Global crisis governance in response to scientific information
Comparing and understanding regulatory responses from WHO and IPCC concerning the COVID-19 and climate crises
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1856Keywords:
application of systems theory to empirical situations, climate change, determinants of communication, governance responses, health crisisAbstract
This article explores determinants of effective communication for crisis responses across functional sub-systems at diverse public organisation levels. That is done by analysing WHO and IPCC statements on COVID-19 and climate change, and governmental responses, drawing on Denmark as a pilot case. A functional sub-system is constituted by binary codes, embodying the sub-system’s key logic. Sub-systems respond to information triggering their logics. The analysis shows that with an emphasis on effective governance and the delivery of health care, the WHO was effective in generating governmental action on COVID-19. By contrast, the IPCC’s extensive deployment of the true/false logic of science is less effective for activating governmental response. Addressing public governance and relevance of Luhmann’s systems theory, our findings suggest that decision-makers can be prompted into action through deployment of arguments that connect to governments’ logic. This finding holds potential for improving communication between scientific and governance agencies for crisis responses.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
14(5)_Buhmann_Wu_OSLS 262
XML_14(5)_Buhmann_Wu_OSLS 7
References
Allentoft, N., 2016. Danmark blandt første lande i EU til at ratificere klimaaftale fra Paris. Den Offentlige [online], 23 May. Available at: https://www.denoffentlige.dk/styrelser/gaester/men-regeringen-kritiseres-sort-miljoepolitik-danmark-blandt-foerste-lande-i-eu-til-ratificere
Altinget, 2020. Regeringen lukker grænsen. Altinget [online], 13 March. Available at: https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/regeringen-lukker-graensen-for-at-bremse-corona-smitten
American Institute of Physics, no date. Climate change in the 1970s [online]. Available at: https://history.aip.org/exhibits/climate-change-in-the-70s/index.html#section3
Angeli, F., Camporesi, S., and Fabbro, G.D., 2021. The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?’ Humanities and Social Sciences Communication [online], 8, art. no. 161. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00839-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00839-1
Auld, G., et al., 2021. Managing pandemics as super wicked problems: lessons from, and for, COVID-19 and the climate crisis. Policy Sciences [online], 54, 707–728. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09442-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09442-2
Blom, T., and Van Dijk, L., 2002. A theoretical frame of reference for family systems therapy? An introduction to Luhmann’s theory of social systems. Journal of Family Therapy [online], 21(2), 195-216. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00114
Buhmann, K., 2017. Changing sustainability norms through communicative processes: the emergence of the Business & Human Rights regime as transnational law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Campilongo, C.F., Amato, L.F., and De Barros, M.A.L., eds., 2021. Luhmann and Social-Legal Research: An Empirical Agenda for Social Systems Theory. London: Routledge.
Christensen, T., et al., 2023. The Nordic governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative study of variation in governance arrangements and regulatory instruments. Regulation & Governance [online], 17(3), 658-676. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12497 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12497
DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review [online], 48(2), 147-160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Hale, T., et al., 2020. Variation in government responses to COVID-19. Working paper. BSG-WP-2020/032. University of Oxford. Available at: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/BSG-WP-2020-032-v15.pdf [Last accessed on 31 January 2024].
Hermwille, L., et al., 2017. UNFCCC before and after Paris What’s necessary for an effective climate regime? Climate Policy [online], 17(2), 150-170. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1115231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1115231
IPCC, 1990/92. Climate Change: the 1990 and 1992 IPCC Assessments: Overview and Policy Makers Summaries and 1992 Supplement. WHO/UNEP.
IPCC, 2000a. Summary for Policymakers: Emissions Scenarios [online]. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf
IPCC, 2000b. Summary for Policymakers: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry [online]. Published for IPCC. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/land-use-land-use-change-and-forestry/
IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis report: Summary for policymakers [online]. Published for the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_TAR_full_report.pdf
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report: Summary for policymakers [online]. Geneva: IPCC [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., and Reisinger, A.]. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report [online]. Geneva: IPCC [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., and Meyer, L.A.]. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
IPCC, 2018. Summary for Policymakers. In: V. Masson-Delmotte et al., eds., Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report [online]. Cambridge University Press, 3-24. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001
IPCC, 2023. Synthesis report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) [online]. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
King, M., 1996. Self-Producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis by John Mingers (review article). Journal of Law and Society [online], 23(4), 601-605. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1410486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1410486
Lazarus, R., 2009. Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Future. Cornell Law Review [online], 94, 1153. Available at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/159/
Le Ravalec, M., Rambaud, A., and Blum, V., 2022. Taking climate change seriously: Time to credibly communicate on corporate climate performance. Ecological Economics [online], 200, 107542. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107542 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107542
Lilleholt, L., 2016. Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om Danmarks ratifikation af Parisaftalen [online]. 5 October. Available at: https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/ft/20161BB00002
Luhmann, N., 1986. The Self-reproduction of law and its limits. In: G. Teubner, ed., Dilemmas of law in the welfare state [online]. Berlin: De Gruyter, 111-127. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110921526.111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110921526.111
Luhmann, N., 1991. Operational Closure and Structural Coupling: The Differentiation of the Legal System. Cardozo Law Review, 13(5), 1419–1441.
Luhmann, N., 1992. The coding of the legal system. In: G. Teubner and A. Febbrajo, eds., European Yearbook in the Sociology of Law: State, law and economy as autopoietic systems: Regulation and autonomy in a new perspective. Milan: Guiffre, 146-186.
