Bridging the Government Citizen Divide in Behavior-Changing Policies; What’s there and What’s Missing
Despite the huge uncertainty surrounding the spread and treatment of COVID-19, Governments are expected to act quickly and proactively in response to the challenges of the current pandemic. The precariousness of the situation in many countries has sparked the creation, use, and heavy reliance on data in navigating the speculative path towards effective public health management. However, the challenges thrown by the pandemic are not restricted to public health and safety issues only, they extend to engulf social and psychological territories as well. This only makes the journey increasingly onerous for Governments and decision-makers. In times when there is too little certainty on the one hand, and too much pressure to act reasonably on the other hand, decision-makers need to resort to something meaningful and tangible to craft understandable policies that create a sense of conformity in as many people as possible, because fighting a pandemic is not a solo game.
When governments are stretched beyond their capacities, clinging to quantitative data that you can’t go wrong with, such as the number of confirmed cases, basic reproduction number (R), death rates, and age ranges, is beyond reasonable. These numbers are extremely advantageous because they are collected with minimum bias, can be updated frequently, and are highly accurate. In times of crisis increasing dependence on such data is inevitable by Governments and citizens alike in trying to process the risks and dangers that surround them. These host of bandied about numerical values have recently constructed a unique pandemic mindset across the world. Numbers of any sort have become so recurrent in our landscape that we have started thinking so much in terms of numbers. Thanks to quantitative researchers and data specialists, we fairly have access to these data and we constantly use them to make sense of what’s going on around us and in the world in an instant. Arguably, similar processes also take place in high-level decision-making environments particularly in governmental agencies that deal with containing and managing COVID-19 issues.
Reliance on statistics and quantitative data, and in many cases even supporting their creation, has empowered governments to get used to playing by the ear and to quickly respond to the diverse challenges of COVID-19. Any policy developed or any change made within a policy is very much explained, backed and justified, among many others, with statistical assumptions, trend analyses, and probabilities. The efforts expended by governments in this regard are very much applauded, however the results seem to be far away from fully containing the situation. Of course, it would be extremely unrealistic to expect all governments to perform their best during crisis because that requires joint efforts by all segments of the society and the state as well.
It is fair to assume that besides everything else, the Government is also responsible for extending the hand of cooperation to its citizens. This cooperation gap is becoming self-evident with each policy failing at its implementation stage, where the major acting forces are the citizens themselves.
This is not happening only because most policies related to combating COVID-19 challenges assume abrupt changes in people’s behavior and lifestyle, never mind justified with data, but also because people are mostly left behind in making choices regarding their health and safety in a world that has been advocating for freedom, independence, and responsibility for a long time now. Regardless of the constraints and regardless of the gravity of the situation, this trajectory could not have been disrupted overnight. Today more and more people value liberty and sense of control, making collective action more difficult in such times.
Although this may sound like a dead-end road for many policy makers, a quick look into crisis-management policy-making processes reflect that little resources have been devoted to gaining qualitative insights on the particular needs and potentials of citizens during the highly stressful times of the pandemic. In the past few months and within the context of COVID-19 pandemic, so much attention has been given to mitigating, flattening and curbing and this has created a mindset of giving up pleasurable things in favor of gaining basic necessities. It is too early to come up with robust conclusions over the effectiveness of this top-down method in managing the pandemic, but only a few countries have succeeded in preventing chaos so far.
Needless to say, data is of utmost importance when it comes to creating shreds of evidence for policy-making purposes, however relying solely on quantitative data has not been doing justice to Governments, especially in handling the COVID-19 pandemic situation. While Government and its resources have understandably been put in the center of most policymaking processes, more attention should be given to the role of citizens as a driving force in implementing any policy that makes them change the way they have been doing things for a long time.
While wrapping their head around the COVID-19 challenges, governments have to create products and deliver services that would enable them to effectively test, trace, and treat their population. The importance of quantitative data is indisputable, however more qualitative research needs to be considered in this regard. For instance, most Governments can give an estimate of the percentage of the population who refuse to wear masks in public places, however, most cannot explain why this is happening. It is only through empathizing with these people that Governments can guarantee effective cooperation.
One facet of this story is that Governments have been focusing on the end rather than the process of this battle. There is too much focus on reversing certain behaviors, but there is too little focus on fostering, honing, cultivating new ones. The top-down mindset is one thing that holds people back from appreciating the latter. Design opportunities in creating, delivering, and evaluating public services are not being seized, although all governments display the intention to do so. Human-centered intentions are not enough, we need practice and implementation, too. It is not enough to think about what is best for people, it is important that decision-makers also think together with people.
(Featured image credit: Unsplash)
