In recent months, there has been much discussion about leadership in the pandemic. Who led best and which countries were worse?One trend that emerged from the beginning was that women leaders had treated the crisis remarkably well. Whether in New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern or Taiwan under the chairmanship of Tsai Ing-Wen or Germany under Angela Merkel. women-led countries were presented as examples of how to manage a pandemic. eval 40ez_write_tag ([300,250] Array ‘realclearscience_com-under_page_title’, ‘ezslot_2’, 120, ‘0’, ‘0’] – . 41);
To read about whether this anecdotal belief resists more systematic scrutiny, we discussed how world leaders responded to the early days of the pandemic to see if differences in functionality can be explained through differences in political action followed by men and women.
We have to stay in the brain with two warnings: first, we are alone at the beginning of the pandemic and it is possible that many will replace in the coming months; second, the quality of knowledge that has been gained lately is limited; inadequate testing means that the number of cases is likely underestimated. The way deaths are recorded also varies from country to country.
There are many fewer women-led countries in the world than men. Only 10% of our 194-country employer has women as national leaders. Given the small number of women-led countries, the most appropriate way to assess their functionality is to fit them in with “like” male-led countries. We did this through countries with similar profiles of sociodemographic and economic characteristics that were vital in the transmission of COVID-19.
First, countries with GDP in line with the capita, population, population density and population over 65, then we expanded our matchmaking variables to reach 3 other characteristics: annual fitness spend consistent with the capita, the number of tourists entering the country and gender equality. eval s 40 ez_write_tag ([[[580,400], ‘realclearscience_com-under_first_paragraph’, ‘ezslot_0′, 125, ”0′,’ 0’41);
These comparisons revealed transparent differences between women-led countries and similar male-led countries during the first trimester of the pandemic (until mid-May).
Hong Kong, which is executed through a woman, recorded 1,056 instances and 4 deaths, while Singapore, which has a similar economy and comparable demographic characteristics but is run by a man, recorded 28,794 instances and 22 deaths over the same period. through one woman, she recorded 8,257 cases and 233 deaths, while Ireland, led by one man, recorded 24,200 cases and 1,547 deaths. Taiwan recorded 440 cases and seven deaths, while South Korea recorded 11,078 cases and 263 deaths.
Women-led countries have behaved better, i. e. in terms of deaths, and it is true that the nearest comparable country is the closest, two, 3 or even five closest Belgium is an atypical case, as it appears to have poor effects on cases and deaths while addressing through a woman, but despite its inclusion , the general effects for countries run by women are valid.
For example, Finland more than Sweden, Austria and France in terms of instances and deaths; Germany more than France and the United Kingdom; Bangladesh did more than the Philippines and Pakistan in terms of deaths.
In analyzing what can cause this difference in performance, we find that women-led countries have been locked up long before male-led countries. through men like the UK. On average, they had 22 fewer deaths in lockdown than their male counterparts.
We test whether these effects mean that female leaders are more reluctant to threaten. Literature on attitudes to threat and uncertainty suggests that women, even those in leadership positions, appear to be more threatened than men.
In fact, in the existing crisis, several incidents of undesirable behavior have been reported through male leaders. Brazilian Jair Bolsonaro called COVID-19 a “flu or cold” and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he “shook everyone’s hand” to visit the hospital The two men contracted the virus.
([four0ez_write_tag 250,250], ‘realclearscience_com-longest_content’, ‘ezslot_3’, 126, ‘0’, ‘0’] – ‘four1; eval ‘ four0ez_write_tag ([250,250], ‘realclearscience_com-longest_zarslot_ -longest_zslot’,’ four’, 126,’ 0′,’ 1′] – ‘four1; However, this is a simplistic explanation. Although leaders have an aversion to threats to life, they have obviously been willing to accept significant and early threats Therefore, leaders seem to have been much more reluctant to threaten threats in the box of human life, but more when it comes to taking threats in the box of the economy.
We found some of this concept in studies that read about threatening behaviors when lotteries are presented as losses. Men are more reluctant to threaten than women when lotteries present the the most as monetary losses rather than profits. made through male leaders reflect men’s aversion to threats to the losses expected by the economic blockade.
Another explanation of gender differences in reaction to the pandemic is the leadership tastes of men and women. Studies recommend that men are most likely to lead with a “task-oriented” taste and women with a taste “oriented to interpersonal relationships. “, women tend to adopt a more democratic and participatory taste and tend to have greater communicative skills.
This highlighted this crisis in the decisive and transparent communication styles followed by several women leaders, be it Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg speaking directly to young people or Ardern registering with their citizens via Facebook.
Our effects show that the effects of COVID in the early stages of the pandemic were consistently and particularly greater in the countries at the forefront, which, to some extent, can be explained through the proactive policy responses they have adopted, even taking into account the institutional context and other factors. controls, the fact that they have been overcome has given countries merit in the existing crisis. eval -40ez_write_tag ([250,250], ‘realclearscience_com-long_content’, ‘ezslot_14’, 127, ‘0’, ‘0’ 41);
Supriya Garikipati, Assistant Professor of Development Economics, University of Liverpool and Uma S Kambhampati, Professor of Economics; Director, University of Reading
This article has been republished from The Conversation, a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.