The COVID-19 Global Response Index
From FP Analytics: A country-by-country assessment of government responses to the pandemic.
Updated: Sept. 4, 2020 | Published: Aug. 5, 2020
As governments around the world continue to grapple with the pandemic, FP Analytics has developed the COVID-19 Global Response Index to track countries’ responses to the novel coronavirus according to key metrics. While country rankings have been published by other organizations and publications, the Index is the first effort to track national leaders’ responses in critical policy areas, including public health directives, financial responses, and fact-based public communications—and is doing so on an ongoing basis. Initially released on August 5th, 2020, the Index was updated with the most recent data on September 1st, capturing some of the impacts of reopening.
FPA’s COVID-19 Global Response Index covers an initial set of 36 countries, including G20 nations as well as several other developing and middle-income countries that experts and epidemiologists have identified as having notable experiences with respect to COVID-19. This group represents an initial set of countries for which there is reasonably robust data availability as well as global geographic distribution and socio-economic and political diversity. While notable gaps in data and reporting remain, this Index endeavors to provide a framework to track government responses across multiple categories and will continue to be refined and expanded as more consistently tracked and disaggregated datasets become available and understanding of the virus can inform further Index weighting.
The Index and associated country profiles are based on global data tracked from December 31, 2019 through August 31, 2020. They are intended to illuminate major actions taken by governments to contain the spread of the virus, identify areas for improvement, and highlight promising practices to inform countries’ ongoing responses. The Index includes policy choices and actions across three (3) categories and produces a composite score. The composite score reflects actions taken not only to contain the virus, but to provide financial support amid the global financial shock, and ongoing, fact-based information to the public. Data availability and reporting continues to be a challenge; nonetheless, this project seeks to provide a more holistic view of countries’ responses to the pandemic across distinct variables. The data is supplemented with contextual information for each country to help paint a fuller picture of the dynamics affecting both leaders’ decisions and the virus’ spread. FPA’s COVID-19 Global Response Index will be updated periodically, adding to FP’s international COVID-19 coverage, expert dialogues, and special events that are convening pre-eminent leaders in global health, policy, and security from around the world.
The Index was developed with insights from social scientists, public health experts, and leading epidemiologists working at the forefront of the pandemic response, including those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the University of Oxford, the University of Michigan, the University of Maryland, the University of Massachusetts, UC-Irvine, and UC-Davis’ collaboration with USAID’s Emerging Pandemic Threats project, among others. We are grateful for their contributions.
Key Takeaways
Findings from the Index and supplementary research indicate:
Policy Attention Shifting from Prevention to Management
The initial data on cases and reopening of some economies illustrates a key point: The world will be combatting COVID-19 for some time. As countries continue opening up, the data clearly shows cases rising rapidly. While countries with higher Index scores have generally managed cases more effectively, even they have seen increases in the virus within their borders. This indicates that, until there is a tested vaccine that is accessible to a large share of the world’s population, countries are unlikely to eliminate COVID-19. However, it also shows that those with stronger policies and practices are likely to minimize the damage more effectively.
NOTE: case rates likely lag behind actual COVID-19 infections by up to 2 weeks.
LOCKDOWN LEVELS:
- Level 1: Officials recommend not leaving the house
- Level 2: Officials issue stay-at-home orders requiring that people not leave the house with exceptions for daily exercise, grocery shopping, and ‘essential’ trips
- Level 3: Officials issue stay-at-home orders requiring that people not leave the house with few exceptions (e.g. people are allowed to leave once a week or only one person can leave at a time); in some cases, monitoring of civilians is enforced
Early and Targeted Policies, Better Outcomes
Countries with higher index scores generally have better in-country status of COVID-19, including lower death and case rates, and positive test results. Preparation, targeted testing, and quick action have had impacts. However, several outliers skew the data. Lack of transparency in reporting likely boosts some countries’ outcomes, while early contact tracing and management—such as in Taiwan and South Korea—aren’t sufficiently captured, due to lack of disaggregated data. Contextual information enriches our understanding of each of these countries and will continue to inform and augment our analysis as additional data becomes available.
OVERALL COVID-19 INDEX SCORE AND IN-COUNTRY COVID-19 STATUS
Circle colors reflect categories on the vertical axis
Crisis Planning Has Facilitated Rapid Response
Planning and preparation for health-related crises have enabled rapid response and COVID-19 containment. Notably, lessons learned from H1N1 and Ebola have informed crisis planning and preparedness in Senegal, Taiwan, and Australia.
Clear Policy Directives Matter
Countries’ socio-economic and health security—and investment to those ends—strengthen capacity to respond but are insufficient to manage the crisis. Clear healthcare directives and early, targeted actions seem to have significantly impacted outcomes in many of the highest-scoring countries—notably New Zealand, Iceland, Senegal, and Ghana.
PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTIVES AND IN-COUNTRY COVID-19 STATUS
Circle colors reflect categories on the vertical axis
Early Investment in Emergency Healthcare Cushioned Impact
Early investment and strategic stockpiles of medical supplies and personal protective equipment have helped enable healthcare response, notably in Belgium and Finland.
Close Coordination with State and Regional Governments Is Key
Close coordination and clear communication among federal, state, and regional entities have been critical to resource allocation and policy directive implementation, notably in Australia, Canada, Germany.
Testing and Contact Tracing Have Been Game Changers
Contact tracing has been key to managing the crisis, notably in Taiwan, Germany, and South Korea, though data regarding the degree of tracing and efficacy is not yet sufficient or differentiated to reflect the importance and positive impact of these measures. In the case of Taiwan, utilization of data and analytics has enabled the country to effectively manage the crisis and avoid strict lockdowns. Widespread availability of testing has also enabled countries to quickly identify new outbreak clusters and implement quarantine protocols to prevent spread.
*Given data limitations with respect to contact tracing, Taiwan’s and South Korea’s successes are not adequately captured in the Index, but both are notable leaders in this regard and in overall management of the pandemic. Several countries that employed advanced and aggressive contact tracing mitigated their need to implement other major COVID-19-specific policy measures. Weighting measures have been employed to account for these outliers. Please refer to methodology for further detail.
Overall Funding and the Mechanism of Financial Support Matters
Financial support to companies—enabling them to keep workers on the payroll—and relatively strong worker wage support have helped to mitigate COVID-19’s economic fallout, notably in Japan, New Zealand, Germany and Denmark. These countries took both assertive action on the public health response and also passed considerable economic support to mitigate economic shocks, elevating their scores overall.
FINANCIAL POLICY AND IN-COUNTRY COVID STATUS
Circle colors reflect categories on the vertical axis
Misinformation Tends to Be Associated with Countries with High Case Rates
While not causal, the majority of countries whose leaders have engaged in the spread of misinformation are among those with the highest case rates, notably the U.S., Brazil, India, and Iran.
COUNTRIES WITH LOW COMMUNICATION POLICY SCORES AND OVERALL INDEX AND POLICY SUBCATEGORY SCORES
Bar color indicates rank on overall index or within policy subcategories
Challenges with Data from China
China scores the highest among the countries in terms of COVID-19 status, having relatively low case and death rates, as reported by the Central Government. However, China scores the lowest in the Index in terms of policy. Failure by Chinese authorities to consistently report data on key metrics, such as testing, as compared with other countries, as well as limited transparency on other metrics, results in data gaps, thus contributing to a low overall policy score. The gap is exacerbated by China scoring particularly low on the fact-based communications measure, which includes measuring press limitations on covering the pandemic.
Disproportionate Socio-economic Impacts Warrant Further Study
Countries with significant shares of migrant workers and large informal economies—including India, Brazil, and Kenya—face unique challenges, due to workers’ limited access to healthcare and mechanisms for extending financial support, putting these populations at exceptional risk.
Acknowledgements
FPA would like to acknowledge those working on the front lines of the pandemic and to thank the public health and policy experts who contributed to this study. We would also like to thank all of those working to systematically track and report COVID-19-related data, including the University of Oxford, the Johns Hopkins University, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a range of international institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the United Nations. FPA’s COVID-19 Global Response Index will continue to be updated with the help of these and other globally available databases.
Be the source of actionable insight.
Select one of the subscription options below to read the full Covid-19 Global Response Index. Unlock even more global intelligence with a subscription to FP Insider.
Already an FP Insider? Log In
Best Value
One-Year All Access
FP Insider
$450
1-year of full access to FP Insider exclusive content and subscription benefits
See benefits ▾
- All FP Analytics Special Reports, including the COVID-19 Global Response Index
- FP Analytics Power Maps
- Editorial conference calls
- Unlimited articles on ForeignPolicy.com
- Digital and print editions of FP’s award-winning magazine
- Print archive, containing 50 years of FP journalism
- Subscriber-only newsletters
- Security and defense news alerts
- Bonus episodes of FP podcasts
- FP mobile app
Hide benefits
One-Month
Limited Access
$99
30-day access to the Index only
Looking for group access? Contact us directly
Statistics and government response factors available on each country profile include:
Pre-COVID Conditions:
- Debt to GDP ratio
- Infant mortality rates
- Hospital beds per 1,000 people
- Gini coefficients measuring inequality
- Health access and quality
COVID-19 Public Health Directives:
- Stay-at home orders
- School-closing policy
- Public-gathering restrictions
- Cancellation of public events
- Testing policy and rates per 1,000 people
- Emergency healthcare spending per capita
- Travel restrictions
- Contact tracing
COVID-19 Financial Response:
- Stimulus package as a share of GDP
- Income support
- Debt-forbearance
Public Communications:
- Instances of misinformation by leadership
- Limitations on press freedom, censorship
Current/Historic In-Country COVID-19 Status:
- Death rates per 1 million
- Case rates per 1 million