From Diversity to Coordination: A European Approach to COVID19

Alessio Maria Pacces,Maria Weimer

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3576392

Abstract

The COVID19 pandemic is changing the face of Europe. Member States’ divergent responses to this crisis unveils lack of unity in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. At best, this undermines the effectiveness of health protection within the EU. At worst, it risks breaking up the Union altogether. Divergent national responses to COVID19 reflect different national preferences and political legitimacy, thus cannot be fully avoided. In this article, we argue that these responses should be better coordinated. Without coordination, the price for diversity is high. Firstly, there are damaging spillovers between Member States, which undermine key pillars of European integration such as the free movement of persons and of goods. Secondly, the national policymaking is easily captured by local interest groups. Our proposal is that EU indicates, not mandates, a European exit strategy from asymmetric containment policies of COVID19. In particular, the EU should help Member States procure and validate tests for infection and immunity. The EU should also indicate ways in which testing could be used to create safe spaces to work, thereby restoring the free movement of persons and of goods. We see a great advantage in such EU guidance: it could improve mutual learning between Member States, which have faced different timing of the epidemic and learned different lessons. Although the local political economy has so far delayed learning and undermined cooperation, the EU can mitigate both effects and indicate the way for Europe to resurrect united from the ashes of COVID19.

Highlights

COPING WITH UNCERTAINTY AND THE POLITICS OF COVID-19Containing the spread of COVID-19 is an exercise of emergency risk regulation on an unprecedented scale
The local political economy has so far delayed learning and undermined cooperation, the European Union (EU) can mitigate both effects and indicate the way for Europe to resurrect united from the ashes of COVID-19
One Imperial College London (ICL) study found that, in the USA and the UK, mitigation policies would still lead to a sheer number of secondary deaths as the healthcare system becomes congested: people who would otherwise survive die lacking access to intensive care units (ICUs).[29]

Summary

COPING WITH UNCERTAINTY AND THE POLITICS OF COVID-19

Containing the spread of COVID-19 is an exercise of emergency risk regulation on an unprecedented scale. From Diversity to Coordination (eg how the disease spreads, whom it affects, death rate, etc.).[4] As a consequence, policymakers must make decisions in the face of incomplete and rapidly changing scientific knowledge This exacerbates the political challenge of risk regulation, as is painfully illustrated by COVID-19, as containment policies entail enormous economic, social and human costs. Scientific legitimacy is not a sufficient basis for the exercise of public authority”.7 This does not diminish the importance of scientific advice, but recognises a core dilemma: science, while performing crucial cognitive tasks, cannot provide answers to political (and normative) questions.[8] Risk managers carry the political responsibility of deciding whether action is warranted and what kind of action. To paraphrase a World Health Organization (WHO) expert, waiting for perfection when containing a pandemic means being too late.[15]

THE EU DIVISION OF TASKS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES

THE PRICE OF DIVERSITY

WHY REGULATORY COMPETITION DOES NOT WORK

MAKING THE MOST OUT OF EUROPE

Findings

CONCLUSIONS