POLITICAL REGIMES IN THE FIGHT AGAINST COVID-19: ARE DEMOCRACIES A GUARANTEE OF PUBLIC HEALTH?

Abstract

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), as one of the most significant global public health crises of the 21st century, has reignited discussions regarding the crisis management capacities of states and the effectiveness of their governance structures. Democratic regimes, in particular, have faced criticism for their perceived tendency towards slower responses to sudden, large-scale crises. Given the pandemic's pervasive impact on nearly all dimensions of human life, the role of political regime type in combating COVID-19 and its effects on public health have become a central topic of study. Accordingly, this study aims to examine the relationship between countries' political regimes and the effectiveness of their COVID-19 response, specifically focusing on public health performance. The study tests the hypothesis that democratic regimes hold an advantage over other regime types in the context of protecting public health. Within the scope of this study, data from 162 countries, whose regime types were determined as of early 2020 (considering the pandemic's onset), were analyzed. The total recovery rate recorded as of early 2022 was utilized as an indicator of public health performance in combating the pandemic. Data were compiled from databases such as Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center and The Economist Intelligence Unit, and were examined using comparative analysis methods based on quantitative data. While the study's findings indicate no statistically significant relationship between the two variables overall, they also reveal that the argument for democratic regimes exhibiting more effective performance in public health protection during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to other regime types, can be substantiated only when considering the median and maximum values of recovery rates.

Keywords

• Covid-19
• Pandemic Response
• Political Regimes
• Public Health

COVID-19’LA MÜCADELEDE SİYASİ REJİMLER: DEMOKRASİLER KAMU SAĞLIĞININ GARANTİSİ Mİ?

Abstract

Yeni Koronavirüs Hastalığı 2019 (COVID-19), 21. yüzyılın en önemli küresel halk sağlığı krizlerinden biri olarak, devletlerin kriz yönetimi kapasitelerini ve yönetim biçimlerinin etkinliğini yeniden tartışmaya açmıştır. Özellikle demokratik rejimler, ani ve büyük ölçekli krizlere karşı yavaş tepki verme eğiliminde oldukları yönündeki eleştirilerle karşılaşmıştır. Pandeminin insan hayatının neredeyse tüm boyutlarını etkilemesiyle birlikte, COVID-19 ile mücadelede siyasi rejim tipinin rolü ve kamu sağlığı üzerindeki etkileri merkezi bir araştırma konusu haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışma da ülkelerin siyasi rejimleri ile COVID-19 ile mücadelenin etkinliği arasındaki ilişkiyi kamu/halk sağlığı performansı özelinde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, demokratik rejimlerin diğer rejim türlerine kıyasla kamu sağlığının korunması bağlamında daha avantajlı olduğu hipotezini test etmektedir. Araştırma kapsamında, pandeminin başlangıç tarihi dikkate alınarak 2020 yılı başı itibarıyla rejim tipleri belirlenen 162 ülkenin verileri analiz edilmiştir. Pandemiyle mücadelede kamu sağlığı performansının bir göstergesi olarak, 2022 yılı başı itibarıyla kaydedilen toplam iyileşme oranı kullanılmıştır. Veriler Johns Hopkins Üniversitesi Koronavirüs Araştırma Merkezi (Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center) ve Ekonomist Soruşturma/İstihbarat Birimi’nin (The Economist Intelligence Unit) veri tabanlarından derlenmiş ve niceliksel verilere dayalı karşılaştırmalı analiz yöntemleriyle incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, demokratik rejimlerin COVID-19 pandemisi sırasında kamu sağlığını koruma konusunda diğer rejim türlerine kıyasla daha etkin bir performans sergileyeceği iddiasının ancak iyileştirme oranlarının medyan ve maksimum değerleri dikkate alındığında ileri sürülebileceğini; diğer yandan iki değişken arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişkinin bulunmadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Covid-19
• Salgınla Mücadele
• Siyasi Rejimler
• Kamu Sağlığı

