Abstract
The political affiliation of governors has been highlighted as the most important predictor of a state's aggressiveness in responding to the pandemic, that is, Democratic governors advocated for more stringent policies than their Republican counterparts. However, of the 39 states that issued a statewide stay-at-home order (SAHO) mandate, nearly half were led by Republican governors. Using a qualitative comparative analysis, we find that gubernatorial partisanship alone cannot explain SAHO mandates. If partisanship played a role at all, it did so only in states with large metropolitan areas or with fewer public health resources. Regardless of the governor's partisanship, the combination of problem severity and public health resources was sufficient to produce a stringent policy outcome. Emphasis on gubernatorial decisions as purely political overlooks material needs relevant for future pandemic response and the potential for evidence and future coordination.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 40-55 |
Number of pages | 16 |
Journal | Public administration review |
Volume | 84 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Jan 1 2024 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Sociology and Political Science
- Public Administration
- Marketing