Global Citizens’ Satisfaction with Government Policies during the COVID-19

1.    Background

COVID-19 data analysis 6 series will focus on how global citizens evaluate their governments’ COVID-19 policies. People’s evaluation is one of the most important factors in assessing the relationship between government and civil society. Emergent situations can give a government a large room to control, govern, and modify people’s daily lives, and therefore, examine how global citizens appreciate their governments’ policies is of vital significance during the pandemic. In this data analysis, we surveyed an individual’s satisfaction level with distinguished policies after the surge of COVID-19, which include COVID-19 information provision, medical care provision, disease spread prevention, emotional stability assurance, and medical staff safety assurance.

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 the ramifications of democracy within a country. Some strong interventional policies might be effective in slowing the transmission of the disease; however, there could be dissatisfaction and complaints raised from the civil society. During this abnormal circumstance, we will scrutinize at what level global citizens are content with government policies.

3.    Questionnaire Used

Survey Question II-5: “How satisfied are you with your government’s performance regarding the following COVID-19 related things? 1. Providing information on testing and the prevention of the epidemic. 2. Providing medical care assurance for patients. 3. Preventing the spread of infectious diseases. 4. Ensuring the emotional stability of the public. 5. Ensuring medical staff safety.”

The answers consist of a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating an individual dissatisfied with the government policy and lower scores demonstrating a person satisfied with the government policy in regard to the COVID-19. The reverse scaling was used in this data analysis, which means that the higher the score, the higher the satisfaction of citizens.  

4.    Major Outcomes

Table 1: Government Policy Satisfaction Scores by Region (Scores from 1 to 5)

Respondents are asked to choose one score to represent their level of satisfaction with the policies, and the average scores of each region are calculated, which are listed in Table 1. It demonstrates how much people in the region are satisfied with the policy implemented by their own governments. The below figures are visualized bar graphs.

Figure 1: Bar Graph of COVID-19 Information Provision Satisfaction Scoresby Region (Scores from 1 to 5)


Figure 2: Bar Graph of Medical Care Satisfaction Scores by Region (Scores from 1 to 5)

Figure 3: Bar Graph of Disease Spread Prevention Satisfaction Scores by Region (Scores from 1 to 5)

Figure 4: Bar Graph of Emotional Stability Assurance Satisfaction Scores by Region (Scores from 1 to 5)

Figure 5: Bar Graph of Medical Staff Safety Assurance Satisfaction Scores by Region (Scores from 1 to 5)

 

Figure 1 to 5 is the visualized graph of Table 1, and the orange lines are the global average satisfaction scores of each policy. That Latin American citizens are least satisfied with their government performance compared to other regions in the world is evidenced by the figures. Also, Southern Europe and East Asia’s satisfaction scores are all under the global average scores, which means that people in these regions are not very delighted with their governments’ performance compared to others. On the other hand, Oceanian citizens are most content with their government performance, which is shown in the above figures. North American and South/Southeast Asian citizens generally gave high scores on their government COVID-19 policy performance. And then, Western Europe’s satisfaction scores go up and down the global average line, illuminating that they are somehow satisfied with the policies implemented by their governments.

Table 2: Government Policy Satisfaction Scores by Citizens of 30 Global Cities (Scores from 1 to 5)

We calculated satisfaction scores by region to see the general trend of the region and the globe. However, too generalized scores might have skewed the actual result of the survey, and therefore, we will look into every city’s satisfaction scores to see if there is an anomaly or a similar trend in a global society. Similar to Table 1, Table 2 demonstrates how much citizens of a city are pleased with government performance in regard to a certain policy. The below figures are visualized bar graphs. For the convenience of reading the bar graph, we decided the 0 points as a reference line, and therefore each score minus three is the final result of the below graphs.

