In Chapter 3 and this chapter, we have analyzed the cases of France and Uruguay in depth, but separately. In the first section of this final chapter, our aim is to compare these two cases. As will be seen, despite their differences in several dimensions, they had approximately the same number of COVID-19 deaths per million inhabitants. We also found other significant similarities. In both countries, the governments convened powerful and influential scientific groups that had a prominent presence in public debate. Scientists advised, but governments did not delegate public policy decisions to them. In both France and Uruguay, and unlike other countries, the presidents never underestimated the risk to public health posed by the virus. But, at the same time, they were aware of the importance of minimizing the economic damage caused by the inevitable reduction in social mobility. In addition to similarities, the pandemic highlighted important differences between both countries. From the theoretical perspective we have prioritized in this book, that of the relationship between science and politics, France and Uruguay have had contrasting patterns throughout history. In France, science and politics have historically had a very close relationship. In Uruguay, the link between science and politics is problematic and unstable. To thoroughly examine this difference, we use the concept of PKR. In the second section, we argue that the concept of PKR can be useful in very different national contexts. To do so, we briefly present the role of science in combating the pandemic in other countries: Germany, Sweden, Finland, Taiwan, and the United States. We chose these cases because they are distinct. As will be seen, the concept of PKR allows us to quickly reconstruct the link between science and politics during the health crisis. The inclusion of these cases also helps confirm one of the conclusions emerging from the study of France and Uruguay. In addition to, eventually, listening to the recommendations of experts, politicians had to listen to those of the public. What science suggested often clashed with what the public demanded. In almost every case, the government departed from the advice of experts, often due to public outcry over the spread of the virus, but also due to tension between the recommendations for mitigation efforts and the government’s other policy priorities. In most cases, tensions arose over time as people became frustrated with containment and isolation measures. Governments attempted to balance the economic effects against scientific advice in all but those countries where the public outcry was greatest. The countries where the conflict was least pronounced were those where the public demonstrated greatest respect for the professionalism of expert opinion.

Political Knowledge Regimes in Action. Comparisons and Conclusions

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Adolfo Garcé,
Robert H. Cox

摘要

In Chapter 3 and this chapter, we have analyzed the cases of France and Uruguay in depth, but separately. In the first section of this final chapter, our aim is to compare these two cases. As will be seen, despite their differences in several dimensions, they had approximately the same number of COVID-19 deaths per million inhabitants. We also found other significant similarities. In both countries, the governments convened powerful and influential scientific groups that had a prominent presence in public debate. Scientists advised, but governments did not delegate public policy decisions to them. In both France and Uruguay, and unlike other countries, the presidents never underestimated the risk to public health posed by the virus. But, at the same time, they were aware of the importance of minimizing the economic damage caused by the inevitable reduction in social mobility. In addition to similarities, the pandemic highlighted important differences between both countries. From the theoretical perspective we have prioritized in this book, that of the relationship between science and politics, France and Uruguay have had contrasting patterns throughout history. In France, science and politics have historically had a very close relationship. In Uruguay, the link between science and politics is problematic and unstable. To thoroughly examine this difference, we use the concept of PKR. In the second section, we argue that the concept of PKR can be useful in very different national contexts. To do so, we briefly present the role of science in combating the pandemic in other countries: Germany, Sweden, Finland, Taiwan, and the United States. We chose these cases because they are distinct. As will be seen, the concept of PKR allows us to quickly reconstruct the link between science and politics during the health crisis. The inclusion of these cases also helps confirm one of the conclusions emerging from the study of France and Uruguay. In addition to, eventually, listening to the recommendations of experts, politicians had to listen to those of the public. What science suggested often clashed with what the public demanded. In almost every case, the government departed from the advice of experts, often due to public outcry over the spread of the virus, but also due to tension between the recommendations for mitigation efforts and the government’s other policy priorities. In most cases, tensions arose over time as people became frustrated with containment and isolation measures. Governments attempted to balance the economic effects against scientific advice in all but those countries where the public outcry was greatest. The countries where the conflict was least pronounced were those where the public demonstrated greatest respect for the professionalism of expert opinion.