Introduction
The history of different crises around the globe shows that most countries tend to resort to their own management strategies and overlook positive and negative experiences from other states. The approaches taken by China and the United States can be considered diametrically opposite because they are based on varied values and expectations (Comfort et al. 615). The Covid-19 pandemic became a real-life test that affected both governments and countries to an extent where the disease could not be stopped during its initial phases of development.
The effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the international economic system also has to be mentioned since China and United States are continually battling for the top position in the list of superpowered governments (Christensen and Lægreid 777). Therefore, an examination of approaches to crisis management throughout the Covid-19 pandemic could be one of the best strategies to decide which country could be deemed more successful in terms of mitigating the negative impact of the pandemic.
The differences in leadership between China and the United States have to be covered because they would outline the core areas where each of the countries is either lacking or overpowering. Even though the Covid-19 pandemic has been suppressed by the Chinese government relatively quickly, there are significant challenges that yet have to be mentioned when outlining its effectiveness (Liu et al. 793). This is also true for the American crisis management strategy because, under the Trump administration, the country experienced a rather slow reset that affected millions of people across the country.
Disease control and prevention procedures are equally strong in China and United States, but the biggest problem with the Covid-19 pandemic for both countries might have been the inability to manage policymaking and establish radical measures in a timely manner (Petridou et al. 322). The current paper is going to provide a detailed analysis of crisis management approaches taken by China and the United States in an attempt to curb the Covid-19 pandemic and protect the local population from the deadly disease.
Covid-19 Crisis Management in China
Initially, it was established by China’s National Health Commission that the country experienced a drastic upsurge in the number of cases of an unknown type of pneumonia. The rate of human exposure quickly grew under the influence of the inability to isolate the threat and ensure that the issues could be prevented from spreading (Li et al. 700). Another essential problem that had to be resolved by the Chinese was to establish whether human-to-human transmission of the virus took place.
The initial crisis management initiatives taken by the government revolved around the possibilities of limiting the dissemination of fake information and providing enough guidance to officials responsible for collecting information on the new virus (Ren 425). The task force quickly mobilized all of its resources to collect patient samples and study the disease as quickly as possible in order to reduce the known and unknown risks of human-to-human transmission. The importance of this step can be explained through the prism of the need to engage stringent precautions and limit human exposure to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Over the next 30 days, the Chinese government realized that human-to-human transmission was real and additional measures had to be taken in order to prevent people across the globe from getting infected. The new infectious disease was not taken seriously at first, despite exceptional efforts exerted by the National Health Commission (Petridou et al. 324). Prevention and control efforts seemed viable under the condition where the spreading of the Covid-19 pandemic could be averted. Nevertheless, the growing body of fake information and the government concealing some of the evidence complemented each other and made it harder to discover novel cases of coronavirus.
It became much harder to control the pandemic and help patients when social stability had been finally lost due to many individuals and organizations simply not informing the public about the dangers of Covid-19 (Shangguan et al. 3280). At this particular point, China’s crisis management initiatives went beyond concealment and offered the public an opportunity to display their interest in social stability. Failure to report cases of Covid-19 was deemed irresponsible and punishable.
The biggest problem that China had to resolve with the aid of novel crisis management was the need to reduce the number of cases due to the week-long Chinese New Year. Millions of Chinese and non-Chinese citizens returned home for the celebration, unknowingly exposing their friends and relatives to the threat of being infected with coronavirus (Li et al. 702). One of the vital primary decisions for the Chinese government was to lock down Wuhan and suspend all air and rail links out of the region.
Citizens were not allowed to leave their homes, as closed management had to be implemented to protect the community from travel curbs in the future. Other cities across China started deploying similar limitations in order to protect the economy and ensure that the response to the viral outbreak is not going to force the community to cease the majority of operations (Wang et al. 37). It was an attempt to prevent further spreading of the pandemic and gain better control over the situation.
At the time when the Covid-19 pandemic became a global health emergency, China had already implemented exceptionally stringent measures that allowed the government to address the issue properly. In the case of the Chinese government, crisis management could be outlined as significantly more powerful than any other alternative across the globe (Liu et al. 794). The need to overcome past mistakes associated with the failure to convey information to the public allowed China to alter its approach to the pandemic on the fly.
The complex scenario of the Covid-19 pandemic was addressed by the Chinese government in the most professional way possible despite the initial challenge associated with vital cases of non-disclosure that amplified the spread of the pandemic and caused some of the irreversible outcomes (Shangguan et al. 3287). The positive side of the Chinese approach to crisis management was the government’s willingness to shut down some of the elements of the economy in an attempt to protect local populations. Personal protection quickly became the key priority, leaving almost no room for discussions related to businesses and economic objectives.