References

1. Acemoğlu, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (2005). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Acemoğlu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J. A. ve Yared, P. (2008). Income and Democracy, The American Economic Review, 98(3), 808-842. DOI: 10.1257/aer.98.3.808
3. Acemoğlu, D. (2020). The Post-COVID State. Project Syndicate, https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/four-possible-trajectories-after-covid19-daron-acemoglu-2020-06
4. Ahmad, T., Khan, M., Haroon, Musa, T. H., Nasir, S., Hui, J., Bonilla-Aldana, D. K. ve Rodriguez-Morales, A. J. (2020). COVID-19: Zoonotic Aspects, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 36, 101607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101607
5. Akçacı, T. ve Türker, G. (2023). Economy and Democracy Relationship: The Case Of Kenya And Ethiopia. Uluslararası Ticaret ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.30711/utead.1338950
6. Allport, G. W. (1945). The Psychology of Participation, Psychological Review, 52(3), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056704
7. Annaka, S. (2021). Political Regime, Data Transparency, and COVID-19 Death Cases, Social Science & Medicine-Population Health, 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100832
8. Arendt, H. (1969). On Violence. New York: A Harvest/HBJ Book.

9. Baccini, L., Brodeur, A. ve Weymouth, S. (2021). The COVID-19 Pandemic and The 2020 US Presidential Election, Journal of Population Economics, 34, 739-767, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00820-3
10. Bahar, O. ve Çelik İlal, N. (2020). Coronavirüsün (Covid-19) Turizm Sektörü Üzerindeki Ekonomik Etkileri. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 6(1), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.728121
11. Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12. Barbu, Z. (2010). Democracy and Dictatorship. London: Routledge.
13. Belinger, N. M. (2019). Why Democracy Matter: Democratic Attributes and Human Well-Being, Journal of International Relations and Development, 22(2), 413-440. DOI:10.1057/s41268-017-0105-1
14. Besley, T. ve Kudamatsu, M. (2006). Health and Democracy, American Economic Review, 96 (2), 313-318. DOI: 10.1257/000282806777212053
15. Best, L. A., Law, M. A, Roach, S. ve Wilbilks, J. M. P. (2021). The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 in Canada: Effects of Social Isolation During the Initial Response. Canadian Psychology, 62(1), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000254
16. Boix, C. (2003). Democracy and Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bollen, K. A. (1979). Political Democracy and the Timing of Development, American Sociological Review, 44(4), 572-587. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094588
17. Boone, P. (1996). Politics and the Effectiveness of Foreign Aid, European Economic Review, 40(2), 289-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(95)00127-1
18. Bosancianu, C. M., Dionne, K. Y., Hilbig, H., Humphreys, M., KC, S., Lieber, N. ve Scacco, A. (2020). Political and Social Correlates of Covid-19 Mortality, SocArXiv ub3zd, Center for Open Science. https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/ub3zd.html
19. Cepaluni, G., Dorsch, M. T. ve Branyiczki, R. (2021). Political Regimes and Deaths in The Early Stages of The COVID-19 Pandemic, Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bup/jpfpc/pre-prints/content-jpfpcd2100013 #Cits .
20. Cutler, D., Deaton, A. ve Lleras-Muney, A. (2006). The Determinants of Mortality, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(3), 97-120. DOI: 10.1257/jep.20.3.97
21. Çiçek, İ., Tanhan, A. ve Tanrıverdi, S. (2020). COVID-19 ve Eğitim. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 1091-1104. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.787736
22. Dahl, R. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
23. Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and COVID-19 Pandemic, PROSPECTS, 49, 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
24. Dasqupta, P. (2007). An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Dergiades, T., Milas, C., Mossialos, E. ve Panagiotidis, T. (2020). Effectiveness of Government Policies in Response to COVID-19 Outbreak, SSRN Electronic Journal, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3602004
26. Doucouliagos, H. ve Ulubaşoğlu, M. A. (2008). Democracy and Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis, American Journal of Political Science, 52 (1), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00299.x
27. Eryüzlü, H. (2020). Covıd-19 Ekonomik Etkileri ve Tedbirler: Türkiye’de “Helikopter Para” Uygulaması. Ekonomi Maliye İşletme Dergisi, 3(1), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.46737/emid.745621
28. Fidler, D. P. (2020). The World Health Organization and Pandemic Politics, Think Global Health. 10.04.2020, https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/world-health-organization-and-pandemic-politics .
29. Frey, C. B., Chen, C. ve Presidente, G. (2020). Democracy, Culture and Contagion: Political Regimes and Countries’s Responsiveness to Covid-19, Covid Economics: Vettet and Real-Time Papers, 18, 222-238.
