Lessons From COVID-19 Responses in East Asia: Institutional Infrastructure and Enduring Policy Instruments

• Published date: 01 August 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074020943707
• Date: 01 August 2020
• Subject Matter: Comparative Governance During COVID-19: Lessons From Around the WorldComparative Policy Approaches

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020943707

American Review of Public Administration

2020, Vol. 50(6-7) 790 –800

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074020943707

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Comparative Policy Approaches

Introduction

As a pandemic, COVID-19 has hit almost every country on

earth. Policymakers and public managers worldwide have

been put to the test on their crisis management capability.

From January through May 2020, divergent emergency man-

agement approaches have been adopted worldwide. Yet, it

has become increasingly controversial as to what policy

instruments are more effective, in both the short and the long

run, and whether instruments that work in one region can be

used in others.

To confront an unprecedented crisis, agile actions and com-

petence of top leadership are necessary (Moon, forthcoming)

but are by themselves insufficient. Equally critical is whether

a polity has the necessary institutional infrastructure in place

when a crisis strikes. Policy instruments are more likely to

succeed when existing institutional infrastructure supports

their administration and implementation. We further argue that

instruments that generate enduring impact must be compatible

with a polity’s underlying culture; instruments that accommo-

date the underlying cultural orientations are more likely to

elicit public cooperation and voluntary compliance over time.

Hence, the set of feasible policy instruments is inherently con-

strained by culture and must be adapted to it.

Besides, policy instruments must address equity issues by

reaching marginalized groups across all layers of the popula-

tion. During a crisis, marginalized groups can easily be for-

gotten or neglected by policymakers. Low-income foreign

workers, for example, are isolated from the mainstream cul-

ture and can easily be excluded in policy discourse. Progress

in emergency management may be visible in mainstream

society but masking brewing problems among marginalized

groups.

The critical role of institutional infrastructure and cultural

compatibility in the fight against COVID-19 is evident in

five advanced economies in East Asia—Taiwan, Hong Kong,

South Korea (“Korea” hereafter), Singapore, and Japan. The

first four polities1 have taken aggressive actions from the

start of the COVID-19 pandemic; they have been relatively

successful in containing the spread of the virus, except for

943707ARPXXX10.1177/0275074020943707The American Review of Public AdministrationAn and Tang

research-article2020

1The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

2University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

Corresponding Author:

Brian Y. An, Department of Political Science, The University of

Tennessee, Knoxville, 1001 McClung Tower, 1115 Volunteer Blvd.,

Knoxville, TN 37996-0410, USA.

Email: brianykan@gmail.com

Lessons From COVID-19 Responses in

East Asia: Institutional Infrastructure

and Enduring Policy Instruments

Brian Y. An1 and Shui-Yan Tang2

Abstract

Existing commentaries on government responses to COVID-19 have focused on such factors as competent leadership,

policy instruments, or cultural dispositions. Yet, few have provided a synthesis that examines how these factors relate to

each other. This article fills this gap in the debate by comparing COVID-19 responses among five advanced economies in

East Asia: Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Japan. Although agile actions and competence of top leadership

are necessary to confront an unprecedented crisis, they are by themselves insufficient. Equally critical is whether a society

has the necessary institutional infrastructure in place when a crisis strikes. Policy instruments are more likely to succeed

when existing institutional infrastructure supports their administration and implementation. For an instrument to generate

enduring impact, it must be compatible with a polity’s underlying culture; instruments that accommodate the underlying

cultural orientations are more likely to elicit public cooperation and voluntary compliance over time. Policy instruments

must also address equity issues by reaching marginalized groups across all layers of the population. Progress in emergency

management may be visible in mainstream society but masking brewing problems among marginalized groups. A comparison

across the five advanced economies in East Asia yields several implications for comparative research and policy.

Keywords

crisis management, institutional infrastructure, policy instrument, culture, social equity, COVID-19