Project Description

This project was built on the research titled ‘The Politics of Public Allocation of Scarce Goods: Evidence from the COVID-19 Vaccination Programme,’ initially conducted in 2021. It focused on three key areas: liberal strategies for democratic decision-making in times of crisis, the effects of the vaccination campaign on political trust and polarization in Germany and public attitudes toward different approaches to vaccine production. The project was part of a longitudinal panel and survey experiments initiated at the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Germany.

Research Questions

The project investigated (1) the liberal modes of democratic decision-making in crisis, (2) how the vaccination campaign and the related anti-Corona measures have affected political trust and polarization in Germany, (3) public support for different modes of vaccine production.

Research Approach

The first wave of data collection took place in March 2021 and the last wave was completed in the summer of 2024. The panel was composed of a core questionnaire that was repeated in each panel wave and two experimental modules in which different survey experiments were conducted.

Relation to the Liberal Script

This project directly engaged with critical challenges to the liberal script that have surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The liberal script, grounded in principles of individual freedoms, democratic governance, and international cooperation, has been tested by the crisis. Governments worldwide implemented restrictive measures, often bypassing democratic processes through emergency legislation, which tested the limits of liberal democratic governance. The pandemic also intensified societal polarization, as seen in the rise of movements like Germany's “Querdenken,” highlighting the strain on social cohesion and trust in political institutions. Additionally, the unequal global distribution of vaccines underscores the limitations of the liberal international order in addressing global inequality and ensuring equitable access to resources.

Core Findings

The project comprised four studies, each addressing different aspects of public attitudes and policy responses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Study 1: Conducted with 20,500 respondents in Germany, this factorial survey experiment evaluated three strategies to boost vaccine uptake: providing freedoms, offering financial incentives, and improving local vaccination access. The findings showed that all three strategies increased vaccination rates by 2-3 percentage points (PP) overall, with up to 13 PP among the undecided. The impact varied by age group, with older individuals more responsive to local access and younger individuals favouring enhanced freedoms for the vaccinated.

Study 2: This factorial experiment, involving over 10,000 German respondents, examined attitudes towards global vaccine distribution inequalities. Most respondents opposed these disparities and supported significant funding to address them. Support was driven by concerns about global health and risks of continued health threats from inadequate vaccination. The study also found that highlighting international health externalities in information campaigns could boost public support for global vaccine efforts.

Study 3: Using a conjoint experiment with over 10,000 respondents, this study explored preferences for personal freedoms versus public welfare during the COVID-19 crisis. It revealed a general willingness to accept freedom restrictions, especially among vaccinated individuals who were exempt from these limitations. Unvaccinated individuals preferred no restrictions, impacting trust in government differently based on vaccination status.

Study 4: This research, involving 10,500 German citizens, assessed the effects of inconsistent scientific advice on government credibility and policy-making. Inconsistent advice decreased perceived government competence, and prior trust did not mitigate this effect. In a second analysis, the study also showed that electoral pressures lead governments to change recommendations less frequently. Both findings highlight the trade-offs between maintaining electoral support and ensuring public welfare amid new evidence.

Academic Innovations

The project introduces key academic innovations by extending the understanding of public attitudes and policy responses during a global crisis. It integrates experimental methodologies within a longitudinal panel study to assess the impact of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign on political trust, polarization, and support for vaccine production strategies. Additionally, the project explores how liberal democratic decision-making is challenged during emergencies, and it introduces novel insights into public preferences regarding global vaccine distribution and the trade-offs between personal freedoms and public welfare during a pandemic.

Publications

Klüver, Heike / Hartmann, Felix / Humphreys, Macartan / Geißler, Ferdinand / Giesecke, Johannes 2021: Incentives can spur Covid-19 vaccination uptake, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(36): 1-3.

Egger, Dennis / Miguel, Edward / Warren, Shana S. / Shenoy, Ashish / Collins, Elliott / Karlan, Dean / Parkerson, Doug / Mobarak, A. Mushfiq / Fink, Günther / Udry, Christopher / Walker, Michael / Haushofer, Johannes / Larreboure, Magdalena / Athey, Susan / Lopez-Pena, Paula / Benhachmi, Salim / Humphreys, Macartan / Lowe, Layna / Meriggi, Niccoló F. / Wabwire, Andrew / Davis, C. Austin / Pape, Utz Johann / Graff, Tilman / Voors, Maarten / Nekesa, Carolyn / Vernot, Corey 2021: Falling living standards during the COVID-19 crisis. Quantitative evidence from nine developing countries, Science Advances 7(6): 1-12.

Geissler, Ferdinand / Hartmann, Felix / Humphreys, Macartan / Klüver, Heike / Giesecke, Johannes 2022: Public support for global vaccine sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Germany, PLOS ONE 17(12).

Hartmann, Felix / Humphreys, Macartan / Klüver, Heike / Geissler, Ferdinand / Giesecke, Johannes 2024: Trading Liberties: Estimating COVID-19 Policy Preferences from Conjoint Data, Political Analysis, 32(2): 285-293.