The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was devastating in Peru, which suffered a high death rate and severe economic disruption. These results occurred despite ambitious response measures, revealing widespread institutional weaknesses across the country's levels of government. We analyze responses across the four levels of government, with emphasis on local governance in rural areas, to understand how institutions and contexts shape crisis management outcomes. We focus on the Arequipa region, drawing from 44 interviews with officials and community members. We found that the crisis provoked a reversion to the norm across multiple scales, though with significant differentiation. The national government fell back on a centralized, militarized approach that effectively reclaimed power but was ineffective in confronting the pandemic. Counter the overarching recentralization trend, in rural peripheries where state power was always partial, norms of informal local governance were reinforced and intensified. The de facto autonomy in rural areas elicited a mix of paralysis and improvisation, with outcomes that varied widely from place to place and over time. These bifurcated results in the face of crisis reveal important weaknesses in Peru's governance structures and institutions and show how pre-existing habits and norms were reproduced in the face of crisis, rather than reformed or transcended.

第一波 COVID-19 大流行在秘鲁造成毁灭性打击，该国死亡率高，经济严重中断。尽管采取了雄心勃勃的应对措施，但这些结果还是出现了，揭示了该国各级政府普遍存在的制度缺陷。我们分析了四级政府的反应，重点是农村地区的地方治理，以了解制度和环境如何影响危机管理结果。我们专注于阿雷基帕地区，从对官员和社区成员的 44 次采访中得出结论。我们发现，这场危机在多个尺度上引发了对常态的回归，尽管存在显着差异。中央政府转而采取集权化、军事化的方式，这种方式有效地夺回了权力，但在应对这一流行病方面却无能为力。与总体的重新集权化趋势相反，在国家权力总是偏向的农村边缘地区，非正式地方治理的规范得到加强和加强。农村地区事实上的自治引发了瘫痪和即兴创作的混合，其结果因地而异，因时而异。面对危机时的这些分歧结果揭示了秘鲁治理结构和机构的重要弱点，并表明既有的习惯和规范在危机面前如何重现，而不是改革或超越。随着时间的推移，结果因地而异。面对危机时的这些分歧结果揭示了秘鲁治理结构和机构的重要弱点，并表明既有的习惯和规范在危机面前如何重现，而不是改革或超越。随着时间的推移，结果因地而异。面对危机时的这些分歧结果揭示了秘鲁治理结构和机构的重要弱点，并表明既有的习惯和规范在危机面前如何重现，而不是改革或超越。