Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Global Reflection, Conceptual Exploration, and Evidentiary Assimilation: COVID ‐19 Viewpoint Symposium Introduction

2020; Wiley; Volume: 80; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/puar.13261

1540-6210

Jeremy L. Hall, Staci M. Zavattaro, R. Paul Battaglio, Michael W. Hail,

Disaster Management and Resilience

By April 2020, the United States had entered the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. We were observing the harrowing effects of the virus in China, Italy, and early hotspots in the United States. It was clear to us, as editors, that this crisis would upend traditional ways of operating in the public and nonprofit sectors. Once-clear administrative roles would be abandoned, and policies and procedures would be suspended, altered, or ignored to respond as nimbly as possible. The crisis has affected the private sector, individuals, families, schools, and—of course—the healthcare sector in ways that will be the subject of research for the ensuing decade and likely beyond. PAR has a responsibility to be at the leading edge of public administration research and practice, and as a service to our stakeholders, we decided that it was best to act quickly, provide a broad perspective, and capture what had already been learned around the world. We used our Viewpoint feature to frame the symposium because we felt it was too early to have access to complete data subject to rigorous analysis. Rather, we would offer lessons learned, best practices, and key problems that would serve to guide practitioners while also highlighting key areas that could be the focus of future research. The response to our call could not have been imagined; we received more than 200 manuscripts to consider, and we quickly realized that it is impossible to capture every perspective, every lesson, or even every country's experience in combatting this scourge. The crisis has highlighted learning opportunities that contrast centralized and decentralized systems and authoritarian versus democratic responses, as well as lessons in collaboration, leadership, intergovernmental relations, coproduction, health policy and management, immigration policy, transportation policy, budgeting and finance, economic development, and so on. While we are unable to present every possible perspective, the pieces included in this Viewpoint symposium highlight a diverse set of concerns that characterize our discipline's breadth of inquiry and global reach. It stands as a testament to the lessons our theories have long prescribed, to their limitations under conditions of extreme strain, and to their prospect for improvement in the world we now find ourselves making sense of each day. We encourage you to explore these perspectives, to draw from the lessons they provide, and allow them to inspire innovations in your own research or practice. There have been many crises throughout history, and the scale of this event is unrivaled in recent times, in part because the virus is invisible and ubiquitous—no city, county, state, or nation is immune to its infiltration and the myriad effects thereof, nor can they predict where it will next strike. Government bears the brunt of this burden, although after years of contracting out, collaboration, coproduction, and other networked service delivery mechanisms, nonprofit agencies and essential businesses have also played a role in the response. Exceptional factors such as a global economy with complex supply chains and interdependence, rapid information cycles that characterize the information age, and the most advanced science and healthcare systems in world history have risen to the occasion. Yet, the government structures and economic market systems have struggled to lead through seemingly antiquated legal, constitutional, and electoral institutions that continue to frame the structural foundation within which bureaucracy carries out its work (Hall and Battaglio 2020b; Meier 1997). We organize our questions for reflection based on themes we saw emerge—and continue to emerge—during the ongoing pandemic response. The essays in the Viewpoint symposium are meant to provide additional direction for future research, and we hope our questions do the same. We realize the list is not exhaustive, and many themes you see missing here will appear in the second installment of this Viewpoint symposium in issue 80(5). In the United States, the government response is framed through federalism—a historically divisive institutional framework. Indeed, Wilson (1995) proclaimed American Federalism to be a persistent source of political conflict in relations between the national and state governments since the constitution was ratified. The questions of sovereignty and the representation of governments, interests, civil liberties, and scientific expertise that are now emerging will all be framed by the constitutional foundations of federalism in the U.S. context (Hail and Lange 2010). Similar questions will arise to model governance systems around the world in explaining response to the virus, and explaining the performance thereof. Federalism affects nearly every major policy area (Marbach, Katz, and Smith 2006). In 2019, we mused about whether Federalism might be dead (Hall and Battaglio 2019); recent events have confirmed it is alive, well, and possibly mutating. As has been the case with major punctuations throughout history, the balance of power among nation and states is once again in question. What impetus has the pandemic generated to influence intergovernmental and intersectoral management? Will the policy roles begin to shift? Will a new model of federalism emerge? Just as the structure of the system matters, so will its political components. Political parties initially seemed to be acting as though they are together in the boat, but it has become clear that they are on journeys to different destinations. The pandemic pulled disparate ideologs together briefly to pass relief packages out of a sense of