Search

This study explores the rationale why some countries fare better in resolving social problems such as poverty and the COVID-19 pandemic. The simple model introduces the term of resident viability and points out that the solution to a social problem with a large ratio of nonviable to viable residents requires the mobilisation of more societal resources, and the affordable price ratio of societal to individual resources is determined by country characteristics such as the cultural background, political regime, ideology towards the free-market mechanism, government efficiency and social trust. This study also makes between-country comparisons and conducts preliminary regression analyses with cross-country data, and all the results are consistent with the model predictions on the relationship between country characteristics and country performances in fighting poverty and handling the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introducing the concept of viability, this study clarifies that the key to solving the poverty problem is to provide external assistance to nonviable residents. The study then proposes a simple model and explains that 1) although private market mechanisms are efficient for economic growth, public market mechanisms mobilizing societal resources are necessary and effective for poverty eradication; and 2) strong state capacity, competent leadership, and high social trust and support will benefit poverty eradication. The concept of viability and the model was further applied to compare the war on poverty in the US and the poverty alleviation plan in China in the following aspects: background and top design, public versus private market mechanism, leadership, social trust, and achievement. In addition, a cross-country investigation was conducted to obtain preliminary empirical evidence. The findings in this study support the concept and the model, which inspired us to provide some discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores what determines the selection of strategies by governments responding to COVID-19. To answer the question, we propose concepts of individual utility and societal utility and build a simple model. By applying the model, we predict that countries with an individualist culture would adopt more passive strategies while countries with a collectivist culture would adopt more active strategies. The comparison between strategies adopted in China and in the United Kingdom supports the prediction. Furthermore, as the spread of COVID-19 virus continues, governments' response may change and individualist countries may switch to more active strategies. So we extend our model to incorporate the dynamics of strategy selection, and explain the switch between passive and active strategies. We then predict in particular that facing the unexpected infections and deaths, the countries with an individualist culture would temporally adopt a relatively more active strategy responding to COVID-19. The evidence from Spain shows the dynamic feature of strategy selection as predicted by our model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]