Owing to the strong crisis management efforts, the Chinese government also mobilized the majority of available frontline medical workers, community workers, military workers, and volunteers. Every stakeholder exerting efforts to fight the pandemic contributed to a serious decrease in the number of coronavirus cases over the next three months after the initial press release (Wang et al. 37). Lockdown measures allowed the government to nurture the proposed prevention-and-control strategy and start helping other countries with protective suits, masks, testing kits, and face shields. Therefore, China’s crisis management initiatives can be deemed successful because of the country’s quick response to the pandemic.
Despite covering the presence of a lethal virus at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Chinese government was able to correct its mistakes along the way and become a source of support to developing and underdeveloped countries (Shangguan et al. 3284). This view of crisis management cannot be overlooked because China was the first economy to re-establish itself on the global scale and drive down the number of coronavirus cases to a reasonable minimum.
Covid-19 Crisis Management in the United States
After learning the latest news regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, it was decided by the American government to install an expert task force envisioned to moderate the spread of the virus and investigate the potential trends that could affect businesses and citizens. The essential task for the government was to keep individuals informed on the topic of coronavirus and protect them against further exposure to the pandemic (Ren 425).
The Center for Disease Control Prevention was fully involved in the matter, with an Incident Management System developed to help every stakeholder report all relevant cases of Covid-19. Owing to these efforts, the American government was able to structure its emergency responses in line with the needs of every particular organization and activate measures that are only appropriate for the given scenarios (Christensen and Lægreid 776). It was initially noted that the United States had the Covid-19 pandemic under control, and all the prevention measures were established in a timely manner.
The dangers of the lack of protection were covered by the National Security Council, with advisors noting that the full-fledged pandemic would have a killer effect on the US economy. Even though the President’s administration believed that there was nothing imperiling the lives of American citizens, the actual scenario proved otherwise because of the abrupt growth in the number of patients with coronavirus (Comfort et al. 617).
This was a huge hit to the American crisis management initiatives because surveillance and prevention did not help the administration contain the number of cases of Covid-19. Various bans on arrivals and departures (similar to Wuhan) were instigated in an attempt to resolve the spreading of the pandemic and reduce the cost of incidents related to coronavirus (Ren 425). Due to the inexistence of meaningful testing and screening instruments, the American healthcare system was not able to investigate every potential coronavirus case, but the administration ignored those issues and focused on the small number of Covid-19 patients to reinforce positive thinking and an optimistic outlook on the future.
Unlike China, the US ignored the increasing probability of the Covid-19 pandemic and focused on protecting its economy. The American government was one of the first to promote the development of an effective vaccine for Covid-19 (Greer et al. 1413). The increasing focus on financial matters and a false sense of safety affected the US to an extent where the administration failed to recognize the spreading of the Covid-19 pandemic and address it in a timely manner. The majority of disruptions across the country occurred right after the new numbers came in, signifying numerous weaknesses in terms of economy and public health (Steier and Moxham 3026).
Overall, the United States exerted huge levels of confidence when it came to battling the Covid-19 pandemic. The situation was praised as practically impermeable since it was essential for the government to empower American citizens and have them believe that they were safe and protected by the administration. The stock market remained too frazzled as well, so it was essential for the government to restore the former sense of stability.
Even though the government attempted to disseminate largely positive messages, the Covid-19 pandemic took a toll on the American nation and forced the market to panic and destabilize further. Despite the efforts taken by the country’s administration, crisis management initiatives have been hindered by the lack of relevant evidence and the growing sense of national emergency (Ren 429). The incredibly quick spreading of the pandemic left the US government questioning its approaches to coronavirus due to the inability to answer the majority of questions related to predictions and preventive measures related to the pandemic.
Lockdown measures were introduced late, causing the pandemic to spread even further, highlighting poor decisions included in the crisis management plan proposed by the American administration (Steier and Moxham 3023). An increasing pace of pandemic development forced an incredible number of business shutdowns across the nation, making it safe to say that the US-based organizations and individuals had the least chances to avoid coronavirus.
The shortage of testing equipment had affected the country drastically, causing millions of individuals to lose their jobs. US crisis management efforts linked to the Covid-19 pandemic turned out to be not as effective as they were expected to be because of the presence of unexpected factors, such as scarcity of resources (Comfort et al. 618). The virus was spreading at an incredible rate, causing the administration to make hasty decisions that only made matters worse.
The testing capacity of the United States was replenished when the American administration contacted South Korea, asking for assistance. Nevertheless, a poor initial choice of strategies led the United States to an all-time record in terms of national unemployment (Greer et al. 1414). The level of preparedness could be described as insufficient, leaving the American government responsible for all the shortages that affected the economy and community. The positive outlook that the country intended to promote became a dangerous initiative that averted the government from communicating the actual dangers to US citizens.
Discussion
Lessons from China
Even though China’s experience with the Covid-19 pandemic was generally standard, there was one particular element that stood out the most. Central and local authorities altered their approaches to reporting incidents related to the pandemic in order to be able to locate the steepest outbreaks and report those as quickly as possible (Li et al. 701). The existing network was reinvented and updated in order to give the existing expert teams an opportunity to get a better look at the situation and prevent the pandemic from spreading.
