Responding to the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Tale of Two Cities

• Published date: 01 August 2020
• Date: 01 August 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074020941687
• Subject Matter: Institutional Responsibilities & Obligations of the Administrative State to the Citizenry IT ServesPublic Management, Public Trust, & the Quest for Democratic Governance

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020941687

American Review of Public Administration

2020, Vol. 50(6-7) 497 –504

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074020941687

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Public Management, Public Trust, & the Quest for Democratic Governance

Since December 31, 2019 and as of May 13, 2020, there have

been more than 4.2 million reported COVID-19 cases and

291,519 deaths (European Center for Disease Prevention and

Control, 2020). The pandemic is not only a global humani-

tarian and economic crisis (United Nations, 2020), but also a

public governance challenge. It has caused policymakers and

citizens to question the effectiveness of public policymaking,

the fundamental values of governing, and the governance

design of many countries.

Using two case studies from China and the United States,

respectively, this study analyzes governmental responses to

COVID-19 on four tension points: immediacy versus thor-

oughness, transparency versus secrecy and security, central-

ization versus decentralization, and state-driven solutions

versus coproduction. The cases studies illustrate that some of

these tensions were managed by the two municipal govern-

ments differently due to institutional, values, political, and

administrative capacity differences. At the same time, some

common principles of good managerial response can be dis-

tilled. Based on these analyses, strategic response strategies

for practitioners and questions for future research are

recommended.

The Coronavirus Pandemic as a

Complex Governance Challenge

During the past few decades, the world has been hit by sev-

eral global pandemics, including the HIV/AIDS pandemic in

the 1980s–1990s, the SARS pandemic in the early 2000s,

and the swine and H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009–2010 (Greene,

2007; Saunders-Hastings & Krewski, 2016; Y. Yang et al.,

2020). However, none of these has had the same damaging

impact of COVID-19 because COVID-19 can be spread

extremely fast, disease carriers are contagious but can remain

symptomless for a number of days, the initial symptoms can

be mistakenly treated as a normal flu, the virus can be fatal,

particularly for the elderly and people with chronic illness,

and as of May, 2020, there is no effective treatment or vac-

cine for the virus (Huang et al. 2020; Y. Yang et al., 2020). As

a result, unless COVID-19 patients are identified and iso-

lated early, they can cause significant public health risk in a

community.

Because of these characteristics, countries cannot take a

“wait and see” approach and go through a normal cycle of

evidence-based policymaking, from scientific diagnosis,

alternative evaluation, to consensus building, which usually

takes more than a year. Also, COVID-19 is truly a public

policy challenge on steroids—individual actions or inaction

can have significant and irreversible externality effects on

others, the spread is a global challenge, policy responses

require overcoming collective action and information

941687ARPXXX10.1177/0275074020941687The American Review of Public AdministrationWeng et al.

research-article2020

1East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

2California State University, San Bernardino, USA

3University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

4Guangdong Provincial Institute of Public Health, Guangzhou, China

Corresponding Author:

Alfred Tat-Kei Ho, School of Public Affairs, University of Kansas, Wescoe

Hall 4060, Lawrence, Kansas 66049, USA.

Email: alfredho@ku.edu

Responding to the Coronavirus

Pandemic: A Tale of Two Cities

Shi-Hong Weng1, Anna Ya Ni2, Alfred Tat-Kei Ho3,

and Ruo-Xi Zhong4

Abstract

This study compares the experiences of Shanghai in China and Los Angeles in the United States to illustrate four tension

points in pandemic responses: immediacy versus thoroughness, transparency versus secrecy and security, centralization

versus decentralization, and state-driven solutions versus coproduction. Based on the case analysis, strategic management

and planning practices in six stages of pandemic response are recommended. The study also suggests research questions for

future comparative research to examine more carefully how pandemic responses should vary due to institutional differences

and local contextualization and adaptation.

Keywords

COVID-19, pandemic response, emergency management, comparative public management, public governance