ArticlePublic administration2022
Policy preferences in response to negative economic prospects of COVID-19: A survey-experiment among local politicians in four European countries.
Article in Public administration, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardising policy and technology responses in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic: a comparative and conceptual framework.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Policy preferences in response to negative economic prospects of COVID-19: A survey-experiment among local politicians in four European countries.Public administration · 2022Article
- In trust we trust: The impact of trust in government on excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic.Public policy and administration · 2022Article
- Effects of local government social media use on citizen compliance during a crisis: Evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in China.Public administration · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates how the negative economic prospects of the COVID-19 pandemic affect local government politicians' policy preferences in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Spain. The study examines to what extent politicians prefer increasing the role of government (directive state), transferring public tasks to private sector organizations (hollow state), transferring public tasks to third sector organizations (communitarian state), or downsizing and reducing the role of government without transferring tasks (coping state). The experiment primes decision-makers on the pandemic's negative financial and economic prospects vis-à-vis its impact on health and well-being. When negative economic prospects are emphasized, the study finds decreased preferences for a directive state and increased preferences for a coping state. The study concludes that how decision-makers interpret the nature of a crisis determines their preferred response: An emphasis on the negative economic prospects of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to increase preferences for renewed policies of austerity.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.