Abstract
This study compares the experiences of Shanghai in China and Los Angeles in the United States to illustrate four tension points in pandemic responses: immediacy versus thoroughness, transparency versus secrecy and security, centralization versus decentralization, and state-driven solutions versus coproduction. Based on the case analysis, strategic management and planning practices in six stages of pandemic response are recommended. The study also suggests research questions for future comparative research to examine more carefully how pandemic responses should vary due to institutional differences and local contextualization and adaptation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 497-504 |
| Journal | American Review of Public Administration |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue number | 6-7 |
| Online published | 17 Jul 2020 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Aug 2020 |
| Externally published | Yes |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Research Keywords
- comparative public management
- COVID-19
- emergency management
- pandemic response
- public governance
Policy Impact
- Cited in Policy Documents
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Responding to the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Tale of Two Cities'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver