When responding to large-scale crises

The document analyzes how governments in Norway, France, and the UK moved beyond legal enforcement to motivate citizens during COVID-19 lockdowns. It identifies three evolving strategies: using national narratives to legitimize responses, managing public expectations through data and trust to 'lock in' policies, and eventually differentiating duties based on political preferences. The authors argue that civic duties are co-determined by states and citizens, warning that a shift toward differentiated duties could allow privileged groups to avoid the costs of public obligations.

• Liberal democratic governments cannot rely solely on legal enforcement for society-wide responses; they must actively motivate citizens to participate by balancing the promotion of civic duty with the inspiration of political virtue.
• Initial government strategies focused on 'locking down' society by employing deep-seated national narratives to legitimize strict policies: the UK evoked the 'Blitz' spirit of WWII, Norway used the communitarian tradition of 'dugnad', and France framed the response in quasi-militarised terms with the president as 'Commander in Chief'.
• As the pandemic progressed, governments shifted to 'locking in' policies by managing political and economic costs through the use of data and outcomes to demonstrate agency, while tailoring enforcement based on national culture: France used authoritarian policing, the UK used fines and shaming, and Norway emphasized self-policing.
• In the later stages, governments adopted a strategy of 'locking out' universal arguments in favor of politically and legislatively differentiating society, often showing sensitivity to core constituencies while marginalizing others, such as President Macron's critiques of the unvaccinated.
• The enactment of civic duties during crises is co-determined by both the state and its citizens; government policies are ultimately influenced by citizen preferences, meaning the duties actually performed are those that both parties can agree to live with.
• There is a risk that the trend toward 'neoliberal' citizenship is leading to individually differentiated duties, where privileged citizens may opt out of the private costs of public duties while marginalized groups bear a disproportionate burden.

APA

Reid-Henry, S., & Geissinger, A. (2023). When responding to large-scale crises. Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/e39e1e94-c9c9-47c8-a840-e074de0142f8/Reid-Henry and Geissinger - Collective Action COVID-19 and Strategies of Engagement PRIO Policy Brief 06-2023.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Reid-Henry, Simon, and Audrey Geissinger. When responding to large-scale crises. Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2023. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/e39e1e94-c9c9-47c8-a840-e074de0142f8/Reid-Henry and Geissinger - Collective Action COVID-19 and Strategies of Engagement PRIO Policy Brief 06-2023.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Reid-Henry |first1=Simon |last2=Geissinger |first2=Audrey |title=When responding to large-scale crises |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=June 2023 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/e39e1e94-c9c9-47c8-a840-e074de0142f8/Reid-Henry and Geissinger - Collective Action COVID-19 and Strategies of Engagement PRIO Policy Brief 06-2023.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{reidhenry2023when, author = {Reid-Henry, Simon and Geissinger, Audrey}, title = {{When responding to large-scale crises}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2023}, month = jun, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/e39e1e94-c9c9-47c8-a840-e074de0142f8/Reid-Henry and Geissinger - Collective Action COVID-19 and Strategies of Engagement PRIO Policy Brief 06-2023.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }