Impact of Lockdown Policies During the COVID-19

1.    Background

COVID-19 data analysis 5 series will focus on how emergency measurements during the COVID-19 influence the nationalism around the world. To illustrate, we will analyze the survey results of opinions of global citizens whether they perceive a certain policy will lead a country to nationalism or citizens’ cooperation. International cooperation is occasionally disturbed by countries with strong and offensive nationalism, and sometimes, even a central government cannot control the national outrage triggered by nationalistic sentiment. Even worse, irrational nationalism would bring about racism and xenophobia, which severely undermines the free and open market around the globe. On the contrary, cooperation among citizens and governments would enhance the effectiveness of abating the crisis and it will help fast recovery from an emergency to everyday life.

When China announced it was shutting down Wuhan, the center of the coronavirus outbreak, in an attempt to deter the further spread of the disease, the international society was astonished and shocked. However, when the virus hit the European continent, many countries decided to implement the same measure as well, such as Italy, France, and Spain, have tried to flatten the peak number of infected people and reduce immediate pressures on the health system. On the contrary, some states like Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands were against a complete lockdown to limit economic and social impacts.[1] Strict lockdown policies were consistent with reducing the spread of the virus in some countries (e.g., France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom). However, such measures are very disruptive to the economy and social life and risk losing public support in the long term.

2.    Research Topic

In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is of importance for a government to make a rapid measurement to fight against the virus. However, it is also of equal significance to think of ramifications of the emergency policies and people’s support. This section will analyze how global citizens see the lockdown policy, especially how they assess the lockdown measure’s influence on a country’s nationalism and civilianism during the COVID-19 crisis.

3.    Questionnaire Used

Survey Question II-7: “While fighting against a global pandemic like COVID-19, a country may begin to follow either a state-centric and chauvinist path, or a democratic path based on citizen participation. In terms of lockdown policies, what direction do you expect the following policies/trends to take?”

The answers consist of a 10-point scale, with higher scores indicating an individual believes the policy will lead citizens to democratic/participatory citizenship and lower scores demonstrating a person acknowledges the measure will result in citizens’ state-centric/chauvinistic.

4.    Major Outcomes

Table 1: Lockdown Policies – Nationalism Index (LPNI) and Lockdown Policies – Civilianism Index (LPCI)
by Citizens of 30 Global Cities

 

Respondents are asked to choose one score to represent their ideas on the question, and the average scores of each city indicate the Lockdown Policies – Civilianism Index (LPCI). It demonstrates how much do citizens of a city consider the lockdown policy will cause citizens’ cooperation and participation amid the crisis, and the higher the score is, the more individuals think highly of the policy. Meanwhile, the reverse scaling was used in the Lockdown Policies – Nationalism Index (LPNI), which means that 11 minus LPCI is the LPNI. Similarly, the higher the LPNI score is, the more a citizen speak ill of the policy under the democratic and liberal principles. Finally, the numerical differences between the two scores were calculated in order to show which side a city is putting more significance. To illustrate, the higher a numerical difference is, the more citizens of the city underscore the above-mentioned policy in the course of the pandemic crisis.

Table 2: Average Lockdown Policies – Civilianism Index (LPCI) by Region

The scores in the table are the average Lockdown Policies – Civilianism Index (LPCI) of the global citizens by region. To be specific, the lowest score of 5.00 was rated by East Asian citizens on average. It exhibits that people in this region least likely to deem that the lockdown policy will bring about civilianism at a time of crisis. On the contrary, the highest score of 6.03 was rated by Latin American citizens, which illustrates that people here are most likely to highlight a certain policy and believe the measurement would lead to citizens’ cooperation in society.

Figure 1: Bar Graph of Average Lockdown Policies – Civilianism Index (LPCI) by Region

 

Figure 1 is the visualized graph of Table 2, and the orange line is the world average Lockdown Policies – Civilianism Index (LPCI). That Latin American and European citizens think positively of the lockdown policy is evidenced by the figure. On the other hand, East Asia, South/Southeast Asia, North America, and Oceania’s average LPCI scores are under the global average, implying that these regions are not accentuating the policy compared to the other two continents. These are generalized scored by region, and therefore, for more detailed analysis, let’s see each city’s score of LPCI and LPNI.

Figure 2: Line Graph of Lockdown Policies – Nationalism Index (LPNI) and Lockdown Policies – Civilianism Index (LPCI)

 

This figure is a visualized version of Table 1, and the most outstanding finding of Figure 2 is that the line is fluctuating and there is no eminent trait in the graph. Nonetheless, all East Asian countries, except Hong Kong, are showing a negative reaction towards the lockdown policy, whereas Latin American cities are presenting a positive attitude on the lockdown measurement. Meanwhile, other cities are holding divergent opinions regarding the local and state lockdown.

Figure 3: Bar Graph of Numerical Difference between Lockdown Policies – Civilianism Index (LPCI) and Lockdown Policies – Nationalism Index (LPNI)

 

The differences between LPCIs and LPNIs are drawn as a bar graph, shown in Figure 3. The orange bar indicates the global average difference score (-0.15). The negative number of the global difference score implies that generally speaking, people around the world do not think that the lockdown policy will have a positive impact on national and international society. To be more specific, cities with negative numerical differences are marked with red bars, indicating citizens of that city believe that the lockdown policy will lead a country to nationalism and prevent cooperation among people and states; yet, cities with blue bars express that the lockdown policy is effective in a way of slowing the spread of the disease and protect public health. These cities are including Sao Paulo, Madrid, Lisbon, Mexico City, Paris, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Hong Kong, Rome, Oslo, New Delhi, and Sydney.

5.    Summaries and Further Tasks

a.     Data analysis shows contradicting views on the lockdown policy by global citizens.

b.     Latin American cities highly believe that the lockdown measurement will lead a country to civilianism rather than nationalism. Also, Europe’s average score is above the global average as well; however, different cities are showing different positions regarding the issue.

c.     East Asian cities, except Hong Kong, are expressing the negative attitude towards the lockdown policy, believing that the measurement will lead a country to nationalism.

d.     The study is limited to descriptive research, and therefore, a more detailed explanative investigation is required to further understand the global citizens’ consciousness presented above. For instance, why citizens in Hong Kong think highly of the lockdown policy, unlike other East Asian cities? Why do Latin American citizens think that the lockdown policy will lead a state to civilianism?