ArticleWorld development2021
The dangers of performative scientism as the alternative to anti-scientific policymaking: A critical, preliminary assessment of South Africa's Covid-19 response and its consequences.
Article in World development, 2021. 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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing, implementing, and monitoring tailored strategies for integrated knowledge translation in five sub-Saharan African countries.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Exploring the Process of Policy Overreaction: The COVID-19 Lockdown Decisions.Journal of management inquiry · 2023Article
- Modeling the positive testing rate of COVID-19 in South Africa using a semi-parametric smoother for binomial data.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Majority world successes and European and American failure to contain COVID-19: Cultural collectivism and global leadership.Asian journal of social psychology · 2021Article
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
At the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic South Africa was praised for decisive political leadership based on scientific advice and the strictness of the measures it imposed to limit domestic spread of the virus. This paper critically examines the South African response through two conceptual frameworks. The first frames an optimal policy response as a solution to an intertemporal welfare-optimisation problem. The need for governments to balance epidemiological considerations and public health measures with the negative consequences of non-pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission is particularly acute in developing countries. The second considers the use of scientific evidence and expertise through the lens of scientism - undue deference to science. The South African government erred towards drastic action in the face of predictions by some scientific advisors of a catastrophe, but initially without a clear, public long-term plan. Its lockdown has caused serious economic and societal harm across a range of measures. But these costs have not been matched by proportional benefits in health system preparedness or, based on evidence three months into the epidemic, a definitive improvement in expected long-term epidemic outcomes. This failure, and the questionably confident basis for the original lockdown decision, has been obscured by the government's performative scientism - a public performance of deference to science - even in the absence of transparent decision-making. One consequence was a slower correction of strategy than merited by evidence of limited benefits and high costs of the lockdown. Another was an unwillingness to admit and explain errors after the fact. The latter, combined with the convincingness of the initial performance undermined the behavioural dimension of policy - leading to beliefs among citizens that confounded efforts by the state to adapt its policy stance through reopening schools, reducing the stringency of clinical guidelines and resuming various economic activities while nevertheless observing basic social distancing precautions.
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.