urgency, but discourse rapidly became tainted with the same rhetoric and hyperpoliticization we have recently lamented (Hall and Battaglio 2020a). Politics will influence policy and exert pressure on bureaucrats in ways that will affect performance. To fully understand the crisis and response, research will need to incorporate constructs that capture ideology or values of elected leaders and their constituents. If the fractured nature of American politics has crippled the government's ability to respond effectively, how can experts and professionals in bureaucracy—public administrators—take on the challenges of today that rightly deserve their attention? How can leaders summon the political will and political support to accomplish emergent policy goals resulting from the crisis? How do we move beyond extreme partisanship and gridlock to act effectively? How does the increasingly short public/political attention span affect the response? The public largely rallies around the flag in the wake of crises but then loses interest quickly. Will the policy window remain open long enough to bring about deep policy change? The response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the need for both leaders and professionals to put aside petty political differences and take advantage of each other's strengths to work collaboratively. Somewhat confounded by politics and ideology, leadership and crisis management will yield great lessons in explaining performance, or more likely perceived performance, in responding to the crisis. Some acts of leadership have been commended, but most have also been fiercely criticized as a result of the clear-cut side-taking that so characterizes our modern discourse. How leaders respond to chaos and uncertainty will clearly affect performance results but also reveal new ways of thinking about crisis response as entrepreneurial actions are subjected to further analysis (Battaglio and Hall 2019b). From a policy perspective, closely intertwined with leadership capabilities and ideologies, this pandemic is a punctuation that will manifest through a shift in popular attitudes toward policies at all levels (Roberts 2020). Drastic policy change has already been implemented in immigration, education, healthcare, transportation, economic development, agriculture/food production, elections, and others. Certainly, more changes will follow, and we are anxious to see whether those changes are temporary and short term or entrenched. As we reflect on the responses to the virus observed around the world, structure and culture must be considered in concert with—or in addition to—political persuasion and leadership. The degree of centralization versus decentralization shapes the speed with which responses can be made, the complexity of delivering the response, and the allocation of stored capacity at different levels. Authoritarian regimes have been able to act differently than leaders in democratic systems. Shared power moderates decisions. We also know that strategy matters (George et al. 2020). Excessive capacity is useless if it is used unwisely. While emergency management plans may have existed for many institutions, the nature of this crisis was unique in its effect on all organizations and geographic locations. Public health agencies and medical facilities dusted off aging plans to reign in the virus and treat its effects. Agencies in other functional areas were likely less prepared. At the core, one of the biggest challenges of this pandemic has not been changing the work that is done so much as adapting to new ways of implementing policy. If the past is an indicator, strategic planning will play an essential role as organizations adapt to their new realities (George 2020). Examining the central role of evidence in responding to the pandemic will also produce a new frontier in research. How is evidence useful when targets are seemingly nimble and subject to frequent movement? How has the rise of substantive experts in policy and management influenced the response strategy and performance? How has politicization of evidence impacted the response strategy, performance, and public perception (Hall and Battaglio 2018a)? Evidence-based practice (EBP), policy, and management will be a fruitful path for assessment in the aftermath of the crisis. Which approaches were effective? Which were not? Why were they effective in some locations and not others? The accumulation of data occurs quickly in the information age, and analysis of such data offers an opportunity to rapidly generate best practices and EBPs for agencies of every type (Hall and Jennings Jr. 2008). EBP provides a mechanism for integrating this knowledge into practice. Similar to the effective use of evidence in practice, we have also observed the utility of technology in tempering the crisis. Whether medical technology treating patients, medical research decoding the virus' genome and developing vaccines, or government agencies' use of cell phone apps to monitor individual movements, technology has been an integral part of the way we have responded to the crisis. Researchers may well investigate how technology mitigated the virus and how it could have done more. We remain curious as to whether there will now be political will to mobilize resources toward scientific and healthcare endeavors. Like the moon shot half a century ago, we have seen what can happen when leaders and professionals promote the use of technology to address a specific goal in a concerted effort. What role has capacity played in mitigating or worsening the crisis? While the federal government has the expertise and the resources essential to respond, states share constitutional and legal authority, and many have substantial public health capacity in their own right. As has been documented in the capacity/performance paradigm, the capacity to act is necessary but not sufficient to bring about desired performance (Hall 2008a, 2008b; Hall and Battaglio 2018b). Going forward, we may need to think about building and deploying