重新找回政治制度在各國COVID-19防疫表現的重要性

Bringing“Political Institutions”Back-In to the Analysis of Government Performance in the Fight against COVID-19

新冠肺炎從2020年的年初開始席捲全球，成為當代影響全球經濟和國際政治最重要的事件，而若以染疫人口占總人口數的比率來看，民主國家在防疫的表現上並未明顯優於非民主國家的這個事實，也引起了政治制度孰優孰劣的辯論。針對這個現象，本文試圖回答「為什麼民主國家的防疫表現沒有比非民主國家來得好」以及「在什麼情況之下民主制度所擁有的優勢才能夠在防疫的表現上展現出來」這兩個問題。關於第一個問題，本文認為，由於民主國家通常全球化的程度較高，使得其在疫情初期的防堵上失去先機，再加上民主國家受限於民主的制度與規範，使得其難以採行嚴厲的防疫手段，因此民主國家在壓低染疫人口的比率上並未取得比非民主國家更好的防疫表現；關於第二個問題，本文認為，在非民主的政治制度中，基於其政治生存的邏輯，防疫表現不一定是政治領袖的重要施政目標，而在民主的政治制度中，雖然政府在民主的競爭壓力下有較高的誘因提供防疫的表現，但民主國家在防疫政策的形成和推動的過程之中牽涉到許多不同的政治行為者彼此之間的關係，而政治的穩定程度愈高的民主國家，其防疫政策在這之間所引發的「政治性衝突」的程度愈低，政府的防疫措施愈能被順利推動，因此政治穩定程度愈高的民主國家，防疫的表現愈好。來自全球140幾個國家的經驗證據支持了本文的論點。本文的發現也找回了「政治制度」在COVID-19防疫表現上的重要性。

The COVID-19 pandemic, which has swept across the world since early 2020, stands as one of the most pivotal contemporary political and economic events. The debate surrounding the relative performance of democracies and non-democracies in their response to the pandemic, measured by the percentage of confirmed cases relative to their total population, has ignited discussions about the role of political institutions. This study seeks to address two fundamental questions: “Why do democracies not consistently outperform non-democracies in combating COVID-19?” and “Under what conditions can they do so?” In response to the first question, I argue that democracies, often characterized by a higher degree of globalization and constrained by democratic norms, frequently miss the optimal window for pandemic prevention. They are also more hesitant to employ coercive and stringent restrictions. Consequently, democracies do not consistently outshine non-democracies, which tend to have a lower degree of globalization and a greater willingness to implement strict measures. As for the second question, I propose that the imperative of political survival can divert the attention of leaders in non-democracies away from combating the spread of COVID-19. Conversely, democratic leaders tend to prioritize epidemic prevention. However, within democracies, the formulation and execution of anti-epidemic policies involve intricate interactions among incumbents, oppositions, various government departments, and central-local governments. The level of political stability significantly influences how “political” the entire policy-making process becomes. In democracies with a higher degree of political stability, anti-epidemic policies are more likely to be approved and followed due to reduced political tensions among these diverse policy actors. Therefore, the positive impact of democratic institutions on epidemic prevention performance becomes more pronounced when countries exhibit a higher degree of political stability. Empirical evidence from approximately 140 countries worldwide lends support to my argument. The findings of this study underscore the crucial role of a country’s “political institutions” in shaping its performance in epidemic prevention.