30. Fukuyama, F. (2020). The Pandemic and Political Order, Foreign Affairs, 99(4), 26-32.
31. Geng, D., Innes, J., Wu, W. ve Wang, G. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic On Urban Park Visitation: A Global Analysis, Journal of Forestry Research, 32, 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01249-w
32. Ghazawy, E. R., Ewis, A. A., Mahfouz, E. M., Khalil, D. M., Arafa, A., Mohammed, Z., … Mohammed, A. S. (2021). Psychological Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic On The University Students in Egypt, Health Promotion International, 36(4), 1116–1125. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaa147
33. Gizelis, T-I. (2009). Wealth Alone Does Not Buy Health: Political Capacity, Democracy, and The Spread of AIDS, Political Geography, 28(2), 121-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2009.01.005
34. Goodell, J. W. (2020). COVID-19 and Finance: Agendas for Future Research, Finance Research Letters, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101512
35. Gostin, L. O. ve Wiley, L. F. (2020). Governmental Public Health Powers During the COVID-19 Pandemic, JAMA, 323(21), 2137-2138. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.5460
36. Hall, R. E. ve Jones, C. I. (2007). The Value of Life and the Rise in Health Spending, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.1.39
37. Held, D. (1996). Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
38. Helliwell, J. F. (2009). Empirical Linkages Between Democracy and Economic Growth, British Journal of Political Science, 24(2), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400009790
39. Hernandez, J. C. (2020). Trump Slammed the W.H.O. Over Coronavirus. He’s not alone. The New York Times, 08.08.2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/world/asia/trump-who-coronavirus-china.html
40. Jeyanathan, M., Afkhami, S., Smaill, F., Miller, M. S., Lichty, B. D. ve Xing, Z. (2020). Immunological Considerations for COVID-19 Vaccine Strategies, National Review Immunology, 20, 615–632 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00434-6
41. Jorda, O., Singh, S. R. ve Taylor, A. M. (2020). The Longer-Run Economic Consequences of Pandemics, Covid Econmics, 1, 1-15.
42. Justesen, M. K. (2012). Democracy, Dictatorship, and Disease: Political Regimes and The HIV/AIDS, European Journal of Political Economy. 28(3), 372-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2012.02.001
43. Kagee, A. (2014). South African Psychology After 20 Years Of Democracy: Critically, Social Development, and Relevance, South African Journal of Psychology, 44(3). https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC160155
44. Karabulut, G., Zimmermann, K. F., Bilgin, M. H. ve Doker, A. C. (2021). Democracy and COVID-19 Outcomes, Economic Letters, 203. DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109840
45. Krueger, P. M., Dovel, K. ve Denney, J. T. (2015). Democray and Self-Rated Health Across 67 Countries: A Multilevel Analysis, Social Science and Medicine, 143, 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.047
46. Lee, H-Y., Yang, B-M. ve Kang, M. (2016). Control of Corruption, Democratic Accountability, And Effectiveness of HIV/ADIS Official Development Assistance, Global Health Action, 9(1). doi: 10.3402/gha.v9.30306
47. Liang, L-L. ve Mirelman, A. J. (2014). Why Do Some Countries Spend More for Health? An Assessment of Sociopolitical Determinants and International Aid for Government Health Expenditures, Social Science & Medicine, 121, 161-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.044
48. Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Pattern of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Centuries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
49. Lilleker, D. G. ve Özgül, B. A. (2021). The Psychology of Democracy. London: Routledge.
50. Lindblom, C. E. (1988). Democracy and Market System. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
51. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy, American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951731
52. Mackenbach, J. P. ve Mckee, M. (2015). Government, Politics and Health Policy: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 European Countries, Health Policy, 199(10), 1298-1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.08.017
53. Martin, A., Markhvida, M., Hallegatte, S. ve Walsh, B. (2020). Socio-Economic Impacts of COVID-19 on Household Consumption and Poverty, Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 4, 453-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-020-00070-3
54. McKibbin, W. ve Fernando, R. (2021). The Global Macroeconomic Impacts of COVID-19: Seven Scenarious, Asian Economic Papers, 20(2), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00796 McMann, K. M. ve Tish, D. (2021). Democratic Regimes and Epidemic Deaths?, V-Dem Working Papers 126. http://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/wp_126_final.pdf
55. Muller, E. N. (1988). Democracy, Economic Development, and Income Inequality, American Sociological Review, 53(1), 50-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095732
56. Narita, Y. ve Sudo, A. (2021). Curse of Democracy: Evidence from 2020, SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827327 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3827327