capacity in different ways. Localized capacity is necessary because, when such an ubiquitous catastrophe strikes that affects literally every state and community, federal resources cannot be easily deployed to targeted areas of need. States should strengthen their capacities to take on a greater share in the burden of government to preserve a wide range of freedoms of action for jointly supported and administered programs (White 1953). Population centers will receive attention first, and cumulative federal capacity will likely prove insufficient to fulfill every need. Related to capacity is the unique nature of rural areas. There is a huge disparity between rural and urban areas in terms of preparedness, impact, and ability to respond. Research will do well to consider these differences as it seeks to understand the virus' impact and government responses. In 2019, we noted the importance of reduced boundary governance to modern public administration research and practice (Hall and Battaglio 2018b). Managing through partnerships, whether defined as public/private partnerships (PPP), collaboration, cooperation, networks, or joined-up government, is an essential aspect of modern governance, and the value of these partnerships within and across sectors has proven essential to the rapid and complex responses we have observed. The call for multiorganizational analysis is not new; Ostrom (1989) recognized it, and Elazar (1964) referred to it in observing the cooperative partnership between levels of government in American federalism. Of course, the involvement of multiple levels of government leads to increased complexity (O'Toole Jr. 2000), showing how deeply integrated many of these questions may be. Among the immediate federal responses was the collection of massive relief bills to be signed into law; this feel good action was fueled by fear more than evidence, by urgency rather than evidence of need. Throwing money at the problem will likely net unforeseen consequences; some of the strings attached to federal funding will likely result in the persistence of inefficient behaviors. How should managers balance urgency with accountability? Urgency increases complexity and uncertainty, which is a recipe for decreased rational analysis (Battaglio and Hall 2019a). As System I thinking dominates rapid-fire, gut-driven, managerial decisions to the exclusion of deliberate rational thinking characterized by System II, the potential for bias to influence outcomes will increase. To what extent is rational analysis warranted? Are different decision-making paradigms associated with different levels of performance? An enduring question for public administration is how much effort do we devote to accountability efforts versus mission-based activities (Battaglio and Hall 2018; Hall 2010). Rapid action often precludes transparency in the process, and under the unique constraints of social distancing employed during this pandemic, many previously open meetings have been held in a closed fashion or merely aired via social media platforms. This creates a potential barrier to accessibility based on access to computers and broadband internet. Has a lack of transparency impacted the quality of the response? As for accountability, there is clear tracking of the problem through infections, death counts, market losses, and unemployment. It is yet too soon to determine what efforts have been used to integrate performance measurement or management into the response. As you reflect on these structural and practical challenges, we encourage you to seek deeper understanding by reading the insights we have been able to compile from around the world. In this first installment of the symposium, we present 15 unique perspectives that reveal how deeply this crisis has challenged public and nonprofit managers around the world. Most provide lessons that can begin to help us shape our response. While we are only able to print half of the material in this issue, you can access the remaining pieces in our virtual symposium online (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1111/15406210.covid-19). Now, let us take a look at what PAR's dedicated authors deliver in this issue. To address the question of the federal response, Kettl (2020) details the variety of responses across states and the federal government. He details some of the reasons why, and ways in which, state responses varied and highlights variations. It is in these variations that future research lies. Applying Kettl's (2020) federalism logic, Curley and Federman (2020) collected and analyzed a variety of state executive orders dealing with the pandemic. The authors find differences in enforcement, restriction, and suspension, and within the essay, they outline future research that can explain the results of these variations. What role did the executive orders play in stopping the virus spread? What accounts for the variance? Thanks to the pandemic shock, Roberts (2020) explains what he calls the millennial paradigm that, in his argument, will collapse. He, too, details some of the elements of federalism that might not remain after the pandemic punctuation. