The securitization of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, Asia, and Oceania: Mixes of imbalanced securitizing narratives and measures

Abstract

Governments across the world resorted to different forms of narratives and measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. This study observed the responses of six administrations (China, Sweden, UK, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and New Zealand) through the lenses of the securitization theory as complemented with tailor-made methodological tools. Introducing the concept of the ‘securitization gap’ between the securitizing narratives’ intensity and the securitizing measures’ stringency this study argues that a consistency between the rhetoric’s intensity and measures’ severity did not impact the governments’ capacity to manage the COVID-19 outbreak. Further, this study finds a relation between the stringency of the securitizing measures and the management of COVID-19. Administrations that resorted to severe forms of securitization managed to spare more lives from the virus than administrations that did not enforce stringent securitizing tactics. Lastly, this study argues that the agreement of the general public with the securitizing narratives and the securitizing measures did not drastically influence the COVID-19 fatalities in the concerned case studies.