57. Oueghlissi, R. ve Derbali, A. (2021). Democracy, Corruption and Unemployment: Empirical Evidence from Developing Contries, MPRA Paper. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/107535
58. Patrick, S. (2020). When the System Fails, Foreign Affairs, 99(4), 40-51.
59. Patterson, A. C. ve Veenstra, G. (2016). Politics and Population Health: Testing The Impact of Electoral Democracy, Health & Place, 40, 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.04.011
60. Piguillem, F. ve Shi, L. (2020). Optimal Covid-19 Quarentine and Testing Policies, SRRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3594243
61. Povitkina, M. (2018). The Limits of Democracy in Tackling Climate Change, Environmental Politics, 27(3), 411-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1444723
62. Przeworski, A. ve Limongi, F. (1993). Political Regimes and Economic Growth, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 51-69. DOI: 10.1257/jep.7.3.51
63. Reiter, D. (2019). Democratic Peace Theory, Oxford Bibliographies. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199756223-0014
64. Reuveny, R. ve Li, Q. (2003). Economic Openness, Democracy, and Income Inequality: An Empirical Analysis, Comparative Political Studies, 36(5), 575-601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414003036005004
65. Safaei, J. (2006). Is Democracy Good for Health?, International Journal of Health Services, 36(4), 767-786. https://doi.org/10.2190/6V5W-0N36-AQNF-GPD1
66. Sartori, G. (1987). The Theory of Democracy (Revisited). Chatham: Chatham House.
67. Schwartz, J. (2012). Compensating for the “Authoritarian Advantage” in Crisis Response: A Comparative Case Study of SARS Pandemic Responses in China and Taiwan, Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17, 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-012-9204-4
68. Soile, O. ve Balogun, W. A. (2020). “Pandemic Diplomacy” and the Politics of Paradox: International Cooperation in the Age of National Distancing, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19 (Covid-19 Special Issue), 413-428. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.780792
69. Sorci, G., Faivre, B. ve Morand, S. (2020). Why Does COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate Vary Among Countries?, SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3576892
70. Söyler, M. ve Tekindal, M. A. (2021). Covid-19 Pandemisi, Siyasi Rejimler ve Liberal Demokrasi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 17(Pandemi Özel Sayısı), 3832-3868. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.885216
71. Tavares, J. ve Wacziarg, R. (2001). How Democracy Affects Growth, European Economic Review, 45(8), 1341-1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(00)00093-3
72. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2021). Democracy Index 2020-In sickness and in health?- https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/
73. Thirumalaisamy, P. V. ve Meyer, C. G. (2020). The COVID-19 Epidemic, Trop Med Int Health, 25(3), 278-280. DOI: 10.1111/tmi.13383
74. Ünüvar, İ. ve Aktaş, H. (2022). Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Covid-19 Pandemisinin Ekonomik Etkileri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 25(1), 124-140. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1017717
75. Valiyeva, K. (2020). COVID-19 ile Ulus Devleti Yeniden Düşünmek, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(37), 390-403.
76. Walzer, M. (1997). On Toleration. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
77. Weissleder, R., Lee, H., Ko, J. ve Pittet, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 Diagnostics in Context, Science Transnational Medicine, 12(546), DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abc1931
78. Weston, S. ve Frieman, M. B. (2020). COVID-19: Knowns, Unknowns, and Questions, mSphere, 5(2). DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00203-20.
79. Winslow, M. (2007). Is Democracy Good for the Environment?, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(5), 771-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560500183074
80. Wojcik, D. ve Ioannaou, S. (2020). Covid-19 and Finance: Market Developments So Far and Potential Impacts on the Financial Sector and Cenres, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geogragfie, 111(3), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12434
81. Yao, L., Li, M., Wan, J. Y., Howard, S. C., Bailey, J. E. ve Graff, J. C. (2022). Democracy and Case-Fatality Rate of COVID-19 At The Early Stage of Pandemic: A Multicountry Study, Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(6), 8694-8704. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-16250-x
82. Yorulmaz, Ö. (2017). Sosyo-Ekonomik Kalkınma, Yolsuzluk ve Sağlık Göstergeleri Arasındaki İlişki: Kısmi En Küçük Kareler Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli Uygulaması. Alphanumeric Journal, 5(2), 191-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.323277
83. Landman, T. ve Smallman-Raynor, M. (2023). The Politics of COVID-19: Government Response in Comparative Perspective, Political Geography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102957