Small state, big example: Covid pandemic management in Bhutan
Small state, big example: Covid pandemic management in Bhutan
复制标题
小国家，大例子：不丹的新冠疫情管理
DOI：
10.1080/21624887.2021.1904359
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Kaul N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kaul N
在一个不平等现象严重和日益加剧的世界里，健康和福祉已被财富和地狱所取代，这一流行病是一个复杂的全球性事件，在各国境内和各国之间以不同的强度影响着不同的人口亚群。这一流行病及其应对措施必须迫使我们再次重新思考安全与权力的最根本方面。正如许多持批评态度的学者经常指出的那样，增加国防预算并不能保证人的安全，如果大国和强国的规模和实力不能转化为人民的福祉，那么这种想法就毫无意义。在这篇文章中，我反思了为什么像不丹这样的国家能够成功地控制这种流行病，而许多更大、更富裕的国家却没有。我一直在实质性地参与研究不丹超过十年半，在分析其过渡到民主和民主巩固2008年和2018年之间的工作，目前领导我的研究项目概念化的理解生物民主使用不丹作为一个范例，它探讨了政治，发展，在这个国家的决策生态层面。1不丹是一个喜马拉雅山小国，资源有限（低收入国家），但2020年没有一人因疫情而丧生。截至2021年3月下旬，不丹有一名患有慢性肝病和肾衰竭的34岁男子因新冠病毒相关死亡，他的COVID-19检测呈阳性，并在首都廷布的一家医院死亡（《不丹报告》，2021年）。虽然疫情暴利影响到富裕的先进民主国家，如英国，在授予合同时出现任人唯亲的指控，封锁政策往往混乱，但在不丹，从一开始，国家元首、政府、官僚机构和公民就团结起来，迅速和实质性地缓解了公共卫生危机（见Ongmo和Parikh 2020）。2020年3月，不丹的第一名新冠肺炎患者是一名美国游客，他的表现并不典型，但专门的程序和迅速的决策意味着他得到了识别和治疗。此外，那些照顾他的人被隔离和监测，并在事后提供创伤咨询（详情见LeVine et al. 2020）。2
In a world with drastic and exacerbating inequalities where health and well-being have been supplanted by wealth and hell being, the pandemic is a complex global occurrence that affected different subsets of populations with variable intensity within and across national borders. The pandemic and the responses to it must force us yet again to rethink the most fundamental aspects of security and power. As many critical scholars have often argued, human security is not assured by increased defence budgets, and the idea of big powers and strong states mean little if that size and strength cannot translate into the well-being of the population. In this article, I reflect upon the reasons why a country like Bhutan has been able to successfully manage the pandemic in a way that many larger and wealthier nations have not. I have been substantively involved in studying Bhutan for over a decade and a half, having worked on analysing its transition to democracy and democratic consolidation between 2008 and 2018, and currently leading my research project on conceptualising an understanding of biodemocracy using Bhutan as an exemplar, which examines the political, developmental, and ecological dimensions of policymaking in this country. 1Bhutan is a small Himalayan country with significant resource constraints (a low-income country) and yet it did not lose a single person to the pandemic in 2020. As of late March 2021, there has been one Covid-related death in Bhutan of a 34-year-old man with chronic liver disease and renal failure, who tested positive for COVID-19 and died at a hospital in the capital Thimphu (“Bhutan reports,” 2021). While pandemic profiteering affects wealthy advanced democracies like the UK where allegations emerged of cronyism in the awarding of contracts and the lockdown policies were often shambolic, in Bhutan, from the very outset, the head of state, the government, the bureaucracy, and the citizenry came together to swiftly and substantively mitigate the public health crisis (see Ongmo and Parikh 2020). The first Covid patient in Bhutan in March 2020 was an American tourist, whose presentation was atypical, yet the dedicated procedures and swift decisionmaking meant that he was identified and treated. In addition, those attending to him were isolated and monitored, and provided with counselling for trauma afterwards (for details, see LeVine et al. 2020). 2
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
N. Kaul
通讯作者：
N. Kaul