Policy for Pandemics 06: The challenge of intergovernmental coordination in a crisis
An effective response requires coordination of governments and institutions at all levels, and careful balancing of local interests against a threat that has no borders
The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged global policy makers in ways unheard of in most of our lifetimes. This newsletter provides short, accessible briefings on as many of the relevant policy challenges as possible, and throws in some fun stuff at the end. Today’s briefing is by Ian Peach, an expert on intergovernmental relations who is an instructor at the Max Bell School of Public Policy.
Governments trying to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic are finding themselves pushed in two competing directions. First, citizens expect their governments to act, and act quickly, to minimize the harm that the pandemic can do to them. In contrast, governments need to take the time to make sure that what they do is actually going to be effective. No government is an island; part of what is required to effectively respond to the crisis is some degree of intergovernmental coordination, so that all governments are working toward shared objectives and do not simply undermine the effectiveness of other governments’ efforts.
Effective intergovernmental coordination is required at all levels. As COVID-19 is a pandemic, the international community needs to work together both on strategies to minimize the spread of the virus around the globe and on developing, testing, and distributing vaccines or cures for the virus around the world as quickly as it is safely possible to do so. Regional organizations with governmental responsibilities, like the European Union, need to work with national and sub-national governments on common rules and region-wide initiatives to minimize the spread of the virus and effectively manage its effects.
National governments also need to ensure that rules are put in place and guidelines are widely disseminated that will protect their citizens from the introduction or spread of the virus, as must sub-national governments in federal states. In Canada, several provinces, particularly in the Maritimes, are introducing limits to interprovincial travel in an attempt to minimize the spread of COVID-19 in their provinces. Local governments, such as municipalities, school districts, and health regions, also must act within the limits of their authority to limit the spread of the virus and even those who run individual public institutions must ensure that their institutions do not inadvertently become epicentres of COVID-19.
The sheer breadth of the impacts of COVID-19 make this even more challenging. The coronavirus is a public health emergency, certainly, but it has also created an economic crisis. Actions to protect population health are having a significant economic impact, particularly on some portions of the population such as those in precarious employment. Decisions made for economic reasons, on the other hand, can have serious implications for population health.
We have recently seen both good and bad examples of the importance of intergovernmental coordination. Donald Trump’s attempt to make arrangements for exclusive access to a vaccine being developed to fight COVID-19 has enraged European leaders, and rightly so; exclusive ownership would undermine the health and safety of the world’s population and simply extend the length of time we will all be victims of the pandemic. And even as Trump talks about lifting restrictions on people to get the economy moving, many state governors are going in the other direction, musing about using their powers to impose further restrictions on gatherings and movement to protect their states’ populations.
On the other hand, Canada’s First Ministers and Ministers are talking to one another and acting somewhat in concert, in an attempt to ensure some coordination in how our governments respond to this crisis. They appear to be working together, within their respective jurisdictions, to protect Canadians from the spread of COVID-19 across the country.
One example of good intergovernmental coordination has come out of New Brunswick. Two doctors had been recruited to move to New Brunswick from England when the federal government shut our borders to international travel. A population health emergency is not a good time to limit access to health professionals; the closing of Canada’s borders could have created a real problem for New Brunswick. Instead, federal and provincial officials have worked out an arrangement that will allow these doctors to come to New Brunswick and work here after an appropriate period of quarantine.
How do we determine who should do what to effectively protect the public in the face of this pandemic? Luckily, we have some guidance. The European Union’s governance arrangements, for example, are built on the principle of subsidiarity. According to article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union, “Under the principle of subsidiarity, … the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, … but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.” In other words, decisions should be made by the level of government closest to the citizen that actually has the power to effectively implement the decision.
We have a similar principle in Canada, in what is known as the “national concern” doctrine to govern the federal government’s use of its residual power to regulate for the “Peace, Order and Good Government of Canada.” The national concern doctrine allows the federal government to act if a matter in need of regulation has a “singleness, distinctiveness, and indivisibility” that clearly distinguishes it from a matter that is in provincial jurisdiction. Another way to determine if a matter is one of “national concern” is to consider whether the failure of one province to act, such as by regulating an activity, would have an adverse effect on interests beyond the province. In other words, if the non-participation of one province in a scheme that relied on interprovincial coordination would lead to the failure of the scheme, the authority to act should rest with the federal government.
While these principles do not create hard and fast rules about who should do what, when, they provide good guidance about who should take the lead in developing and implementing a strategy to address something like the COVID-19 pandemic. Essential, though, is making a place for intergovernmental consultation and coordination, as well as acting. In balancing those two competing incentives is the art of effective emergency response. (IP)
Related reading
The Canadian government’s coronavirus information page got a very good upgrade
A good science explainer on the race to develop a vaccine
Has the coronavirus panic already cost us ten million lives?
Madagascar is celebrating its 60th anniversary, and planting 60 million trees for the occasion.
North Korea attacked the sea again
A second earthquake in less than a month struck the Montreal region
Follow: This Instagram account dedicated to pics of celebs arriving at movie premieres in the 90s, or this one about vintage Canadian houses for sale.
Read: How to focus on presence rather than productivity as an antidote to anxiety, by Alan W. Watts.
Listen: Katie Pruitt’s new country-folk album Expectations is full of glorious heartbreak
Watch: Norm Macdonald’s coronavirus-themed YouTube show Quarantined is the comedy we need
Policy for Pandemics is produced and edited by Andrew Potter and co-edited by Charlotte Reboul and Paisley Sim (bios here) If you have any feedback or would like to contribute to this newsletter, please send an email to andrew2.potter@mcgill.ca