Suchergebnisse

Anton Pak,1 Emma McBryde,1 Oyelola A Adegboye1,2 1Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia; 2Public Health & Tropical Medicine, College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, AustraliaCorrespondence: Oyelola A AdegboyePublic Health & Tropical Medicine, College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, 1 James Cook Drive, Townsville, Queensland 4814, AustraliaEmail oyelola.adegboye@jcu.edu.auPurpose: To examine how public trust mediates the people's adherence to levels of stringent government health policies and to establish if these effects vary across the political regimes.Methods: This study utilizes data from two large-scale surveys: the global behaviors and perceptions at the onset of COVID-19 pandemic and the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT). Linear regression models were used to estimate the effects of public trust and strictness of restriction measures on people's compliance level. The model accounted for individual and daily variations in country-level stringency of preventative measures. Differences in the dynamics between public trust, the stringent level of government health guidelines and policy compliance were also examined among countries based on political regimes.Results: We find strong evidence of the increase in compliance due to the imposition of stricter government restrictions. The examination of heterogeneous effects suggests that high public trust in government and the perception of its truthfulness double the impact of policy restrictions on public compliance. Among political regimes, higher levels of public trust significantly increase the predicted compliance as stringency level rises in authoritarian and democratic countries.Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of public trust in government and its institutions during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are relevant and help understand why governments need to address the risks of non-compliance among low trusting individuals to achieve the success of the containment policies.Keywords: public trust, stringency, compliance, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, public health

PURPOSE: To examine how public trust mediates the people's adherence to levels of stringent government health policies and to establish if these effects vary across the political regimes. METHODS: This study utilizes data from two large-scale surveys: the global behaviors and perceptions at the onset of COVID-19 pandemic and the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT). Linear regression models were used to estimate the effects of public trust and strictness of restriction measures on people's compliance level. The model accounted for individual and daily variations in country-level stringency of preventative measures. Differences in the dynamics between public trust, the stringent level of government health guidelines and policy compliance were also examined among countries based on political regimes. RESULTS: We find strong evidence of the increase in compliance due to the imposition of stricter government restrictions. The examination of heterogeneous effects suggests that high public trust in government and the perception of its truthfulness double the impact of policy restrictions on public compliance. Among political regimes, higher levels of public trust significantly increase the predicted compliance as stringency level rises in authoritarian and democratic countries. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of public trust in government and its institutions during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are relevant and help understand why governments need to address the risks of non-compliance among low trusting individuals to achieve the success of the containment policies.

Purpose To examine how public trust mediates the people's adherence to levels of stringent government health policies and to establish if these effects vary across the political regimes. Methods This study utilizes data from two large-scale surveys: the global behaviors and perceptions at the onset of COVID-19 pandemic and the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT). Linear regression models were used to estimate the effects of public trust and strictness of restriction measures on people's compliance level. The model accounted for individual and daily variations in country-level stringency of preventative measures. Differences in the dynamics between public trust, the stringent level of government health guidelines and policy compliance were also examined among countries based on political regimes. Results We find strong evidence of the increase in compliance due to the imposition of stricter government restrictions. The examination of heterogeneous effects suggests that high public trust in government and the perception of its truthfulness double the impact of policy restrictions on public compliance. Among political regimes, higher levels of public trust significantly increase the predicted compliance as stringency level rises in authoritarian and democratic countries. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of public trust in government and its institutions during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are relevant and help understand why governments need to address the risks of non-compliance among low trusting individuals to achieve the success of the containment policies.

When compared with other countries, Australia has fared much better in COVID-19 outcomes, having experienced low COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths. Although it is difficult to know with certainty what and to what degree led to these advantageous outcomes, many attributed this success to the early implementation of strict border closure limiting cross-border transmission and being an Island nation (1–3). Australia has been proceeding with the elimination strategy aiming to contain and crush emerging outbreaks quickly through a suite of public health interventions, with lockdowns playing a central role. However, as vaccination rates continue to rise in Australia, we opine that the lockdowns and other stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions should be phasedown as the cost to the individuals, community, and the economy is likely to outweigh the benefits of these restrictions. At the beginning of the pandemic, most countries followed and defended the implementation of lockdowns, with the early calculations suggesting that benefits far outweigh the costs (3–5). Some empirical studies also observed heterogeneity in the effectiveness of lockdowns and advocated for a careful consideration of demographic, economic, and societal factors before implementing stay-at-home orders, especially in developing countries in which many people rely on day-to-day economic resources (6, 7). However, using more recent data, others provided a different assessment arguing that lockdowns cause more harm than good even in developing countries—with the benefit-cost ratio being significantly overestimated (8, 9). Considering the burden of prolonged lockdown that Sydney and Melbourne have been experiencing and taking into account the increasing vaccination rates across the country, our governments need to carefully consider when and how to lift lockdown and other restrictions, as there is no doubt the cost of getting this wrong is very high. Following a critical review by Allen (10), we discuss the issues associated with the evaluation of lockdown costs and benefits and provide an opinion on lockdowns doing potentially more harm than good as Australia achieves high vaccination rates. This may be useful in timely discussions among the public, media, public health officials, and decision-makers.

AbstractThis article introduces four innovations to the literature on administrative corruption. First, it employs a neo‐patrimonialism framework by addressing measurement, identification, and endogeneity issues that beset the literature. Second, unlike cross‐country studies, it uses firms as the unit of analysis. Third, unlike the conventional literature, the article uses large‐n (n = 8,436) panel survey data of key informants in 17 countries in sub‐Saharan Africa. Finally, unlike the conventional literature, the article focuses on a particular type of corruption: the supply and demand for bribery. The authors find that the uncertainty associated with neo‐patrimonialism has a strong, positive, and significant effect on the propensity of civil servants to demand bribes in exchange for services and for firms to supply bribes in exchange for winning government contracts. The results are robust to controls on the characteristics of firms and their regulatory environments. The article concludes with implications for research and practice.

The paper investigates the determinants of bribery in sub-Saharan Africa by using probit models and data from the World Bank's Enterprise Survey of 10,457 firms in 30 countries in sub-Saharan Africa from 2009 to 2013. By doing so we find that securing a government contract is the most significant motivation for bribery and that overall, the propensity to bribe depends on the size of the firm as well as the predictability of the regulatory environment. Our findings have similarities and differences compared to Asian firms. The paper also highlights that the incidence and the determinants of bribery vary across the four sub-regions. On the basis of this evidence we suggest that when it comes to anti-corruption strategies, one size does not fit all and that country-specific and region-specific strategies should be adopted to address context-specific needs and conditions.

COVID-19 is not only a global pandemic and public health crisis; it has also severely affected the global economy and financial markets. Significant reductions in income, a rise in unemployment, and disruptions in the transportation, service, and manufacturing industries are among the consequences of the disease mitigation measures that have been implemented in many countries. It has become clear that most governments in the world underestimated the risks of rapid COVID-19 spread and were mostly reactive in their crisis response. As disease outbreaks are not likely to disappear in the near future, proactive international actions are required to not only save lives but also protect economic prosperity.

COVID-19 is not only a global pandemic and public health crisis; it has also severely affected the global economy and financial markets. Significant reductions in income, a rise in unemployment, and disruptions in the transportation, service, and manufacturing industries are among the consequences of the disease mitigation measures that have been implemented in many countries. It has become clear that most governments in the world underestimated the risks of rapid COVID-19 spread and were mostly reactive in their crisis response. As disease outbreaks are not likely to disappear in the near future, proactive international actions are required to not only save lives but also protect economic prosperity.