Figure 6: Bar Graph of COVID-19 Information Provision Satisfaction Scores by City (Reference line: 0)

 

Figure 7: Bar Graph of Medical Care Provision Satisfaction Scores by City (Reference line: 0)

 

Figure 8: Bar Graph of Disease Spread Prevention Satisfaction Scores by City (Reference line: 0)

 

Figure 9: Bar Graph of Emotional Stability Assurance Satisfaction Scores by City (Reference line: 0)

 

Figure 10: Bar Graph of Medical Staff Safety Assurance Satisfaction Scores by City (Reference line: 0)

 

Figure 11: Bar Graph of Total Satisfaction Scores by City (Reference line: 0)

 

The above figures are visualized version of Table 2, and the most outstanding finding of these figures is that Japan, represented by Osaka and Tokyo, is dissatisfied with its government performance, while other East Asian cities, such as Taipei, Singapore, Seoul, and New Delhi (South Asia) rated high scores of their governments’ performance. Hence, the average satisfaction scores of East Asia cannot fully represent every single city in the region. Also, South/Southeast Asian’s satisfaction scores might have been skewed since Jakarta and Manilla’s satisfaction scores are low, while New Delhi’s satisfaction scores are high, so the overall average would have been high in the region. Moreover, even if satisfaction scores by Oceania are rated the highest among different regions, Sydney and Wellington’s satisfaction scores are not ranked in the first place when it comes to the scores by city.

However, considering that evaluation culture differs from country to country, we decided to see their relative satisfaction scores of each policy. The relative satisfaction score is calculated by subtracting the total average score of a city. To illustrate, Seoul’s relative COVID-19 information provision satisfaction score is its COVID-19 information provision satisfaction score of 3.97 minus its total average score of 3.82, and hence, Seoul’s relative COVID-19 information provision satisfaction score is 0.15. We calculate relative scores is to see what policies peoples of a city are least content with among different policies during the pandemic era. If the relative scores are below 0, it represents that individuals of a city regard that the policy is not performed well by a government.

Figure 12: Bar Graph of Relative COVID-19 Information Provision Satisfaction Scores by City

 

Relatively speaking, Singapore in East Asia, Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Lisbon, Stockholm, and Oslo in Europe gave low scores in information provision. Whereas Cape Town and Moscow gave high scores in this policy satisfaction.

Figure 13: Bar Graph of Relative Medical Care Provision Satisfaction Scores by City

 

All cities except New Delhi are relatively content with their governments’ medical care provision.

Figure 14: Bar Graph of Disease Spread Prevention Satisfaction Scores by City

 

Singapore in East Asia, New York in North America, London, and Stockholm in Europe, and Jakarta in Southeast Asia are relatively not satisfied with their governments’ disease spread prevention performance.

Figure 15: Bar Graph of Emotional Stability Assurance Satisfaction Scores by City

 

All cities but Stockholm agree that their governments are less likely to provide emotional stability assurance compared to other policies during the pandemic.

Figure 16: Bar Graph of Medical Staff Safety Assurance Satisfaction Scores by City

 

All cities but Singapore are relatively dissatisfied with the medical staff’s safety assurance by their governments.

All in all, citizens in 30 global cities relatively satisfied with information provision, medical care provision, and disease prevention, whereas less satisfied with emotional stability assurance and medical staff’s safety assurance.

5.    Summaries and Further Tasks

a.     The data analysis examines how global citizens evaluate their government performance by calculating their satisfaction scores.

b.     Two extremes exist simultaneously in East Asia. Japan, represented by Osaka and Tokyo, gave the lowest points on all of the policy satisfaction scores. Other East Asian cities, especially Taipei and Singapore, gave the highest points on policy satisfaction scores. Also, New Delhi’s satisfaction scores rated high among 30 global cities.

c.     Overall, Latin America and Southern Europe are generally dissatisfied with their governments’ performance, while North America and Oceania are content with their governments’ performance.

d.     Relatively speaking, global citizens are satisfied with information provision, medical care provision, and disease prevention, whereas uncomfortable with emotional stability and medical staff’s safety.

e.     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 Japan have such low satisfaction scores? Why people in the world are relatively dissatisfied with emotional stability assurance and medical staff’s safety assurance? What are the commonalities and differences among different cities in the world?