Comparing the responses to the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic by the Chinese and American governments : a historical institutionalist analysis
Date of Award
5-27-2024
Degree Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Doctor of Policy Studies (DPS)
First Advisor
Prof. LI Lianjiang
Abstract
The dissertation compares how the Chinese and American governments responded to the outbreak of the COVID-pandemic in 2020. It focuses on the first year of the pandemic. Drawing on archival sources and fieldwork, the study makes three major arguments.
First, it aruges that the COVID-pandemic is a severe global public health crisis with a spurious precedent of SARS endemic that caused millions of death and countless cases of long-term illness. In hindsight, how a government responded to in the initial phase of the pandemic determined the life or death of tens of millions of people in a populous country like China and the United States.
Second, China and the United States have similar economic power and international status, fundamentally different political systems, but similarly strong political leaders.
Lastly, the two governments adopted entirely different responses that led to different outcomes. The Chinese government resolutely enforced zero-COVID approach, contained the highly virulent virus and its dangerous variants by the end of 2020, and won enormous public confidence and support. By contrast, the American government missed opportunities to contain the pandemic. Numerous lives were lost and the incumbent president, Donald Trump, lost his bid for election despite his administration’s previous economic achievements and the development of the mRNA vaccines.
Based on in-depth historical institutionalist analysis, the study draws three conclusions.
First, the Chinese political system is better-tuned to handle global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. The study argues that routine governance is fundamentally different from crisis response. The former requires established rule-enforcement mechanisms while the latter requires prompt and flexible rule-making leadership. The former presupposes adequate information while the latter is characterized by incomplete information. The former allows a large room of trials and errors while the latter allows only small margin of error. Based on in-depth institutional analysis, the study argues that the Chinese and American governmental systems are distinctive but comparable in terms of maintaining routine governance. When it comes to crisis response, however, the Chinese governmental system has a clear comparative advantage in that it allows for high level of concentration and highly efficient topdown mobilization. Both characteristics proved critical for ensuring the effective enforcement of the strict zero-COVID measures, i.e., testing, tracing and quarantine.
Second, by far President Xi outperformed President Trump. Although they are both well-known for their strong leadership, President Xi acted like a true statesman, demonstrating an unwavering commiment to putting people’s lives above all other priorities, including economic growth, a clear vision and a decisiveness in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, President Trump acted like a typical politician, giving gave his bid for reelection the top priority. Through the first year of the pandemic, President Trump was more concerned about the stock market than about American people’s lives and health. Even when he appeared to take the pandemic seriously, President used his daily press conference at the White House as a campaign platform. President Xi could make courages decision with incomplete information and facing different expert analyses and policy proposals. By contrast, President Trump was indecisive, waving back and forth on how to respond to the pandemic. The study argues that the strong leadership can reaches its optimal effectiveness by fully bringing out the mobilizing potentials of the Chinese government system. By contrast, President Trump was hamstrung by the American governmental system, which is characterized by checks and balance.
Lastly, both strong leadership and effective institutions are critical for governance and crisis response. However, proactive, decisive and courageous leadership plays a far more important role than institutions during times of crisis, particularly at the initial stage of a rare and global public crisis with a spurious recent precedent. The study provides a solid foundation for further research on comparative governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Language
English
Copyright
The copyright of this thesis is owned by its author. Any reproduction, adaptation, distribution or dissemination of this thesis without express authorization is strictly prohibited.
Recommended Citation
Gu, H. (2024). Comparing the responses to the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic by the Chinese and American governments: A historical institutionalist analysis (doctoral thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong). Retrieved from https://commons.ln.edu.hk/otd_tpg/26/
