Abstract

COVID-19 sparked a public health crisis and created a series of public policy challenges. This article examines how COVID-19 interventions played out at the state level given the absence of guidance and coordinated national response. We focus on how the level of policy rigidness and enforcement of behavioral interventions helps us understand the success and failures of reducing the number of positive test rates over a 20-week period (March–July 2020). Specifically, we examine how four specific interventions (masking, school closures, restaurant closures, and travel restrictions) moved through the policy creation and implementation process as outlined by a modified version of Kingdon’s multiple streams approach. We leverage a pooled-OLS approach to identify the agenda-setting and decision-making windows to verify the narrative derived from applying a modified multiple streams approach to the initial wave of policy making around COVID-19 interventions. Using this technique, we find evidence of two distinct agenda-setting windows and a decision-making window. Using these windows, we ascertain that highly restrictive policies are effective in controlling the spread of COVID-19. We find that governors acting as political entrepreneurs may not play as large of a role in the policy-making process, but they are responsive to constituent policy preferences.

摘要

COVID-19 引发了一场公共卫生危机，并带来了一系列公共政策挑战。本文探讨了在缺乏指导和协调一致的国家应对措施的情况下，COVID-19 干预措施如何在州一级发挥作用。我们关注政策的刚性程度和行为干预的执行如何帮助我们了解在 20 周期间（2020 年 3 月至 2020 年 7 月）降低阳性检测率的成功与失败。具体而言，我们研究了四种具体干预措施（遮蔽、学校关闭、餐厅关闭和旅行限制）如何通过 Kingdon 多流方法的修改版本概述的政策制定和实施过程。我们利用合并的 OLS 方法来确定议程设置和决策制定窗口，以验证将修改后的多流方法应用于围绕 COVID-19 干预的初始政策制定浪潮中得出的叙述。使用这种技术，我们找到了两个不同的议程设置窗口和一个决策窗口的证据。使用这些窗口，我们确定高度限制性政策可有效控制 COVID-19 的传播。我们发现，作为政治企业家的州长可能不会在决策过程中发挥那么大的作用，但他们会对选民的政策偏好做出反应。我们发现了两个不同的议程设置窗口和一个决策窗口的证据。使用这些窗口，我们确定高度限制性政策可有效控制 COVID-19 的传播。我们发现，作为政治企业家的州长可能不会在决策过程中发挥那么大的作用，但他们会对选民的政策偏好做出反应。我们发现了两个不同的议程设置窗口和一个决策窗口的证据。使用这些窗口，我们确定高度限制性政策可有效控制 COVID-19 的传播。我们发现，作为政治企业家的州长可能不会在决策过程中发挥那么大的作用，但他们会对选民的政策偏好做出反应。