4.5 Conclusion

Most countries and cities were unprepared for the outbreak of the pandemic in March 2020. The first stage of the pandemic was characterized by the activation of local authorities in all areas — the announcement of lockdowns, closure of learning facilities, the emergency reconfiguration of health care systems with the necessary hospital beds and medicines — in general, a quick response to an unfolding crisis. During the second stage of the pandemic, countries tried to learn how to live with COVID-19 and began exploring solutions to address its negative social and economic impacts. The next stage is the process of rebuilding and recovery: a phase that some countries began working on early on, in the first months of the pandemic, but which others (predominantly low-income countries with less resources to draw on) have yet to begin as they continue to struggle with the immediate effects of the virus.

The pandemic has shown that well-developed health infrastructure, while essential, is not in itself a guarantee of an effective emergency response. Some countries already had significant health infrastructure in place before the pandemic, but still lacked the relevant capabilities and knowledge to achieve positive results. On the other hand, countries that had experienced previous crises (such as the Ebola, SARS and Avian influenza epidemics) and built strong institutions, systems and processes as a result were generally able to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic more efficiently and effectively. Crucially, the most successful government strategies typically combined solid, adequately funded public health systems and specialized infrastructures (for example, emergency operations centres and monitoring systems) with community engagement and clear, transparent information and messaging. Cities that are open, communicative and participatory tend to secure popular support more easily, strengthening the resilience of societies and their willingness to fight together for a “common good”. Misinformation, uncertainty or lack of clarity, on the other hand, as well as the use of arbitrary or abusive extraordinary powers, only serve to generate distrust and resistance to government policies — thereby undermining the effectiveness of any response.

In this regard, the use (or misuse) of digital technologies (a process that has been dramatically accelerated by the pandemic) is telling. On the one hand, these innovations have transformed urban governance and proved indispensable in supporting responses to the pandemic. Some local governments, recognizing the opportunities that these new tools and data sources offer, have been quick to integrate them into their governance approaches. To this end, through tracking apps, remote meetings, online surveys and other e-government practices, many cities have transformed their approach to While the range of city and county contexts means there is no single approach that can or should be universally prescribed, it is clear from the very different examples showcased here that multi-level governance and an integrated approach generally help achieve the best results

Man using Aarogya Setu medical app launched by the government of India for self-assesment for COVID-19 symptoms © Shutterstock