Abstract
One of the core questions emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic is what it means for governments to be prepared for a major health crisis. Does the preparedness include only access to resources, or does it also include having appropriate formal political mechanisms and political traditions?
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh—three South Asian countries and once parts of British India—face similar healthcare and socioeconomic challenges, share histories of health crises, and rely on somewhat similar frameworks for responding to them. Anecdotally, all these countries rely—or until very recently have relied—on versions of the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 as a major public health response document. These similarities in the structural conditions present us with the opportunity to study the role of politics in crisis response.
In this chapter, we set out to explore the differences in the policies adopted in response to the COVID-19 crisis and the politics that produced them. We trace the nonmedical interventions at the national and subnational levels in these three countries from the early signs of the pandemic to late 2020 and examine differences and similarities in the trajectories of policymaking and subsequent policy implementation. We scrutinize the role of institutional frameworks in the formulation of this response, identify the key actors in the pandemic response, and the differences in how they interacted.
As we show in this chapter, despite the similarities in the structural characteristics and toolkits of the favored policy response instruments, the politics of response to the COVID-19 pandemic significantly diverged across the countries, with different, sometimes unexpected, actors and channels involved in the public health decision-making and with varying political outcomes. We believe that this was partly because they did not inherit a common democratic political tradition of epidemic response from the British Raj and partly due to the differences in the ways their quite similar epidemic response rules fit with their different political systems. In search for a confirmation of this belief, we examine the history of current public health frameworks in these countries and situate them in the context of their political development.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For the sources of this information, see the changes file in the Protective Policy Index dataset (Shvetsova et al. 2022).
- 2.
Institutions + path dependence + critical junctures + actors
References
Adeel AB et al (2020) COVID-19 policy response and the rise of the sub-national governments. Canadian Public Policy /Analyse de politique 46(4):565–584
Amrith SS (2009) Health in India since Independence. Number 79. In: BWPI Working Paper, Brooks World Poverty Institute.
Arnold D (1993) Colonizing the body: State medicine and epidemic disease in nineteenth century India. Oxford University Press, Delhi
Badshah SL, Ullah A, Badshah SH, & Ahmad I (2020) Spread of Novel coronavirus by returning pilgrims from Iran to Pakistan. Journal of Travel Medicine 27(3)
Benton JE (2020) Challenges to federalism and intergovernmental relations and takeaways amid the COVID-19 experience. The American Review of Public Administration 50(6–7):536–542
Bielska IA et al (2015) Public health in Canada: An overview. Zdrowie Publiczne i Zarządzanie 13(2):165–179
Capoccia G, Kelemen R F (2007) The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics 59(3):341–369
Dwivedi OP, Jain RB, Dua BD (1989) Imperial legacy, bureaucracy, and administrative changes: India 1947–1987. Public Administration & Development (1986–1998) 9(3):253
Epidemic Diseases Act, (1897)
Gatacre W (1897) Report on the Bubonie plague in Bombay 1896–97. Times of India Steam Press, Bombay
Google LLC (2020) Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports. https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/. Accessed 1 April 2021
Hall PA, Taylor RC (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies 44(5): 936–957.
Harrison M (1994) Public Health in British India: Anglo-Indian Preventive Medicine 1859–1914. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jeffery R (1988) The Politics of Health in India. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Lecours A et al. (2021) Explaining Intergovernmental Conflict in the COVID-19 Crisis: The United States, Canada, and Australia. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 51(4): 513–536
Pierson P (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94(2):251–267
Pierson P, Skocpol T (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. Political Science: The State of the Discipline 3(1):1–32
Polu SL (2012) Infectious Disease in India, 1892–1940: Policy-Making and the Perception of Risk. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Public Health Commissioner with the Government of India (1941) Annual Report of Public Health Commissioner with the Government of India for 1940. Delhi: Manager of Publications.
Rakesh PS (2016) The epidemic diseases act of 1897: Public health relevance in the current scenario. Indian J Med Ethics 1(3):156–160
Ray CN (2005) A Note on the Disaster Management Bill, 2005. Economic and Political Weekly 40(47):4877–4881
Rutty C, Sullivan SC (2010) This is public health: A Canadian history. Public Health, 4(10)
Sanders E (2006) Historical Institutionalism. In: Rhodes RA, Binder SA, Rockman BA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schnabel J, Hegele Y (2021) Explaining intergovernmental coordination during the COVID-19 pandemic: Responses in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 51(4): 537–569
Shvetsova O et al (2021) Federal Institutions and Strategic Policy Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Political Science 3:66
Shvetsova O et al (2022) Protective Policy Index (PPI) global dataset of origins and stringency of COVID 19 mitigation policies. Scientific Data 9(1):1–10
Tanzeem A (2020) Lockdown or No Lockdown? Confusion Dominates Pakistan’s COVID Response. Voice of America (VOA). https://www.voanews.com/a/covid-19-pandemic_lockdown-or-no-lockdown-confusion-dominates-pakistans-covid-response/6188541.html. Accessed 14 September 2021
Tremblay RC, George N (2021) India: Federalism, majoritarian nationalism, and the vulnerable and marginalized. In: Ramraj VV (ed) Covid-19 in Asia: Law and Policy Contexts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 173–188
Van Bavel JJ et al (2020) National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic. Nature Communications 13(1):1–14
Wibbels E (2005). Federalism and the market: Intergovernmental conflict and economic reform in the developing world. Cambridge University Press
World Health Organization (2015) Bangladesh health system review. WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/208214. Accessed 14 September 2021
World Health Organization (n.d.-a) Global Health Expenditure Database. https://apps.who.int/nha/database/ViewData/Indicators/en. Accessed 14 September 2021
World Health Organization (n.d.-b) The Global Health Observatory. Hospital beds (per 10000 population). https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/. Accessed 14 September 2021
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Adeel, A.B., Zhirnov, A. (2023). COVID-19 Response in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh: Shared History, Different Processes. In: Shvetsova, O. (eds) Government Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30844-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30844-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30843-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30844-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)