Monotonous or pluralistic public discourse? Reason-giving and dissent in Denmark’s and Sweden’s early 2020 Covid-19 responses

Bibliographic Data

ID7315160
AuthorsErik Baekkeskov (0000-0001-9028-9570, The University of Melbourne, corresponding author), Oliver Rubin (0000-0002-2364-6782, Roskilde University), Perola Öberg (0000-0002-3522-4966, Uppsala University)
Year2021
Volume28
Issue8
Pages1321-1343
Publication date2021-06-28
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of European Public Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1350-1763 • E-ISSN: 1466-4429
PublisherRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/13501763.2021.1942158
OpenAlexW3170355395
LanguageEN
Citations received12
References cited40

COVID-19 outbreaks forced governments into epic policy choices conciliating democratic legitimacy and science-based policies. We examine how pervasive crises like this pandemic shape public discourses, proposing two ideal-types that discourse may tend toward. One is pluralism, which includes authoritative voices that represent viable alternative policies and credible reasons for them. The opposite is monotony, where authoritative voices offer credible reasons for one policy option only. Two crucial cases for monotony are analysed, where news media represents public discourse. In initial COVID-19 responses, Denmark pursued hard lockdown while neighbouring Sweden enacted voluntary distancing. Pluralism in public discourses could be advantaged while solutions remained uncertain and social and economic disruptions high, in polities with mature democratic and scientific institutions. The empirical analyses show that Denmark’s elected leaders and Sweden’s leading health scientists publicly represented their respective national responses. Yet in sampled public discourses on highly disruptive policies on school closures and crowding limits, both leaderships focused on justifying national choices rather than elucidating options. In turn, other sources skewed toward justifications for national policies rather than attention to alternatives. We suggest finally that such skews toward discourse monotony create risks to democratic legitimacy and long-term response efficacy

2019-20 coronavirus outbreak · Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 · Democracy · Dissent · Economics · Epistemology · Law and economics · Pluralism (philosophy · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Public discourse · Public reason · Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 · Sociology · Law · Medicine · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Philosophy · Populism, Right-Wing Movements · Social Media and Politics · Virology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access