Pandemiberedskap: En komparativ studie av åtgärder mot smittsamma sjukdomar
(2020) STVK03 20201Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- In light of the ongoing pandemic, Covid-19, questions are raised about how well prepared countries have been. There are discussions that many countries have been poorly prepared, for example with regard to emergency storage of medical equipment and hospital care facilities. This may be due to various factors. An interesting aspect to investigate is whether the structure of a country’s political system could be decisive for how well-prepared countries were before the pandemic. Preparing for a pandemic involves a short-term cost and thus a long-term investment in future crisis management. According to existing science and research, discussions about whether democracies are capable of being long-term in their decisions are being raised. One... (More)
- In light of the ongoing pandemic, Covid-19, questions are raised about how well prepared countries have been. There are discussions that many countries have been poorly prepared, for example with regard to emergency storage of medical equipment and hospital care facilities. This may be due to various factors. An interesting aspect to investigate is whether the structure of a country’s political system could be decisive for how well-prepared countries were before the pandemic. Preparing for a pandemic involves a short-term cost and thus a long-term investment in future crisis management. According to existing science and research, discussions about whether democracies are capable of being long-term in their decisions are being raised. One idea used to explain this is that there is a connection between the structure of a country's political system and its incentive to make decisions that generate long-term benefits. Studies have shown that when it comes to policy changes that are associated with short-term costs and long-term benefits, reform capacity is often higher in power-sharing systems than in power-concentration systems. This study aims to illustrate this phenomena by investigating how countries acted during the inter-pandemic period after the swine flu (2009) to prepare for a potential pandemic. To achieve the purpose, a comparative study will be applied. The countries surveyed in the study's empirical section are the United Kingdom (with power concentrated institutions) and Finland (with power-sharing institutions). Through the exercise of the Hypothetico-deductive method, and a case study for each case, this study has found that Finland implemented more reformes and updates in its pandemic plan, than the United Kingdom, during the interpandemic period after the swine flu. There are differences between the countries pandemic preparedness, and actions taken after the 2009 pandemic, although to a limited extent. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9009601
- author
- Komét, Rebecka LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- STVK03 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Pandemic planning, Crisis management, Inter-pandemic period, Electoral systems, Power concentration institutions, Power sharing institutions, Policy myopia, H1N1-influenza pandemic, Finland, United Kingdom.
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9009601
- date added to LUP
- 2020-09-21 15:48:16
- date last changed
- 2020-09-21 15:48:16
@misc{9009601,
abstract = {{In light of the ongoing pandemic, Covid-19, questions are raised about how well prepared countries have been. There are discussions that many countries have been poorly prepared, for example with regard to emergency storage of medical equipment and hospital care facilities. This may be due to various factors. An interesting aspect to investigate is whether the structure of a country’s political system could be decisive for how well-prepared countries were before the pandemic. Preparing for a pandemic involves a short-term cost and thus a long-term investment in future crisis management. According to existing science and research, discussions about whether democracies are capable of being long-term in their decisions are being raised. One idea used to explain this is that there is a connection between the structure of a country's political system and its incentive to make decisions that generate long-term benefits. Studies have shown that when it comes to policy changes that are associated with short-term costs and long-term benefits, reform capacity is often higher in power-sharing systems than in power-concentration systems. This study aims to illustrate this phenomena by investigating how countries acted during the inter-pandemic period after the swine flu (2009) to prepare for a potential pandemic. To achieve the purpose, a comparative study will be applied. The countries surveyed in the study's empirical section are the United Kingdom (with power concentrated institutions) and Finland (with power-sharing institutions). Through the exercise of the Hypothetico-deductive method, and a case study for each case, this study has found that Finland implemented more reformes and updates in its pandemic plan, than the United Kingdom, during the interpandemic period after the swine flu. There are differences between the countries pandemic preparedness, and actions taken after the 2009 pandemic, although to a limited extent.}},
author = {{Komét, Rebecka}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Pandemiberedskap: En komparativ studie av åtgärder mot smittsamma sjukdomar}},
year = {{2020}},
}