You can sociologically explain why, of two equally developed countries with a high level of medicine one already defeated the infection, and the other is not able?
Eduard Ponarin: In situations like this, much depends on the peculiarities of national culture. In some countries (e.g. Germany), the people has a high level of trust in public institutions and discipline, and the institutions themselves work smoothly and clearly. In others (eg Italy) – all the way around. Accordingly, in Germany, people carefully comply with the regulations, partly because they believe that the government will do everything perfectly. And in Italy, people largely act on my own, because I do not hope very much on the efficiency of state structures. Of course, where did these features of national culture, also need to explain; we can continue to raise this issue in more detail.
Strict quarantine was applied only in China, but thanks to him, a country with a huge population could limit the number to 5.85 infected persons per 100 thousand population. For comparison: in the UK, where quarantine measures were introduced relatively late, the number is 35 times more, Spain is 81. While the world is closely watched by Sweden, where strict isolation was not introduced, even the restaurants continued to operate. The problem here is the cultural characteristics of the nation, its mentality?
Eduard Ponarin: as for Sweden, its culture similar to the culture of North Germany, particularly Prussia. Citizens there accustomed to trust state institutions, which are as a rule quite effectively. But in this case the Swedish government, unlike most other countries, decided not to stop the economy in the expectation that citizens encounter group immunity. The Swedes, accustomed to trust their government, they supported him until then, until it became absolutely clear that the government made a mistake. In neighbouring countries with the same culture (Finland, Norway, etc.) the results of the fight against the epidemic is no worse than in Germany, and the incidence of below Swedish at times. About southern European countries like Spain, we talked a bit on the example of Italy. This fragmented country with a low level of discipline and not a very high confidence in the government. As for the UK, it is a widespread liberal culture, which highly values the autonomy of the individual, and the restriction of personal freedoms is very difficult to justify. China, by contrast, a country with a collectivist culture. And if we talk about a long tradition of state control through a centralized enlightened bureaucracy, the whaleher for two thousand years – older tradition in the world. And this tradition has shaped Chinese culture in which the younger must obey the elder. In China the word “old” simultaneously means “dear”. The government is the “big” and subjects “Junior”. And if the government in the common interest resolves that needed the strictest quarantine measures, then it should be.
In Spain for leaving the house without good reason, the amount of fines ranged from 600 to 10.4 thousand euros for individuals and up to 600 thousand euros for the companies. In Italy, the fine ranged from 400 to 3,000 euros. In France, violation of the quarantine for the first time, costing 135€, re – 200 Euro, the systematic non-observance of the rules was punished by arrest up to six months and a fine in the amount of 3.7 thousand euros. And the most severe punishment was introduced in China: for those who know about their diagnosis and continues to go to public places, provided for the death penalty. The severity of penalties for violation of quarantine also depends on how you react to these punishments the nation with its character, historical traditions, established social practice?
Eduard Ponarin: of Course. Patriarchal Chinese culture, not much has changed over the last Millennium. Elder care for younger, and younger must unconditionally obey. If Junior out of the submission, thereby undermining the foundations of society and worthy of the severest punishment. Once the same principles prevailed in Italy. For example, in the year 340 BC the Roman Consul Titus Torquatus Manly forbade his soldiers on the eve of battle to engage in fights with the enemy. His son has violated the prohibition, won the match victory, and in triumph returned to the camp, for which the father, paternal and consular authorities ordered to cut off his son’s head, which was immediately executed. For this example, we can imagine the discipline in the Roman legions. But in Italy, since the culture has changed, and in China, not so much. Chinese tradition has influenced the culture of East Asian countries; they have so much in common. In Singapore, for example, vandalism is punishable by not only prison and cash penalty and flogging. Well, the vandalism, as a phenomenon, is virtually absent. I think the last time in 1990-ies some American tourist had painted someone’s car, and even the intervention of President Clinton did not save him from a flogging.
how do you explain that faster and better all pandemic coped China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore? And why it remains difficult situation in Brazil? Why far from winning the United States?
