September 21, 2023 | Rossella Vulcano
To comply or not to comply? Rule compliance in the Covid-19 era
Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, our societies experienced for the first time exceptional regulations to limit the spread of the virus. Rule compliance ensures the effectiveness of regulations for the public gain—public safety, in the case of Covid-19. Therefore, governments hoped to foster total compliance with pandemic regulations.
Nevertheless, while some people complied with anti-Covid regulations, others took the streets to protest, or silently did not comply. Protests and silent rule non-compliance have a significant impact on social and political stability by influencing it in different ways.
The lack of understanding of why some people comply, others protest and others silently do not comply with similar Covid-19 regulations reveals complicated and still unfolding dynamics of developing rule compliance. This makes it necessary to study rule compliance in the Covid-19 era, and formulate policy suggestions to increase rates of compliance in future crises.
Governmental and public responses to Covid-19
In March 2020, the fast-paced spread of the respiratory syndrome caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus moved asymmetrically from its epicentre to 114 different countries, causing over 118,000 cases. Due to its expansion, the World Health Organization classified the Covid-19 disease as a pandemic.[i]
Europe was the second and the hardest hit continent by the Covid-19 first wave. However, Covid-19 did not affect Europe in a uniform fashion. Its outbreak moved from the bigger urban centres in Western Europe gradually towards Eastern Europe. Highest mortality rates were recorded in Belgium, the UK, and Italy, and severe economic consequences in Greece, Spain, and Italy.[ii] As a result, governments at all levels strove to limit the spread of the virus by implementing various containment policies[iii], which involved the restriction of civil rights and a decrease in governmental democratic quality.[iv]
Despite the share of common political and cultural set-ups, European Union member states implemented different sets of policies. For instance, the Netherlands adopted the fewest exceptional measures during the first wave of Covid-19, as opposed to France, whose measures spanned the whole gamut of exceptional policies: state of emergency, restrictions of fundamental rights, and civil liberties, restrictions of daily liberties, closures or lockdown, suspension of international cooperation and commitments, police mobilisation, army mobilisation, government oversight.[v] Consequently, each EU member state experienced different rates and forms of citizens’ responses.
According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) (2022) dataset Lithuania, Malta, Luxembourg, Latvia, and Croatia experienced lower rates of protest, while Italy, France, Germany, and Spain experienced protest rates above the EU average. Only Estonia and Lithuania experienced no riots in 2020.[vi] Additionally, social outcomes appeared in different forms cross-nationally, such as riots, protests, silent non-compliance, and full compliance. For instance, according to the YouGov Covid-19 behaviour tracker, there were significant differences in the rate of mask-wearing across EU countries. For instance, in May 2020 France and Spain recorded very different mask-wearing rates—much higher in the former than in the latter—despite being faced with similar rules.[vii] In addition, according to ACLED, in the same timeframe France recorded 152 protest episodes, while Spain only 35 (ACLED). This indicates very different compliance rates and, more generally, social outcomes in the two countries.[viii]
The social and scientific relevance of studying rule compliance
Existing literature has identified regulation stringency and time elapsed as two significant factors influencing rule compliance. Specifically, a higher rate of stringency decreases the rate of rule compliance[ix], and the longer people experienced the Covid-19 pandemic and connected regulations, the more likely they were discomforted and therefore complied less with the rules.[x]
Nevertheless, empirical evidence also shows that citizens reacted differently to similar levels of stringency in Covid-19 in similar time frames. Currently, there is no explanation for such a divergence.
Understanding the reasons behind different patterns of rule compliance is socially relevant for three main reasons. Firstly, the lack of volunteer rule compliance decreases the effectiveness of rules, and their impact on the public. Through a micro-simulation for epidemiological modelling, for instance, Ferguson and co-authors assessed that compliance with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) decreases the runaway of the Covid-19 spread.[xi]
Secondly, governmental restrictions are more effective and less costly whenever population behaviour changes spontaneously. Indeed, the implementation of coercive measures such as sanctions and monitoring systems to enforce the Covid-19 regulations was not always successful.[xii]
Lastly, the different forms of rule non-compliance, such as protests and silent non-compliance, lead to a number of detrimental consequences for society. Protests might lead to public clashes, injuries, and damage to public spaces, while silent rule non-compliance might lead to subtle disruption or shift in social norms.
Rossella Vulcano is a PhD student at the Department Behavioural and Social Science, Sociology/ICS at the University of Groningen.
[i] WHO (2020). WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March.
[ii] EPSON (2022). Geography of COVID-19: Territorial impacts of COVID-19 and policy answers in European regions and cities.
[iii] OECD (2020). The territorial impact of COVID-19: Managing the crisis across levels of government. OECD.
[iv] Massart, T. et al. (2021). The Resilience of Democracy in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Politics of the Low Countries, 3(2), 113–137.
[v] Tziafas, de Saint-Phalle, de Vries, Egger, & Caselli (2021). A Multilingual Approach to Identify and Classify Exceptional Measures against COVID-19. University of Groningen.
[vi] Raleigh, Clionadh, et al. (2022). Introducing ACLED-Armed Conflict Location and Event Data. Journal of Peace Research.
[vii] Fenn, A. (2020). Face masks: what are the rules in EU countries? CGTN.
[viii] Raleigh, Clionadh, et al. (2022). Introducing ACLED-Armed Conflict Location and Event Data. Journal of Peace Research.
[ix] Pfaff, K., Neumayer, E., & Plümper, T. (2021). What Affects the Distribution of Protests against Coronavirus Measures? Conflict Trends.
[x] Six, F. et al. (2021). What drives compliance with COVID-19 measures over time? Explaining changing impacts with Goal Framing Theory. Regulation & Governance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12440
[xi] Ferguson, N. et al. (2020). Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand. https://doi.org/10.25561/77482
[xii] Six, F. et al. (2021). What drives compliance with COVID-19 measures over time? Explaining changing impacts with Goal Framing Theory. Regulation & Governance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12440