Salma Hichri (p), Hanene Ben Ouada Jamoussi (p), Walid Keraani

Andrés Rodríguez-Pose

The pandemics history teaches us that they are most often the result of environmental, food, health, economic and migratory crises. The emergence of Covid-19 is due to a deep degradation of nature and changes of lifestyles. This concerns in particular the industrial breeding of animals and massive deforestation. Forcing animals to move, these phenomena favor the transmission of pathogens from one species to another and cause the spread of pandemics, like the spread of Ebola or Zika. Pandemics subject countries to hardships and adverse impacts regardless of their level of development. It is to be expected that those countries that have experienced the greatest degradation of their livelihoods will be the most vulnerable and affected by the pandemic. At the same time, it can also be expected that those countries that are better endowed and equipped are those that can better combat the pandemic and cope with its effects. It would then be important to explore the spatial-temporal epidemic dynamics and to have spatio-temporal information on the magnitude, geographic pattern of transmission, hotspots, potential risk factors and impacts of the pandemic in a large group of countries to test our hypotheses. An epidemiospatial approach is an effective strategy to provide the prior understanding necessary for any public health action. It is now facilitated by the sophistication of mapping tools and methods, geographic information systems and spatial modeling (Gatrell, 2002). Referring to the geographical distribution of regions (Africa, America, Europe, South-East Asia, Western Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean Region) provided by the WHO, we collected data on Covid19 illnesses and deaths as a proportion of the total population and other variables such as hours of work lost due to Covid19. Contrary to expectations, the regions that are supposed to be best resourced and resilient (America and Europe) are the ones that have suffered the most from the pandemic in terms of incidence and mortality. Is it a question of policy failure? Should we review the means and tools of assesement or the "Coronametrie" ? Or is it rather a deep-seated failure that the Covid 19 shock has brought to the surface?

Andrés Rodríguez-Pose (p), Miquel Vidal-Bover

Boglárka Barsi

The Covid-19 pandemic has precipitated a surge in the number and scope of governmental interventions, both in centralised and decentralised states. Theories of decentralisation and recent empirical studies suggest that highly decentralised tiers of government are more resilient to shocks and thus cope better in times of adversity. Yet, little is known about the link between the level of decentralisation and the aftermath of the Covid-19 health crisis. Using an original dataset of 445 regions across 27 OECD countries, this article finds that what lies behind lower or higher Covid-19 mortality rates is not the degree of fiscal and political decentralisation, but rather the mismatch between the two dimensions, also known as unfunded mandates. Whilst higher degrees of fiscal decentralisation may sometimes lead to fewer Covid-19 deaths, the presence of large unfunded mandates shows a positive, statistically significant and robust relationship with Covid-19 mortality rates, thereby offsetting any benefits of greater fiscal decentralisation. Hence, better —not more— decentralisation is needed, as unfunded mandates pose a dangerous threat to the capacity of subnational authorities to address the Covid--19 emergency. In an emergency situation, the dysfunctionality caused by unfunded mandates represent a fundamental threat to the effectiveness of the response of the relevant public authorities to pressing challenges.