During a global pandemic, individual views of government can be linked to citizens' trust and cooperation with government and their propensity to resist state policies or to take action that influences the course of a pandemic. This article explores citizens' assessments of government responses to COVID-19 as a function of policy substance (restrictions on civil liberties), information about performance, and socioeconomic inequity in outcomes. We conducted a survey experiment and analyzed data on over 7000 respondents from eight democratic countries. We find that across countries, citizens are less favorable toward COVID-19 policies that are more restrictive of civil liberties. Additionally, citizens' views of government performance are significantly influenced by objective performance information from reputable sources and information on the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on low-income groups. This study reinforces the importance of policy design and outcomes and the consideration of multiple public values in the implementation of public policies.

As of March 2021, the United States had nearly 1 million COVID-19 deaths. To aid families, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the Funeral Assistance Program. Using publicly available data, we examine the equitable utilization of FEMA's COVID-19 Funeral Assistance Program funding. Results show a significant relationship between FEMA COVID-19 Funeral Assistance Program funding and some, but not all, social vulnerability components. Specifically, counties with higher percentages of the population with disabilities and higher percentages of minorities receive lower amounts of funding per 100,000 residents. These findings suggest that FEMA's equity efforts are not fully materializing regarding the utilization of the FEMA COVID-19 Funeral Assistance Program funding among socially vulnerable groups. FEMA should broaden its social equity outreach and priorities for those not traditionally considered in social equity discussions, such as people with disabilities while continuing efforts toward traditional social equity.

The Save Our Seniors (SOS) program was created by local government officials in South Texas to vaccinate the community's most vulnerable citizens amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The Corpus Christi Fire Department (CCFD) collaborated with various local government entities and other organizations to identify individuals needing the vaccine but unable to leave home. The program was soon adopted statewide and beyond. Using data collected from interviews with the public officials and emergency management personnel responsible for the creation of the SOS program, this Viewpoint provides information about the collaborative efforts used to implement the program and offers best practices for collaboration in local emergency management.

This viewpoint reflects on basic aspects of American public health and politics that are making the COVID crisis response less effective than it might be. The performance of public service during a crisis depends as much on self-reflectiveness and hope as on the achievement of measurable results. Anthony Fauci is offered as an exemplar of authentic public service, understood as "living within the truth."

While Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) does not discriminate against particular groups, our social structures and systems mean some people are more at risk in a pandemic context-from both the disease and the social and policy responses to the pandemic. This is particularly so for people with disability, in part because they often have poorer health outcomes from underlying conditions but also due to discrimination and social exclusion. Here, we draw from a survey about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australian children and young people with disability and their families. Respondents faced a range of inequities prior to the pandemic, and COVID-19 has further exposed and often exacerbated them. We conclude that recent developments in the Australian disability context to personalize services have arguably made people with disability and their families less safe within a pandemic context, and we outline some ways in which these issues might be addressed.

.

As the architect of racial disparity, racism shapes the vulnerability of communities. Socially vulnerable communities are less resilient in their ability to respond to and recover from natural and human-made disasters compared with resourced communities. This essay argues that racism exposes practices and structures in public administration that, along with the effects of COVID-19, have led to disproportionate infection and death rates of Black people. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index, the authors analyze the ways Black bodies occupy the most vulnerable communities, making them bear the brunt of COVID-19's impact. The findings suggest that existing disparities exacerbate COVID-19 outcomes for Black people. Targeted universalism is offered as an administrative framework to meet the needs of all people impacted by COVID-19.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms govern in subtle yet fundamental ways the way we live and are transforming our societies. The promise of efficient, low-cost, or "neutral" solutions harnessing the potential of big data has led public bodies to adopt algorithmic systems in the provision of public services. As AI algorithms have permeated high-stakes aspects of our public existence-from hiring and education decisions to the governmental use of enforcement powers (policing) or liberty-restricting decisions (bail and sentencing)-this necessarily raises important accountability questions: What accountability challenges do AI algorithmic systems bring with them, and how can we safeguard accountability in algorithmic decision-making? Drawing on a decidedly public administration perspective, and given the current challenges that have thus far become manifest in the field, we critically reflect on and map out in a conceptually guided manner the implications of these systems, and the limitations they pose, for public accountability.

