Abstract
Abstract
Background
Emergency-use-authorization (EUA) is the representative biodefense policy that allows the use of unlicensed medical countermeasures or off-label use of approved medical countermeasures in response to public health emergencies. This article aims to determine why the EUA policies of the United States and South Korea produced drastically different outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how these outcomes were determined by the originations and evolutionary paths of the two policies.
Method
Historical institutionalism (HI) explains institutional changes—that is, how the institution is born and how it evolves—based on the concept of path dependency. However, the HI analytical narratives remain at the meso level of analysis in the context of structure and agency. This article discusses domestic and policy-level factors related to the origination of the biodefense institutions in the United States and South Korea using policy-learning concepts with the Event-related Policy Change Model.
Results
The 2001 anthrax letter attack (Amerithrax) and the 2015 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak prompted the establishment of biodefense institutions in the United States and South Korea, respectively. Due to the different departure points and the mechanism of path dependency, the two countries’ EUAs evolved in different ways—the United States EUA reinforced the Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) function, while the South Korea EUA strengthened the Non-Pharmaceutical Intervention (NPI) function.
Conclusions
The evolution and outcomes of the two EUAs are different because both policies were born out of different needs. The United States EUA is primarily oriented toward protecting homeland security against CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) threats, whereas the South Korea EUA is specifically designed for disease prevention against infectious disease outbreak.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy
Reference72 articles.
1. Buchanan L, Lai R, McCann A. US lags in coronavirus testing after slow response to outbreak: The New York Times; 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/17/us/coronavirus-testing-data.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
2. Hall PA, Taylor RCR. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Polit Stud. 1996;44:5.
3. Hay C, Wincott D. Structure, agency and historical institutionalism. Polit Stud. 1998;XLVI:951–7.
4. Hall PA, Taylor RCR. The potential of historical institutionalism: a response to Hay and Wincott. Polit Stud. 1998;XLVI:958–62.
5. Ha YS. Recent trends in new institutionalism: theoretical innovations and convergence. Korean Assoc Gov Stud. 2002;36(4):339–59.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献