Ţigănaşu Ramona, Simionov Loredana, Lupu Dan
Centre for European Studies, "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania.
Faculty of Economics and Bussiness Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania.
Appl Spat Anal Policy. 2022 Sep 19:1-39. doi: 10.1007/s12061-022-09481-z.
The emergence of the current global crisis induced by the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic brings about an urgent need to rethink and reshape recovery strategies adapted to this specific challenging context. Neglecting this reconfiguration could lead to system lockdown, affecting all sectors, both on medium and long term. The coronavirus has penetrated various countries with different degrees of intensity, thus being spatially diversified; even within the same country, with the same lockdown measures, an enormous variety in cases is encountered. Subsequently, even if crises may manifest heterogeneously and the long-term impact of implementing recovery policies cannot be accurately known ex ante by governments, institutions could adapt themselves to changing circumstances and respond promptly and appropriately to emerging shocks only if their functioning framework had been well set up by the outbreak of the crisis. Considering these aspects, the main questions that this paper aims to answer are: How effective have governmental measures in European countries been in combating the COVID-19 crisis?; Could the solutions offered by the European states' governments have an influence on diminishing the intensity of negative effects of a possible more serious return of this health crisis? What more could national authorities and international actors do to control the epidemiological evolution of SARS-CoV-2? Is a generic European Union policy helpful or should there be a case for local policy? Based on these issues, a comprehensive picture of the differences between the East and the West of Europe in terms of some medical, socio-economic, institutional and cultural factors will be outlined, in order to emphasize which of the two groups better-handled the COVID-19 situation in the first wave, covering the lockdown period (March 1, 2020 - June 1, 2020) and the relaxation period (June 1, 2020 - September 1, 2020); at the same time, some policy recommendations on how governments should more effectively manage future similar crises to generate a higher resilience of the systems will be provided.
由新冠疫情迅速蔓延引发的当前全球危机的出现,使得迫切需要重新思考和重塑适应这一特殊挑战背景的复苏战略。忽视这种重新配置可能导致系统封锁,从中长期来看会影响所有部门。新冠病毒以不同强度渗透到各个国家,因此在空间上具有多样性;即使在同一个国家,采取相同的封锁措施,病例情况也千差万别。随后,即使危机可能表现各异,政府事先也无法准确知晓实施复苏政策的长期影响,但只有在危机爆发前其运作框架就已妥善建立,机构才能适应不断变化的情况,并对新出现的冲击迅速做出适当反应。考虑到这些方面,本文旨在回答的主要问题是:欧洲国家的政府措施在抗击新冠危机方面有多有效?欧洲各国政府提供的解决方案能否对减轻这一健康危机可能更严重反弹的负面影响强度产生影响?国家当局和国际行为体还能做些什么来控制新冠病毒的流行病学演变?通用的欧盟政策是否有帮助,还是应该采取地方政策?基于这些问题,将概述欧洲东西部在一些医学、社会经济、机构和文化因素方面的差异全貌,以强调在第一波新冠疫情期间(2020年3月1日至2020年6月1日的封锁期和2020年6月1日至2020年9月1日的放松期),哪一组在应对新冠疫情方面做得更好;同时,将提供一些政策建议,说明政府应如何更有效地管理未来类似危机,以使系统具备更高的复原力。