What has happened and what has not happened due to the coronavirus disease pandemic: a systemic perspective on policy change
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The societal and policy transformations associated with the coronavirus disease pandemic are currently subject of intense academic debate. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by adopting a systemic perspective on policy change, shedding light on the hidden and indirect crisis effects. Based on a comprehensive analysis of policy agenda developments in Germany, we find that the pandemic led to profound shifts in political attention across policy areas. We demonstrate that these agenda gains and losses per policy area vary by the extent to which the respective areas can be presented as relevant in managing the coronavirus disease crisis and its repercussions. Moreover, relying on the analysis of past four economic crises, we also find that there is limited potential for catching up dynamics after the crisis is over. Policy areas that lost agenda share during crisis are unlikely to make up for these losses by strong attention gains once the crisis is over. Crises have hence substantial, long-term and so far, neglected effects on policymaking in modern democracies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The pandemic may have cleared the path and accelerated policy change in proximate areas where changes were already underway, while diverting attention from more distant policy areas.
“The pandemic may have cleared the path and accelerated policy change in proximate areas where changes were already underway, while diverting attention from more distant policy areas (Hogan et al., 2022;Knill & Steinebach, 2022).”
From COVID-19 and welfare state support: the case of universal basic income (2022) · cites this paper as Knill & Steinebach, 2022
The Theoretical argument section says crisis-proximate areas were expected to show more policy change than before the pandemic, while crisis-remote areas were expected to show less; the Conclusion reports attention gains and losses associated with crisis proximity. Neither passage establishes that the changes in proximate areas were already underway before the pandemic or that the pandemic accelerated those existing changes. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHistorical evidence shows that policies that were not adopted under the favorable conditions during a crisis are even less likely to be adopted after the crisis.
“However, historical evidence shows that policies that were not adopted under the favorable conditions during a crisis are even less likely to be adopted in after the crisis (Knill & Steinebach, 2022).”
From COVID-19 and welfare state support: the case of universal basic income (2022) · cites this paper as Knill & Steinebach, 2022
The Introduction reports that, across four past economic crises, policy areas that lost attention during a crisis were unlikely to make up for it afterward. The Theoretical argument similarly says changes missed during a crisis are unlikely to be compensated later. But the paper describes crisis conditions as unfavorable for those neglected areas, and it does not establish that adoption becomes even less likely after the crisis than during it. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPolicy change during the pandemic may primarily have been limited to a few more 'proximate' policy areas.
“UBI remains a hypothetical and”
From COVID-19 and welfare state support: the case of universal basic income (2022) · cites this paper as Knill & Steinebach, 2022
UBI remains a hypothetical and 'distant' policy area in most places.
“UBI remains a hypothetical and”
From COVID-19 and welfare state support: the case of universal basic income (2022) · cites this paper as Knill & Steinebach, 2022
The sections on crises and policy change discuss policy areas that are remote from a crisis, but do not identify UBI as one of them. Searches for “UBI” and “basic income” found no passage addressing whether UBI is hypothetical or a distant policy area in most places. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 36
- Baumgartner, F. R., Breunig, C., Green-Pedersen, C., Jones, B. D., Mortensen, P. B., Nuytemans, M., & Walgrave, S. (2009). Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 603-620.
- Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
- Bevan, S. (2019). Gone fishing: The creation of the comparative agendas project master codebook. In F. R. Baumgartner, C. Breunig & E. Grossman (Eds.), Comparative policy agendas: Theory, tools, data( pp. 17-34). Oxford University Press.
- Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: The history of a dangerous idea. Oxford University Press.
- Boin, A., t'Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81-106.
- Breunig, C., & Schnatterer, T. (2020). Die politische Agenda Deutschlands. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 61(1), 131-149.
- Cairney, P., & Weible, C. M. (2015). Comparing and contrasting Peter Hall's paradigms and ideas with the advocacy coalition framework. In J. Hogan & M. Howlett (Eds.), Policy paradigms in theory and practice. Studies in the political economy of public policy (pp. 83-99). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Capano, G. (2009). Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 7-31.
- Capano, G., Howlett, M., Jarvis, D. S. L., Ramesh, M., & Goyal, N. (2020). Mobilizing policy (In)capacity to fight COVID-19: Understanding variations in state responses. Policy and Society, 39(3), 285-308.
- Clark, A. D., & Nickels, A. E. (2021). Doubling down on austerity: Framing and coronavirus response. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43(2), 209-216.