Eduard Ponarin: Not only East Asian countries but also, for example, Germany or Finland quite well on pandemieth. What are the similarities of Korea, Germany, China, and unlike Italy, Brazil, USA and many other countries? This particular national culture. They are called first (as in Prussia, served Russia since the end of XVIII century as an example of a well-organized state), a long tradition of governance through a centralized bureaucracy in their role not so much by inheritance as by educational and business achievements. Second, a high degree of people’s trust in state institutions, which implies the corresponding discipline. These factors contribute to the ability of the state to effectively solve problems, rapidly mobilizing the necessary resources. I emphasize here the word “possibility” – not necessarily that such characteristics of the state are always used effectively, or at least reasonable. For example, under Chairman Mao, the government used their power of the mass mobilization of the people for the extermination of sparrows in order to preserve grain yield. Bred in the result of this policy, the insects have caused more damage to agriculture. The mobilization of the German people for a war on two fronts, too, was not very intelligent; and although the German people tried no less than the Chinese running for the sparrows, his efforts did not bring positive result in either of the two world wars. Sweden, which has similar cultural characteristics in Northern Germany and Finland, in the current situation of the pandemic made the decision to abandon the quarantine and paid for it many lost the lives of their citizens. Nevertheless, the above features provide additional opportunities for States with the enlightened tradition of centralized bureaucracy, and these features can play a crucial role in the current extraordinary circumstances. As for the US and Brazil, where the system of government from the beginning was decentralized. Citizens, especially in the United States, given the wide autonomy, including the right to bear arms to protect their freedoms, enshrined by the second amendment to the Constitution. In addition, trust in public institutions in these countries in recent years has suffered greatly. In the U.S. it is caused by the tremendously grown over the last 40 years of social inequality, the deterioration of the middle class, the social antagonisms and resulting political radicalization. The situation is similar in Brazil, where leftist forces were removed from power through legal manipulation that has undermined confidence in the government from supporters of left-wing political views. In such a situation, the ability of the state to mobilize the population are very limited. About Italy and Spain, is also heavily affected by the pandemic, you can also say that these countries do not have a high level of trust in public institutions, discipline and cohesion.
the Presence or absence of democratic institutions in the country has something to do with the success or failure of overcoming the consequences of the pandemic?
Eduard Ponarin: monitor the progress of the pandemic, forced to conclude that the presence or absence of democratic institutions in a country has nothing to do with the degree of severity of the pandemic. Japan and South Korea as effectively cope with this trouble, like China and Singapore. On the other hand, neighbours in the European Union, Germany and Italy show very different results on mortality – mortality is very low in Germany and very high in Italy.
the incidence of coronavirus in Russia every day is reduced. According to the who representative Melita Vujnović, the Russian health care system cope with a pandemic and able to provide treatment for severe cases. What role in the spread of coronavirus infections on the expanses of our country played a Russian “maybe” (maybe cost, maybe blow)?
Eduard Ponarin: the Russian quarantine measures were taken very quickly. The border with China was closed instantly. However, it was not time blocked by other borders, and the virus came to us from Europe with our tourists. But then the border was closed, quickly built new medical centers. All of this has played a positive role in the fight against the pandemic. However, discipline in Russia is not as severe as in East Asia, and not even the same as in Northern Europe. So “maybe” can still play with us a cruel joke. I see that people are tired of quarantine measures, for the most part ceased to observe safety precautions. In masks walk one. Incidentally, the migrant workers from Central Asia, we often wear masks, than our people. Obviously, in Uzbekistan discipline higher than ours.
the Next challenge facing the whole world after the pandemic, the recovery of the economy. It is already clear that this will be an extremely difficult task. Which countries have the chance to deal with it faster and better? I now have in mind not only the economic potential of these countries.
Eduard Ponarin: Indeed, the economic recovery will be extremely challenging. Part of its complexity stems from the fact that the economies of different countries are intertwined. For example, the Swedish economy, which for the sake of her rescue made the decision not to arrange quarantine, suffered about the same as the economy in the neighboring countries that have adopted quarantine measures, simply because it stopped the global economy and Swedish companies experienced the same problems with the international demand and chains post��wok. Because not all countries will effectively recover its economy, the problem will also affect those countries, which will be taken the right decisions. Still, some signs in favor of the fact that in China, Singapore, Korea, Germany, the situation is better than in many other countries. For the first month of the pandemic, China has increased the production of medical masks seven times because of the connected enterprise, never before it did not. Chinese doctors and nurses in hospitals, meanwhile, slept in the workplace. In Korea, the production of tests for coronavirus was developed by a local company in the shortest possible time, after which the developers of the test, the doctor got on the conveyor, and the production of other products (not to mention the development of new products) the enterprise was temporarily suspended. This degree of mobilization of the population allows not only extremely strain the power of the people, but also to quickly transfer resources to where it is most needed. And it is these countries will benefit in the global competition after the crisis.
Eduard Ponarin – sociologist, head of the Laboratory for comparative social research, HSE. Born in 1964 in Leningrad. He graduated from the faculty of psychology of the Leningrad state University. From 1989 to 1996 he studied sociology at the University of Michigan (USA) and defended in this doctoral (Ph. D.) dissertation. Since 1998 he worked at the European University in St. Petersburg. Since 2009 works at the Higher school of Economics. His laboratory represents Russia in the project World values survey and European values survey.
