leadership failings at the highest level contributed to Brazil's relatively high and escalating death rates during 2020. Drawing on an analysis of a large amount of textual documentation drawn from media reports, we emphasise the role and consequences of President Jair Bolsonaro's political discourse and prioritisation of the economy. We focus on the first wave that swept across the globe between January and late June of 2020, arguing that Bolsonaro underplayed the seriousness of the epidemic, leveraged misinformation as a political strategy, promoted pseudoscience, and undermined the Ministry of Health. He also confronted subnational governments for adopting lockdown measures–a move that enabled him to blame regional governors for the short-term economic costs of COVID-19 related restrictions. We suggest that his denialist approach to climate change paved the way for his subsequent denialism of the seriousness of COVID-19 and for his undermining of social distancing, mask-wearing and other preventative responses supported by science. These sobering findings highlight the role that national leaders can play in undermining scientific approaches to both public health and the environment.