File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1080/17441692.2021.1877769
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85101023968
- PMID: 33592151
- WOS: WOS:000618686700001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
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
Title | 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 |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Comparative politics public administration global health policy pandemic preparedness East Asia |
Issue Date | 2021 |
Publisher | Routledge. 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? |
Abstract | The 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. |
Description | Bronze open access |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/302431 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 2.3 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.037 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Yuen, S | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cheng, EW | - |
dc.contributor.author | Or, NHK | - |
dc.contributor.author | Grepin, KA | - |
dc.contributor.author | Fu, KW | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yung, KC | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yue, RPH | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-09-06T03:32:11Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-09-06T03:32:11Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Global Public Health, 2021, v. 16 n. 8-9, p. 1283-1303 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1744-1692 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/302431 | - |
dc.description | Bronze open access | - |
dc.description.abstract | The 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.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Routledge. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17441692.asp | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Global Public Health | - |
dc.rights | This 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.subject | Comparative politics | - |
dc.subject | public administration | - |
dc.subject | global health policy | - |
dc.subject | pandemic preparedness | - |
dc.subject | East Asia | - |
dc.title | 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 | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Grepin, KA: kgrepin@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Fu, KW: kwfu@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Yung, KC: rayyung@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Grepin, KA=rp02646 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Fu, KW=rp00552 | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_OA_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/17441692.2021.1877769 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 33592151 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85101023968 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 324719 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 16 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 8-9 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 1283 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 1303 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000618686700001 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | - |