Procedural Legitimacy and Support for Stringent Public Health Policies

• In Event: Pandemic Preparedness, Past and Future

Abstract

Public compliance with unprecedented public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic varied substantially. When are people more likely to support and adhere to these measures? This paper investigates how and among whom public support for stringent health policies is affected by the procedures through which the government implements them. Research suggests that people are more likely to accept the legitimacy of policies when they are implemented through procedures believed to be consistent with the democratic process, but some have argued that this procedural legitimacy is less relevant during periods of crisis like a public health emergency. I investigate whether procedure affects support for these measures, and whether it varies based on the severity of the crisis, the restrictiveness of the policy, and the partisanship of the government. To do so, I implement survey experiments in Italy, the UK, the US, and Hong Kong with a representative sample of adults randomly assigned to read a vignette about a hypothetical flu outbreak. Gaining a better understanding of public perceptions toward stringent measures is key to mitigating the effects of any current or future health emergencies. The paper also contributes to knowledge about the relevance of procedural legitimacy during crises.

Author

• Renu Singh, Durham University