- De Francesco, F., & Maggetti, M. (2018). Assessing disproportionality: Indexes of policy responses to the 2007-2008 banking crisis. Policy Sciences, 51(1), 17-38.
- Fernández-i-Marín, X., Hurka, S., Knill, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2020). Systemic dynamics of policy change: Overcoming some blind spots of punctuated equilibrium theory. Policy Studies Journal, 1-27.
- Gerring, J., & Cojocaru, L. (2016). Selecting cases for intensive analysis: A diversity of goals and methods. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 392-423.
- Goyal, N., & Howlett, M. (2021). Measuring the mix of policy responses to COVID-19: Comparative policy analysis using topic modelling. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(2), 250-261.
- Héritier, A., Knill, C., & Mingers, S. (1996). Ringing the changes in Europe. Regulatory competition and transformation of the state. De Gruyter.
- Hogan, J., & Feeney, S. (2012). Crisis and policy change: The role of the political entrepreneur. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 3(2), 1-24.
- Hurka, S. (2017). Rampage shootings and gun control: Politicization and policy change in Western Europe. Routledge.
- Jennings, W., Bevan, S., Timmermans, A., Breeman, G., Brouard, S., Chaqués-Bonafont, L., Green-Pedersen, C., John, P., Mortensen, P. B., & Palau, A. M. (2011). Effects of the core functions of government on the diversity of executive agendas. Comparative Political Studies, 44(8), 1001-1030.
- Jochim, A. E., & May, P. J. (2010). Beyond subsystems: Policy regimes and governance. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 303-327.
- Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1-20.
- Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220-246.
- Lindvall, J. (2012). Politics and policies in two economic crises. In N. Bermeo & J. Pontusson (Eds.), Coping with crisis: Government reactions to the great recession( pp. 233-260).
- Maor, M., Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R., & Chinitz, D. (2020). When COVID-19, constitutional crisis, and politi- cal deadlock meet: The Israeli case from a disproportionate policy perspective. Policy and Society, 39(3), 442-457.
- May, P. J., Sapotichne, J., & Workman, S. (2009). Widespread policy disruption: Terrorism, public risks, and homeland security. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 171-194.
- Moschella, M. (2011). Lagged learning and the response to equilibrium shock: The global financial crisis and IMF surveillance. Journal of Public Policy, 31(2), 121-141.
- Nohrstedt, D. (2008). The politics of crisis policymaking: Chernobyl and Swedish nuclear energy policy. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 257-278.
- Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. M. (2010). The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1(2), 1-32.
- Pille, C., & Prins, R. (2018). The framing contest unravelled: Mayors, framing strategies and political out- comes in the wake of three riot-related crises in the Netherlands. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(4), 469-479.
- Rinscheid, A. (2015). Crisis, policy discourse, and major policy change: Exploring the role of subsystem polarization in nuclear energy policymaking. European Policy Analysis, 1(2), 34-70.
- Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1993). Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 21(1), 56-71.
- Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189-222). Westview Press.
- 'Hart, P., & Tindall, K. (2009). Framing the global economic downturn: Crisis rhetoric and the politics of recessions. ANU Press.
- Walgrave, S., & Varone, F. (2008). Punctuated equilibrium and agenda-setting: Bringing parties back in: Policy change after the dutroux crisis in Belgium. Governance, 21(3), 365-395.
- Winter, M. (2003). Responding to the crisis: The policy impact of the foot-and-mouth epidemic. The Political Quarterly, 74(1), 47-56.
- Workman, S., Jones, B. D., & Jochim, A. E. (2009). Information processing and policy dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 75-92.
- Zubek, R. (2021). Committee strength in parliamentary democracies: A new index. European Journal of Political Research, 60(4), 1018-1031.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hogan, J., Howlett, M., & Murphy, M. (2022) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1093/polsoc/puab009 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
COVID-19 and welfare state support: the case of universal basic income
Weisstanner, D. (2022) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1093/polsoc/puab015 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
- Authors
- Knill, C., & Steinebach, Y.
- Affiliations
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Knill, Christoph
- Venue
- Policy and Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-01-10
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-39
- ISSN
- 1449-4035 (ISSN-L)
- 1839-3373
- OpenAlex
- W4206173900
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9
- FWCI
- 17.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Policy and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- The European Research Council (788941)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, policy change, policy agenda, political attention, economic crisis, Germany, long-term policy effects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