Despite significantly stringent efforts, the Chinese government failed to recognize the gravity of the situation and lost quite some time in an attempt to curb the infection with the aid of milder approaches (Petridou et al. 322). In a sense, the Chinese government could be seen as unprepared but only in terms of not acknowledging its mistakes related to crisis management that occurred during the first several months after the outbreak. Further efforts reinforced the importance of handling the crisis quickly and allowed the top leadership to handle the Covid-19 pandemic properly.
Lessons from the United States
With the United States, the situation with the Covid-19 pandemic was majorly different because the country’s administration was reluctant to taking any steps even after the dangers of the pandemic had been validated on a global scale. The lack of a whole-government comeback has made the United States into a damaged country that had to experience crucial risks despite following all the guidelines (Steier and Moxham 3027).
This shows how the American approach to crisis management is not as stringent as its Chinese counterpart. The frivolous decision that was made during the initial outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic affected the country to an extent where the existence of the virus has been questioned by the public (Greer et al. 1414). These findings are disturbing because they prove that the American crisis management approach lacks dexterity, especially when it comes to taking threats seriously and meeting high-level threats at full capacity. The tragedy of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States has been backed by the political divergence of science and large amounts of misinformation that slew the opportunity to mitigate risks copiously.
Concluding Remarks
The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic became one of the biggest controversies in the history of humankind due to the existence of challenges associated with deception, covert evidence, and suppressed information. The largely autocratic approach taken by China caused the government to conceal vital information, letting the infection spread. That was one of the worst crisis management decisions in Chinese history due to health officials realizing the scale of the threat but failing to convey that information to government executives.
The existing control over reporting systems and mass media sources proves that the Chinese government was not successful in terms of curbing the Covid-19 pandemic during the initial stage. Yet, all the evidence collected within the framework of the current paper hints at the idea that bad news should have been reported right away, appealing to the public common sense. The willingness to avoid the pandemic could not be found across the American population either because the majority did not believe in the pandemic being real.
Conclusion
Both the United States and China took the risk and did not report some of the initial cases in order to gain more time to make politically-sensitive decisions. Therefore, their approach to crisis management can be outlined as indecisive. The Chinese government quickly corrected its mistake by establishing extremely stringent measures and critically enhancing its crisis management. For the US government, the essential task was to make people believe that the Covid-19 pandemic was real and ensure that public health measures were followed across the country.
Overall, both countries had their strengths and weaknesses, but the Chinese approach seemed to be more effective because of the government acknowledging central errors and fixing them. Even though it was not a sign of incompetence, it took too long for the US government to deploy the most appropriate crisis management measures and prevent the Covid-19 pandemic from spreading further. Millions of deaths across the globe will forever remind all countries of how important it is to respond to crises in a timely manner and avoid misinformation and deception.
Works Cited
Christensen, Tom, and Per Lægreid. “Balancing Governance Capacity and Legitimacy: How the Norwegian Government Handled the COVID‐19 Crisis as a High Performer.” Public Administration Review, vol. 80, no. 5, 2020, pp. 774-779.
Comfort, Louise K., et al. “Crisis Decision‐Making on a Global Scale: Transition from Cognition to Collective Action under Threat of COVID‐19.” Public Administration Review, vol. 80, no. 4, 2020, pp. 616-622.
Greer, Scott L., et al. “The Comparative Politics of COVID-19: The Need to Understand Government Responses.” Global Public Health, vol. 15, no. 9, 2020, pp. 1413-1416.
Li, Yiran, et al. “Crisis Coordination and the Role of Social Media in Response to COVID-19 in Wuhan, China.” The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 50, no. 6-7, 2020, pp. 698-705.
Liu, Qian, et al. “The Experiences of Health-Care Providers during the COVID-19 Crisis in China: A Qualitative Study.” The Lancet Global Health, vol. 8, no. 6, 2020, pp. 790-798.
Petridou, Evangelia, et al. “Averting Institutional Disasters? Drawing Lessons from China to Inform the Cypriot Response to the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” European Policy Analysis, vol. 6, no. 2, 2020, pp. 318-327.
Ren, Xuefei. “Pandemic and Lockdown: A Territorial Approach to COVID-19 in China, Italy and the United States.” Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 61, no. 4-5, 2020, pp. 423-434.
Shangguan, Ziheng et al. “What Caused the Outbreak of COVID-19 in China: From the Perspective of Crisis Management.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 9, 2020, pp. 3279-3295.
Steier, Joerg, and John Moxham. “The Load and Capacity Model of Healthcare Delivery: Considerations for the Crisis Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Thoracic Disease, vol. 12, no. 6, 2020, pp. 3022-3030.
Wang, Chuanyi, et al. “Risk Management of COVID-19 by Universities in China.” Journal of Risk and Financial Management, vol. 13, no. 2, 2020, pp. 36-42.