LIFE AND DEATH CONSEQUENCES: WHY DO COUNTRIES NOT FOLLOW RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION DURING PANDEMICS?

Abstract

The recent Covid-19 pandemic has put the issues of public health crises, and the institutions that address them, at the forefront of the world’s scrutiny. Specifically, the World Health Organization has been getting more attention as a result of this crisis. A common recommendation made during pandemics by the World Health Organization is that countries should not impose travel and trade barriers. However, numerous countries ignore these recommendations and place barriers anyways. This thesis examines the reasons behind why countries ignore these recommendations. One theory assessed is the political cover explanation which explains that democracies with weak healthcare infrastructure might not follow recommendations in order to demonstrate to their citizens that they went above and beyond in terms of containing the disease and are thus not at fault for the loss of life. The second explanation is the protectionist explanation which describes how protectionist countries might use pandemics to impose barriers to a greater extent than they normally can since they can use the excuse of imposing barriers to protect health and safety.

Specifically, I investigate the H1N1 and Cover-19 pandemics in-depth. I examine case studies from both pandemics and perform regression analyses (logistic and hazard models) in order to see which of the two explanations is more likely to be accurate. The results ultimately point to the protectionist explanation as being the more likely one. However, some of the research, particularly the regression analyses, is inconclusive, and thus further investigation is recommended. This analysis will be useful for identifying which countries are unlikely to listen to recommendations in future public health crises and finding ways to convince them to follow recommendations.