File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A tale of two city-states: A comparison of the state-led vs civil society-led responses to COVID-19 in Singapore and Hong Kong

TitleA tale of two city-states: A comparison of the state-led vs civil society-led responses to COVID-19 in Singapore and Hong Kong
Authors
KeywordsComparative politics
public administration
global health policy
pandemic preparedness
East Asia
Issue Date2021
PublisherRoutledge. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17441692.asp
Citation
Global Public Health, 2021, v. 16 n. 8-9, p. 1283-1303 How to Cite?
AbstractThe East Asian experience in tackling COVID-19 has been highly praised, but this high-level generalisation neglects variation in pandemic response measures adopted across countries as well as the socio-political factors that shaped them. This paper compares the early pandemic response in Singapore and Hong Kong, two Asian city-states of similar sizes, a shared history of SARS, and advanced medical systems. Although both were able to contain the virus, they did so using two very different approaches. Drawing upon data from a cross-national, probability sample Internet survey conducted in May 2020 as well as media and mobility data, we argue that the different approaches were the result of the relative strength of civil society vs. the state at the outset of the outbreak. In protest-ridden Hong Kong, low governmental trust bolstered civil society, which focused on self-mobilisation and community mutual-help. In Singapore, a state-led response model that marginalised civil society brought early success but failed to stem an outbreak among its segregated migrant population. Our findings show that an active civil society is pivotal to effective outbreak response and that trust in government may not have been as important as a factor in these contexts.
DescriptionBronze open access
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/302431
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 2.3
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.037
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYuen, S-
dc.contributor.authorCheng, EW-
dc.contributor.authorOr, NHK-
dc.contributor.authorGrepin, KA-
dc.contributor.authorFu, KW-
dc.contributor.authorYung, KC-
dc.contributor.authorYue, RPH-
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-06T03:32:11Z-
dc.date.available2021-09-06T03:32:11Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationGlobal Public Health, 2021, v. 16 n. 8-9, p. 1283-1303-
dc.identifier.issn1744-1692-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/302431-
dc.descriptionBronze open access-
dc.description.abstractThe East Asian experience in tackling COVID-19 has been highly praised, but this high-level generalisation neglects variation in pandemic response measures adopted across countries as well as the socio-political factors that shaped them. This paper compares the early pandemic response in Singapore and Hong Kong, two Asian city-states of similar sizes, a shared history of SARS, and advanced medical systems. Although both were able to contain the virus, they did so using two very different approaches. Drawing upon data from a cross-national, probability sample Internet survey conducted in May 2020 as well as media and mobility data, we argue that the different approaches were the result of the relative strength of civil society vs. the state at the outset of the outbreak. In protest-ridden Hong Kong, low governmental trust bolstered civil society, which focused on self-mobilisation and community mutual-help. In Singapore, a state-led response model that marginalised civil society brought early success but failed to stem an outbreak among its segregated migrant population. Our findings show that an active civil society is pivotal to effective outbreak response and that trust in government may not have been as important as a factor in these contexts.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherRoutledge. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17441692.asp-
dc.relation.ispartofGlobal Public Health-
dc.rightsThis is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in [JOURNAL TITLE] on [date of publication], available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/[Article DOI].-
dc.subjectComparative politics-
dc.subjectpublic administration-
dc.subjectglobal health policy-
dc.subjectpandemic preparedness-
dc.subjectEast Asia-
dc.titleA tale of two city-states: A comparison of the state-led vs civil society-led responses to COVID-19 in Singapore and Hong Kong-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailGrepin, KA: kgrepin@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailFu, KW: kwfu@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailYung, KC: rayyung@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityGrepin, KA=rp02646-
dc.identifier.authorityFu, KW=rp00552-
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/17441692.2021.1877769-
dc.identifier.pmid33592151-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85101023968-
dc.identifier.hkuros324719-
dc.identifier.volume16-
dc.identifier.issue8-9-
dc.identifier.spage1283-
dc.identifier.epage1303-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000618686700001-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats