ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2021
Pandemic backsliding: Violations of democratic standards during Covid-19.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Lessons can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?International journal of public health · 2025Review
- Is Covid-19 "vaccine uptake" in postsecondary education a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2024Article
- Systematic literature review of postponed elections during COVID-19: Campaigns, regulations, and budgets.Heliyon · 2024Review
- COVID-19 and democracy: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Political Psychological and Sociocultural Determinants of Compliance with COVID-19 Emergency Measures Among Waste Pickers in an Iranian Sub-urban Slum Community.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2023Article
- Article
- What drives the acceptability of restrictive health policies: An experimental assessment of individual preferences for anti-COVID 19 strategies.Economic modelling · 2022Article
- Visual Preoperative Risk Depiction Tools for Shared Decision-making: A Pilot Study from the Surgeon's Perspective.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- COVID-19 and European Multi-Level Democracy.Journal of common market studies · 2022Review
- The citizen preferences-positive externality trade-off: A survey study of COVID-19 vaccine deployment in Japan.SSM - population health · 2022Article
- The end of the COVID-19 pandemic.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Article
- Government-sponsored disinformation and the severity of respiratory infection epidemics including COVID-19: A global analysis, 2001-2020.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Article
- When Science Becomes Embroiled in Conflict: Recognizing the Public's Need for Debate while Combating Conspiracies and Misinformation.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · 2022Article
- Limitations of democratic rights during the Covid-19 pandemic-exploring the citizens' perception and discussions on dangers to democracy in Germany.Zeitschrift fur vergleichende politikwissenschaft · 2022Article
- Democratic health in the corona pandemic. The corona pandemic as a trigger or amplifier of democratic erosion or autocratization?Zeitschrift fur vergleichende politikwissenschaft · 2022Article
- The value conflict between freedom and security: Explaining the variation of COVID-19 policies in democracies and autocracies.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widespread adoption of emergency powers during Covid-19 raises important questions about what constitutes a (un)democratic response to crises. While the institutions and practices of democracy during normal times are well established, democratic standards during emergencies have yet to be conceptualized in the literature. This makes it difficult to systematically answer questions like - How do states' responses to Covid-19 violate democratic standards? Do such violations make states' responses more effective? Drawing on international treaties, norms, and academic scholarship, we propose a novel conceptualization of democratic standards for emergency measures. We then identify which government responses to Covid-19 qualify as a violation of democratic standards within the framework of illiberal and authoritarian practices, introducing a dataset covering 144 countries from March 2020 onward. In this article, we provide an overview of the extent to which states violated democratic standards in their response to Covid-19 during 2020. We find no relationship between violations of democratic standards and reported Covid-19 mortality. Illiberal and authoritarian practices in response to the Covid-19 pandemic do not correlate with better public health outcomes. Rather, such crisis-driven violations should be carefully observed as they could signal autocratization.
Indexed as
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.