Project Description

Under which conditions do citizens accept possibly far-reaching limitations of their individual rights for the sake of the common good? The global COVID-19 pandemic directed renewed attention to fundamental questions on the legitimation and acceptance of political authority within and across contemporary states and societies.

Countermeasures aimed at slowing the spread of the virus—such as mandatory restrictions of social contact or freedom of movement—directly engaged with the delicate balance between individual freedoms and public health. Moreover, the pandemic exemplified a societal threat that was truly global in nature. The virus simultaneously affected diverse societies, regardless of their political regimes, dominant cultures, or patterns of social stratification.

In all societies, countermeasures against pandemic threats had potentially far-reaching effects not only on citizens’ health but also on their socioeconomic resources and their trust in key social and political institutions. Thus, the unprecedented global public health threat of COVID-19 raised pressing questions about citizens' readiness to comply with public health interventions and their (dis)satisfaction with government responses to the crisis. It also provided a unique opportunity to deepen our understanding of how citizens evaluated fundamental trade-offs between sacrificing individual freedom and the common good in politically, culturally, and socially diverse contexts.

Against this background, the project investigated how different political legitimation strategies by governments interacted with individual-level factors in various political and cultural contexts to shape citizens' evaluations of concrete trade-offs between individual liberties and the common good. In doing so, the study provided crucial insights into citizens' support for or opposition to general modes of social and political coordination, as well as the allocation of resources to improve citizens' life chances.

Research Questions

The research project focused on understanding the conditions under which citizens were willing to accept significant restrictions on their individual rights in the name of the common good, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. It explored how citizens balanced individual freedoms against public health needs and under what circumstances they found these trade-offs acceptable. The project also investigated the role of government strategies and individual factors in shaping these perceptions across different political and cultural settings. Additionally, it sought to identify which decision-making processes citizens viewed as legitimate during such major societal challenges.

Research Approach

The project was designed as an exploratory study. We were interested in understanding how major societal transformations, such as the pandemic and other social challenges like migration and climate change, were perceived by citizens. More specifically, we investigated the extent to which citizens were willing to accept incursions into their personal freedoms for the perceived greater good. Additionally, our study focused on identifying which decision-making processes were viewed as legitimate by citizens. To achieve these objectives, we relied on survey research from six countries and employed various experimental methods conducted in Germany.

Relation to the Liberal Script

The project investigated the extent to which citizens accepted potentially far-reaching limitations on their individual freedoms. As such, its research focus was closely related to the core of the liberal script. It addressed one of the fundamental principles of liberalism: individual freedom. We examined how this core principle was compromised in favour of public goods, such as public health. Additionally, the project explored the political dimension of the liberal script, particularly liberal democracy. By focusing on legitimate decision-making processes, we delved into the aspect of political representation, questioning to what extent this cornerstone of liberal democracies is upheld during the public negotiation of major societal transformations.

Core Findings

Regarding theoretical insights, the project examined the extent to which people were willing to accept restrictions on personal freedoms during a public health emergency. It explored which types of restrictions were more likely to be accepted than others. As such, we placed particular emphasis on the role of political rights and civil liberties as fundamental components of the liberal script. Furthermore, the project explored whether citizens continued to trust democratic political institutions as the primary instruments for addressing global and acute crises, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as broader issues like migration, security, and climate change.

Theoretically and empirically, the project contributed to debates on "stealth democracy," which refers to the tendency of citizens to delegate complex political decisions to politicians, and debates on technocracy that argue that citizens prefer technocratic expertise over seemingly slow democratic processes. In empirical terms, our findings cautiously supported these perspectives. We observed that restrictions on core political rights—such as media fact-checking, restrictions on rallies, and the postponement of elections—did not seem to be a major concern for citizens. In contrast, restrictions on private life—such as limitations on leaving home or the closing of shops—appeared to be more significant.

Moreover, the study revealed that citizens perceived input from non-political and unaccountable actors, such as business and expert advice, as more important when addressing major societal challenges than procedural democratic measures like parliamentary votes and party consensus. However, the research could not confirm that this situation would lead to a lasting damage to liberal democracy since we did not entirely dismiss the possibility that citizens viewed these crises as acute and the restrictions on personal freedoms as temporary. Nevertheless, we argued that these trends are concerning and warranted greater attention in discussions about the future of liberal democracies.

Academic Innovations

In terms of conceptual ideas, we drew on an understanding of the liberal script that emphasised the centrality of political rights and civil liberties. The project also focused on a proceduralist interpretation of liberal democracy, grounded in a Dahlian notion of democracy.

We argued that surveying these values should not occur only under ideal conditions but should instead rigorously assess them under pressure. To implement this, we conducted two survey experiments where citizens were compelled to choose between alternatives, believing this approach more accurately reflects the payoff structure of real-world political decision-making. We utilised a forced-choice conjoint experiment and a best-worst scaling approach with priming treatment.

Methodologically, the research prioritised testing citizens' commitment to liberal and democratic values by confronting them with challenging choices and trade-offs. A central aspect of the project was that these values were not exclusively surveyed in ideal conditions; instead, the study rigorously assessed them under pressure. This approach was implemented through two survey experiments in which participants were required to choose between alternatives, reflecting the payoff structure of political decision-making more adequately. The research employed a forced-choice conjoint experiment and a best-worst scaling approach with priming treatment.

Publications

Heisig, Jan Paul / Giebler, Heiko / Rauh, Christian 2022: Eine Frage des Vertrauens. Warum Menschen die Corona-Impfung ablehnen, WZB Mitteilungen.