PreprintCited by 1Legal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 ChallengesPublic Health Policies and EducationPublic Administration and Political Analysis

Public Health Policy as Public Choice Failure

Open access
Manta, Irina D., Robertson, Cassandra Burke, Robinson, Zoe·2024·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has wrought a devastating toll, causing over a million deaths in the United States along with widespread disability and economic disruption. Yet the magnitude of these costs was not inevitable—it was shaped by the policy choices made in response to the crisis. This Article argues that the U.S. pandemic response suffered from public choice dynamics that systematically skewed policymaking away from the public interest. Examining three key policy areas—vaccine rollout, mask mandates, and ventilation standards—the Article demonstrates how misaligned political incentives led officials to prioritize short-term appeasement of a pandemic-weary public over science-based strategies that would maximize long-term welfare. In each domain, political actors faced strong incentives to downplay risks, overpromise solutions, and delay difficult decisions, resulting in a pandemic response that was often too little, too late, and too beholden to partisan interests. The Article concludes that reckoning honestly with these failures is a crucial first step toward reforming our public health institutions and ensure a more effective response to the next crisis. It offers recommendations for rebuilding public trust, depoliticizing public health communication, and institutionalizing science-based policymaking. More broadly, the Article underscores the urgent need to realign political incentives with the public interest in the prevention of and response to public health emergencies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4850221

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 United States public health response during COVID-19 is now viewed as having been unclear, biased, and arbitrary, and as a major failure of the United States public health system.

    “The public health response at the time is now viewed as having been unclear, biased, and arbitrary, and is seen as a major failure of the United States public health system (4–6).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 1

Authors
Manta, I. D., Robertson, C. B., & Robinson, Z.
Affiliations
  • Hofstra University (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Manta, Irina D.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399310253
Cited by
1
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Legal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 Challenges
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
Keywords
public choice theory, COVID-19 pandemic response, public health policy, political incentives, vaccine rollout, mask mandates, ventilation standards, depoliticization, science-based policymaking, public trust, public health centers, public interest

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