Federalism in a time of plague: How federal systems cope with pandemic (Record no. 517704)
[ view plain ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 02047nam a22001577a 4500 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION | |
| fixed length control field | 210724b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Rozell, Mark J. and Wilcox, Clyde |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Federalism in a time of plague: How federal systems cope with pandemic |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT) | |
| Place of publication, distribution, etc | American Review of Public Administration |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION | |
| Extent | 50(6-7), Aug-Oct, 2020: p.519-525 |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
| Summary, etc | This article compares and contrasts the responses of Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United States to the COVID-19 outbreak and spread. The pandemic has posed special challenges to these federal systems. Although federal systems typically have many advantages—they can adapt policies to local conditions, for example, and experiment with different solutions to problems—pandemics and people cross regional borders, and controlling contagion requires a great deal of national coordination and intergovernmental cooperation. The four federal systems vary in their relative distribution of powers between regional and national governments, in the way that health care is administered, and in the variation in policies across regions. We focus on the early responses to COVID-19, from January through early May 2020. Three of these countries—Australia, Canada, and Germany—have done well in the crisis. They have acted quickly, done extensive testing and contact tracing, and had a relatively uniform set of policies across the country. The United States, in contrast, has had a disastrous response, wasting months at the start of the virus outbreak, with limited testing, poor intergovernmental cooperation, and widely divergent policies across the states and even within some states. The article seeks to explain both the relative uniform responses of these three very different federal systems, and the sharply divergent response of the United States. - Reproduced |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | Federalism, COVID-19, Pandemic, Social welfare, Polarization |
| 9 (RLIN) | 25681 |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY | |
| Main entry heading | American Review of Public Administration |
| 906 ## - LOCAL DATA ELEMENT F, LDF (RLIN) | |
| Subject DIP | FEDERALISM |
| 942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA) | |
| Item type | Articles |
| Withdrawn status | Lost status | Source of classification or shelving scheme | Damaged status | Not for loan | Permanent location | Current location | Date acquired | Serial Enumeration / chronology | Barcode | Date last seen | Koha item type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indian Institute of Public Administration | Indian Institute of Public Administration | 2021-07-24 | 50(6-7), Aug-Oct, 2020: p.519-525 | AR124965 | 2021-07-24 | Articles |