skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Governing in a Polarized Era: Federalism and the Response of U.S. State and Federal Governments to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Title: Governing in a Polarized Era: Federalism and the Response of U.S. State and Federal Governments to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Abstract How does the state of American federalism explain responses to COVID-19? State-by-state variations to the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate the political dynamics of “kaleidoscopic federalism,” under which there is no single prevailing principle of federalism. In the COVID-19 pandemic, features of kaleidoscopic federalism combined with shortcomings in the public health system under the Trump administration, leading to fragmented responses to the pandemic among the states. Federalism alone does not explain the shortcomings of the United States’ response to the pandemic. Rather, the fragmented response was driven by state partisanship, which shaped state public health interventions and resulted in differences in public health outcomes. This has sobering implications for American federalism because state-level partisan differences yield different and unequal responses to the pandemic.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2030316
PAR ID:
10351929
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Publius: The Journal of Federalism
Volume:
51
Issue:
4
ISSN:
0048-5950
Page Range / eLocation ID:
650 to 672
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness)
    Abstract ObjectivesWe conducted interviews with state epidemiologists involved in the state-level COVID-19 response to understand the challenges and opportunities that state epidemiologists and state health departments faced during COVID-19 and consider the implications for future pandemic responses. MethodsAs part of a broader study on policymaking during COVID-19, we analyzed 12 qualitative interviews with state-epidemiologists from 11 US states regarding the challenges and opportunities they experienced during the COVID-19 response. ResultsInterviewees described the unprecedented demands COVID-19 placed on them, including increased workloads as well as political and public scrutiny. Decades of under-funding and constraints posed particular challenges for meeting these demands and compromised state responses. Emergency funding contributed to ameliorating some challenges. However, state health departments were unable to absorb the funds quickly, which created added pressure for employees. The emergency funding also did not resolve longstanding resource deficits. ConclusionsState health departments were not equipped to meet the demands of a comprehensive COVID-19 response, and increased funding failed to address shortfalls. Effective future pandemic responses will require sustained investment and adequate support to manage on-going and surge capacity needs. Increased public interest and skepticism complicated the COVID-19 response, and additional measures are needed to address these factors. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; (, Health Security)
    The United States takes a federalist approach to pandemic responses while the bulk of pandemic powers sits at the state level. Thus, comprehensive accounts of how state health officials managed the crisis and how the federal government affected those efforts are needed to better understand the governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This article reports the results of semistructured interviews with 29 state-level policy actors from 16 US states. Interviewees discussed multiple aspects of the US federal COVID-19 response that affected the response in their states, including communications with the public, intergovernmental communications, and federal actions regarding various aspects of health service preparedness including emergency funding, procurement, testing capacity, vaccine development and distribution, and data systems. This research enriches the discussion about US pandemic preparedness and response, and indicates that alignment of public communications across government levels, enhanced intergovernmental communication, inclusion of rural perspectives, and federal investment in and sustainment of health service preparedness are key factors that can improve future US pandemic responses. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Legislative Studies Quarterly)
    Subnational governments in the United States have taken the lead on many aspects of the response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Variation in government activity across states offers the opportunity to analyze responses in comparable settings. We study a common and informative activity among state officials—state legislators’ attention to the pandemic on Twitter. We find that legislators’ attention to the pandemic strongly correlates with the number of cases in the legislator’s state, the national count of new deaths, and the number of pandemic‐related public policies passed within the legislator’s state. Furthermore, we find that the degree of responsiveness to pandemic indicators differs significantly across political parties, with Republicans exhibiting weaker responses, on average. Lastly, we find significant differences in the content of tweets about the pandemic by Democratic and Republican legislators, with Democrats focused on health indicators and impacts, and Republicans focused on business impacts and opening the economy. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Nature)
    Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, PLOS ONE)
    Triberti, Stefano (Ed.)
    Differences in national responses to COVID-19 have been associated with the cultural value of collectivism. The present research builds on these findings by examining the relationship between collectivism at the individual level and adherence to public health recommendations to combat COVID-19 during the pre-vaccination stage of the pandemic, and examines different characteristics of collectivism (i.e., concern for community, trust in institutions, perceived social norms) as potential psychological mechanisms that could explain greater compliance. A study with a cross-section of American participants (N= 530) examined the relationship between collectivism and opting-in to digital contact tracing (DCT) and wearing face coverings in the general population. More collectivistic individuals were more likely to comply with public health interventions than less collectivistic individuals. While collectivism was positively associated with the three potential psychological mechanisms, only perceived social norms about the proportion of people performing the public health interventions explained the relationship between collectivism and compliance with both public health interventions. This research identifies specific pathways by which collectivism can lead to compliance with community-benefiting public health behaviors to combat contagious diseases and highlights the role of cultural orientation in shaping individuals’ decisions that involve a tension between individual cost and community benefit. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email