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; the 2008 financial crisis; and the pandemic are all exogenous shocks to the governing system as we know it, so the question becomes: will these predictions come true? Similar to Roberts (2020), Moon (2020) takes a big-picture approach to understanding the changes to governance practices as a result of the pandemic. Using South Korea as a case study, Moon argues that an agile-adaptive approach might be a path forward for responding to crises. His essay prompts future research about agile principles in government (see Mergel, Ganapati, and Whitford 2020 for more on agile principles that can inform future research). Like Moon (2020), Yang (2020) uses China's response in Wuhan, the virus epicenter, to argue that paradoxes often guide governance practices, and even in normal times, those paradoxes should be examined for competing values structures. Yang (2020) points out that the pandemic can be an equalizer for government and governance as there really is no preparation for something on this scale that fundamentally shakes our normal processes. Thinking of these paradoxes as either-or choices rather than both stifles our thinking, and future research can further explore the paradoxes Yang (2020) outlines. Keeping with the theme of punctuations and change, Van Dooren and Noordegraaf (2020) explain that what we call normal science might not hold in crisis situations. They argue that how we "do" science needs to change but caution putting too much reliance on science to solve all societal problems. The piece raises fundamental questions about the role of expertise, and those questions are ripe for additional research. The Viewpoint symposium then shifts toward more case-based understandings of the crisis, using varying theoretical lenses, countries, and practical findings to inform research and practice. Using the lens of cognition, coordination, communication, and control, Comfort et al. (2020) conduct a cross-cultural comparative case study to examine the response readiness in countries with different governmental, structural, and cultural elements. More comparative research with these underlying values will be needed. Comfort et al. (2020) use a networked approach to examine their cross-cultural response, and Grizzle, Goodin, and Robinson (2020) also detail the challenges with building and maintaining strong networks that can respond to system shocks such as the pandemic (Roberts 2020). Using the City of Norman, Oklahoma as a case study, Grizzle, Goodin, and Robinson (2020) detail ways in which strong networks are built and how well those efforts fared during the COVID-19 response. Future research can build on their recommendations for building strong, sustainable networks in public management. In addition to building resilient networks, governments also need to focus on fiscal resilience, and Dzigbede, Gehl, and Willoughby (2020) use data about local government weather-related fiscal resilience to draw lessons for the pandemic, which is another crisis that can (and likely will) financially drain many smaller governments. Future research can address the questions regarding building networks for financial resilience in government agencies. Similarly, Maher, Hoang, and Hindery (2020) argue that, from a financial perspective, the pandemic is adversely affecting smaller nonprofit organizations and local governments that might not qualify for federal relief funding. The authors suggest innovations in the sectors to protect fiscal integrity and reserves, and more research will be needed based on their findings to examine innovation and change in nonprofit organization, fundraising, and networking. The same will hold for governments suffering financially. Many essays in the symposium rely on countries as the unit of analysis. Huang (2020) uses Taiwan as a case study regarding the pandemic response, which relied on collaborative governance strategies with people in a unitary governing system. Using war rhetoric similar to the United States, Taiwan's response focused on defeating an invisible enemy, so people bought into their roles in helping. The various factors that went into the response, such as quarantine and cell phone tracking, are open for additional research in various settings. Using Australia as their case study, Moloney and Moloney (2020) use a historical approach to understand the current pandemic response. They also show how federalism between the state and commonwealth governments affected the response in Australia, and the key to success was an ability to change response mechanisms on the fly. Relying on experts, Australia took action and changed those actions when required to have what many consider a positive pandemic response (Moloney and Moloney 2020). With Central American countries as their viewpoint, Ramírez de la Cruz et al. (2020) examine how the same problems confronted in the developed world are amplified by structural obstacles such as social inequalities across Latin America. Spoils systems and social and political polarization are among the obstacles that confound the response to the virus. In this context, Ramírez de la Cruz et al. highlight some innovative practices emerging in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and México, focusing on the formal and informal institutions that facilitate or obstruct collaborations across jurisdictions. But what can we do with all these data? How can we use data from countries to meaningfully enact strategic change? George et al. (2020) offer a guide for benchmarking these performance data, so they can be used meaningfully going forward. This will tie into our call above for evidence-based policy and management grounded in the ongoing pandemic response. Strategic thinking, George et al. (2020) argue, can help harness the power of these data for future transformation. In an essay that takes a different view, Zavattaro (2020) uses interview data from cemetery managers to understand how they can play a broader role in emergency management planning. The pandemic has created a mass fatality management problem, and many of the experts who handle death care are not included in emergency planning, so Zavattaro (2020) offers points to consider when expanding who is in the planning and training room. These essays reflect the breadth of questions about government response in times of crisis and the examination of authority, conflict, cooperation, networked governance, fiscal stress, civil liberties, the role of expertise and science in decision-making, and development of EBP. In spite of the breadth of topics presented, these manuscripts capture only a fraction of the many conceptual questions that the crisis has raised. Several enduring research questions are underscored by these preliminary observations, but our list merely scratches the surface of what the independent work of scholars around the world will soon yield.