This paper presents evidence that the relevance of incentives to co-produce depends on the social-psychological context under which actors operate. We propose that context (including community attachment, trust in local authorities, ethnic diversity, unemployment level, and population density) moderates effect of incentives (utility of the co-produced service, monetary and reputational rewards, and social norms). Through a survey experiment carried out in 593 urban locations across 13 countries, we show that willingness to co-produce increases with community attachment and decreases with ethnic diversity of the local area. The relevance of utility and social norms as determinants of willingness to co-produce depends on the social-psychological context. Reputational and monetary rewards have limited effect, and their relation to the context is less clear. All incentives are largely irrelevant when actors operate in cooperation-conducive circumstances, where co-production is a value in itself. However, their importance as "tools" to encourage co-production arises under challenging contexts.

.

To understand the extent to which a policy instrument's early adoption is crucial in crisis management, we leverage unique worldwide data that record the daily evolution of policy mandate adoptions and COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. The analysis shows that the mask mandate is consistently associated with lower infection rates in the short term, and its early adoption boosts the long-term efficacy. By contrast, the other five policy instruments-domestic lockdowns, international travel bans, mass gathering bans, and restaurant and school closures-show weaker efficacy. Governments prepared for a public health crisis with stronger resilience or capacity and those with stronger collectivist cultures were quicker to adopt nationwide mask mandates. From a policy design perspective, policymakers must avoid overreacting with less effective instruments and underreacting with more effective ones during uncertain times, especially when interventions differ in efficacy and cost.

We discuss how public administrations have used crowdsourcing to find solutions to specific problems posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to what extent crowdsourcing has been instrumental in promoting open innovation and service co-creation. We propose a conceptual typology of crowdsourcing challenges based on the degree of their openness and collaboration with the crowd that they establish. Using empirical evidence collected in 2020 and 2021, we examine the extent to which these types have been used in practice. We discuss each type of crowdsourcing challenge identified and draw implications for public policy.

We explore the democratic implications of a reputational account of bureaucratic authority. While an influential literature has examined the relevance of reputation-and mutual exchange between principals and agents in public organizations generally-the normative implications of these insights have largely escaped scrutiny. We discuss how reputation-building impacts both the ability and the motivation of principals to oversee administrative policymaking. We argue that reputation-sourced authority eschews ex ante incentives through the claims-making and maneuvering of bureaucrats as they develop reputations with audiences. At the same time, it de-legitimizes ex post oversight because monitoring and compliance must compete both with reputational authority and with resistance from the audiences that are the very sources of such authority.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1111/puar.13259.].

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed fundamental flaws in the design of public administration in late democracies. While much writing to date focuses on the initial and vital responses to COVID-19, the magnitude of this event also furthers insights into the risks of incomplete institutional designs and practices, such as the case of Brazil, an example of the administrative flaws in late democracies. This article is not a critique of responses to COVID-19 per se, but an examination of these considering democratization processes that include state-building and the need for another push in administrative and political reforms. Shortcomings in state-building, which existed before COVID-19, inflict heavy costs on society and, if left unaddressed, add to the costs of future disasters and unraveling of support for state and democratic institutions.

In recent years, scholars have examined the barriers to accessing public assistance benefits. Research identifies learning, compliance, and psychological costs as deterring program use. Compliance costs reflect the burdens of following program rules, which may entail providing documentation, responding to discretionary demands of bureaucrats, or attending appointments to maintain benefits. Studies identify one element of compliance costs-quarterly appointments-as a barrier to continued WIC participation. This article draws on 44 in-depth qualitative interviews with participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). We examine how WIC participants perceive the reduction of compliance costs following the implementation of remote appointments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. WIC participants report satisfaction with remote appointments and a reduction in the compliance costs of accessing and maintaining benefits. We conclude by recommending longer term changes to policy and practices to increase access and continuity in WIC receipt.

COVID-19 provides numerous opportunities for policy makers to consider matters of social equity in relation to the field of public health. Specifically, by reflecting on health disparities in relation to the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on minority and historically underserved populations, we can leverage a needed discourse on health outcomes for many communities. Grounded in the social determinants of health conceptual framework, this essay explores the application of the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 to vulnerable populations and communities of color for a discussion of strategies for minimizing health disparities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has become an unprecedented health, economic, and social crisis. The present study has built a theoretical model and used it to develop an empirical strategy, analyzing the drivers of policy-response agility during the outbreak. Our empirical results show that national policy responses were delayed, both by government expectations of the healthcare system capacity and by expectations that any hard measures used to manage the crisis would entail severe economic costs. With decision-making based on incomplete information, the agility of national policy responses increased as knowledge increased and uncertainty decreased in relation to the epidemic's evolution and the policy responses of other countries.