Luhmann, N., 1995. Social Systems. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N., 2015. Law as a Social System. Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1993).
Marin, C., 2020. Europe versus Coronavirus: Putting the Danish Model to the Test [online]. 12 May. Institut Montaigne. Available at: https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/europe-versus-coronavirus-putting-danish-model-test
McConnell, P.J., 2021. COVID-19 Pandemic – A Systems Thinking Approach [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3972869 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3972869
Morgan, M.J., 2022. COVID-19: A systems perspective on opportunities for better health outcomes. Geographical Research [online], 60(4), 637–650. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12561 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12561
Muralidar, S., et al., 2020. The emergence of COVID-19 as a global pandemic: Understanding the epidemiology, immune response and potential therapeutic targets of SARS-CoV-2. Biochimie [online], 179, 85-100. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2020.09.018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2020.09.018
Nobles, R., and Schiff, D., 2012. Using system theory to study legal pluralism: What could be gained?. Law & Society Review [online], 46(2), 265-296. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00489.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00489.x
Patel, R.R., and Dickson, R.J.L., 2022. Could COVID-19 mark a turning point for global action on climate change? Health Promotion Journal of Australia [online], 33(2), 320-323. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.527 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.527
Petroula,T., et al., 2004. Implementing the Kyoto Protocol in the European Community, International Review for Environmental Strategies [online], 5(1), 83-108. https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/peer/en/1160/IRES_Vol.5-1_83.pdf
Prime Minister’s Office (Statsministeriet), 2020. Pressemøde om COVID-19 11. marts 2020 [Press conference on COVID-19 11 March 2020] (online). Available at: https://www.stm.dk/presse/pressemoedearkiv/pressemoede-om-COVID-19-den-11-marts-2020/
Raghuvir, K., et al., 2020. COVID 19: Emergence, Spread, Possible Treatments, and Global Burden. Frontiers in Public Health [online], 8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00216
Rogowski, R., 2015. Autopoesis in Law. In: J.D. Wright, ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences [online]. Elsevier, 554-56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.86058-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.86058-4
Ruiu, M.L., Ragnedda, M., and Ruiu, G., 2020. Similarities and differences in managing the COVID-19 crisis and climate change crisis. Journal of Knowledge Management [online], 24(10), 2597-2614. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2020-0492 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2020-0492
Stiglitz, J.E., 2010. Overcoming the Copenhagen Failure. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy [online], 4(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5547/2160-5890.4.2.jsti DOI: https://doi.org/10.5547/2160-5890.4.2.jsti
Tamanaha, B.Z., 1997. Realistic Socio-Legal Theory: Pragmatism and a social theory of law. Oxford University Press.
Teubner, G., 1993. Law as an autopoietic system. Oxford: Blackwell.
Teubner, G., Nobles, R., and Schiff, D., 2005. The Autonomy of law: An introduction to legal Autopoiesis. In: J. Penner, D. Schiff and R. Nobles, eds., Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, 897-954.
Thornhill, C., 2023. Luhmann and constitutional sociology: Law and functional differentiation revisited. In: R. Rogowski, ed., The Anthem Companion to Niklas Luhmann [online]. London/New York/Melbourne/Delhi: Anthem Press, 15-36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.766968.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.766968.5
Tilsted, J.P., and Bjørn, A., 2023. Green frontrunner or indebted culprit? Assessing Denmark’s climate targets in light of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement. Climatic Change [online], 176, art. no. 103. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03583-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03583-4
UN, 1946. Constitution of the World Health Organization, adopted by 22 July 1946, with later amendments [online]. Available at: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=6
UN, 1992. Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNTS 1771 [online]. New York, 9 May. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7&chapter=27&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en
UN, 2015. Paris Climate Change Agreement, contained the report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session (FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1) [online]. Paris, 12 December. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/FCCC_CP_2015_10_Add.1.pdf
Unger, A., 2020. [Photo of press conference 11 March 2020]. Medwatch.dk [online]. Available at: https://photos.watchmedier.dk/watchmedier/resize:fill:1200:0:0/plain/https://photos.watchmedier.dk/Images/article13814211.ece/ALTERNATES/schema-16_9/doc7k27awtlsut14n3gclqv.jpg
WHO, 2020a. A Guide to WHO’s guidance on COVID-19 [online]. 17 July. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/a-guide-to-who-s-guidance
WHO, 2020b. Novel coronavirus press conference at United Nations of Geneva [online]. Transcription. 29 January. Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-script-ncov-rresser-unog-29jan2020.pdf?sfvrsn=a7158807_4
WHO, 2020c. WHO-AUDIO Emergencies Coronavirus Press Conference [online]. Transcription. 3 March. Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-full-03mar2020-final.pdf?sfvrsn=d85a98b8_2
WHO, 2020d. WHO press conference, COVID-19 [online]. Transcription. 5 March. Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-final-05mar2020.pdf?sfvrsn=3855ddcd_0
WHO, 2020e. WHO Emergencies Coronavirus Press Conference [online]. Transcription. 9 March. Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-full-09mar2020-(1).pdf?sfvrsn=d2684d61_2
WHO, 2020f. Virtual press conference on COVID-19 [online]. 11 March. Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-full-and-final-11mar2020.pdf?sfvrsn=cb432bb3_2
Yan, B., et al., 2020. Why Do Countries Respond Differently to COVID-19? A Comparative Study of Sweden, China, France, and Japan. The American Review of Public Administration [online], 50(6-7), 762-769. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942445 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942445
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Karin Buhmann, Jingjing Wu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
