What is it about?
The paper shows that in the U.S. and in Denmark, leading government experts were far more prominent in 2009 H1N1 'swine flu' response than presidents, prime ministers or other political leaders.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Using a 'most-different systems' design (comparing the U.S. and Denmark), the paper shows that experts rather than politicians were the public faces of 2009 H1N1 pandemic response efforts. This contradicts key findings in recent political science literature, which paint crises as opportunities for politicians to show off their value to electorally pivotal groups such as swing voters. Rather than being a credit-taking opportunity for politicians, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was a moment for experts in many different countries to bring their knowledge, judgment and public relations skills to bear.
Perspectives
This paper grew out of a meeting of minds between Olivier Rubin and me. We are both fascinated by crises, disasters and other events that truly challenge governments. We were curious about the limits of policy-making for 'normal times', including democratically legitimized decision processes. Seeing experts 'take over' in events such as 2009 H1N1 is not bad in a technical sense; but by evoking technocracy, crises may well challenge democratically legitimate political orders.
Dr Erik Baekkeskov
University of Melbourne
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Why pandemic response is unique: powerful experts and hands-off political leaders, Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal, January 2014, Emerald,
DOI: 10.1108/dpm-05-2012-0060.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
