Explaining the homogeneous diffusion of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions across heterogeneous countries

PublicationArticle (with peer review)

corona, covid-19, Demokrati, Karl Wennberg, pandemi

Abstract

We analyze the adoption of nonpharmaceutical interventions in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Given the complexity associated with pandemic decisions, governments are faced with the dilemma of how to act quickly when their core decision-making processes are based on deliberations balancing political considerations. Our findings show that, in times of severe crisis, governments follow the lead of others and base their decisions on what other countries do. Governments in countries with a stronger democratic structure are slower to react in the face of the pandemic but are more sensitive to the influence of other countries. We provide insights for research on international policy diffusion and research on the political consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sebhatu, A., Wennberg, K., Arora-Jonsson, S., Stefan & Lindberg, S.I. (2020). Explaining the homogeneous diffusion of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions across heterogeneous countries. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 117(35), 21201 – 21208. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010625117

Fooled by diversity? When diversity initiatives exacerbate rather than mitigate inequality

Article (with peer review)Publication

Hellerstedt, K., Uman, T., & Wennberg, K.

Publication year

2022

Published in

Hellerstedt, K., Uman, T., & Wennberg, K. (2022). Fooled by diversity? When diversity initiatives exacerbate rather than mitigate inequality. Academy of Management Perspectives.

Abstract

This article analyzes and critically discusses the business case logic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. We highlight the value-in diversity logic for organizations and compare this with both the recent logic of power activism driven by internal and external lobbying and the classical moral justice logic originating in the civil rights movement,showing how the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion are seen differently in research and advocacy as organizational inputs, sought-for outputs, or as a context for social change…

Crises, Covid-19, and Entrepreneurship

Article (with peer review)Publication

Batjargal, B., Jack, S., Mickiewicz, T., Stam, E., Stam, W., & Wennberg, K.

Publication year

2023

Published in

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

Abstract

This virtual special issue includes research on the effects of crises, in particular the COVID-19 pandemic, on entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial responses to deal with consequences of crises. This issue highlights how crises affect entrepreneurs’ well-being and reinforce the importance of agency of entrepreneurs and other citizens. The special issue also highlights the need for resilience; the ability of entrepreneurs, organizations, and economies to absorb and adapt to shocks; and how it can be strengthened. We discuss the importance of data in times of crisis and the greater need for engaged scholarship.

The article can be accessed here.

Evaluating Evaluations of Innovation Policy: Exploring Reliability, Methods, and Conflicts of Interest

Book chapterPublication

Collin, E., Sandström, C., & Wennberg, K.

Publication year

2022

Published in

Questioning the Entrepreneurial State, 157.

Abstract

Expansions of innovation policies have been paralleled with an increase in the evaluations of such policies. Yet, there are few systematic evaluations of how such evaluations are conducted, by whom, and their overall conclusions. We analyze 110 evaluations of innovation policy in Sweden from 2005 to 2019. Our findings show that the majority of these evaluations are positive, about one-third are neutral in their conclusions, and very few are negative. The majority of evaluations were conducted by consulting firms, close to one-third by expert government agencies, and around 10% by university researchers or as self-evaluations by the governmental agencies responsible for the policy themselves. Few evaluations employed causal methods to assess the potential effects of policies. We discuss conflicts of interest and question the reliability of evaluations of innovation policy.

Abstract

Similar content