Theme Panel: Crisis, Credibility, and Control: The Politics of Expertise and Misinformation

July 24, 2025 APSA Annual Meeting, Theme Panels Comments Off on Theme Panel: Crisis, Credibility, and Control: The Politics of Expertise and Misinformation

Co-sponsored by Division 48: Health Politics & Health Policy

Full Paper Panel – Virtual Participation

Participants:

  • (Discussant) Adam Seth Levine, Johns Hopkins University
  • (Discussant) Ann C. Keller, University of California-Berkeley
  • (Chair) Matt Motta, Boston University School of Public Health

Session Description:

Global health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have exposed deep fault lines in political institutions, public health systems, and citizen trust. Disparities in state capacity, institutional design, and public perception of expertise have influenced health outcomes, particularly in polarized contexts. This panel examines how partisan dynamics, electoral incentives, and anti-establishment rhetoric shape responses to public health crises. Misinformation and evolving institutional roles during crises highlight the potential for governance structures to either mitigate or worsen public health challenges. The discussion addresses the strategic motivations behind misinformation and explores pathways for strengthening health governance to rebuild democratic accountability and restore public trust.

Tiago Tasca’s research examines subnational variation in Brazil’s vaccination decline, focusing on the Southern region. Using mixed methods, he finds that disparities in vaccination rates stem from differences in state capacity, public trust, and misinformation. Municipalities prioritizing high-complexity care over primary healthcare and regions with higher political distrust exhibit lower vaccination rates.

Sarah Rozenblum’s comparative analysis of the U.S. CDC and Korea CDC highlights how institutional design and political pressures shaped COVID-19 responses. While the U.S. sidelined its CDC in favor of ad hoc bodies, South Korea empowered its health agency. Her research underscores how electoral incentives and institutional capacity influence public health governance during crises.
Kasia Klasa’s four-state case study examines the evolving role of U.S. state legislatures in crisis response, focusing on their growing influence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her research reveals how legislative oversight reshaped executive authority and state-level disaster systems, highlighting how within-state partisan dynamics impact public health emergency governance and state capacity.

Robert Brehm’s research investigates whether vaccine skepticism has become a core component of Republican identity, aligning with broader anti-intellectualism and in-group cohesion. He examines the bidirectional relationship where strong Republican identifiers adopt anti-vaccine beliefs, while those with health-skeptic views increasingly align with the Republican Party, revealing how public health skepticism reshapes partisan identity and political behavior.
Praneetha Vissapragada’s study examines why populist politicians in the U.S. and India spread COVID-19 misinformation despite public health risks. She argues that misinformation serves populist goals by reinforcing anti-establishment narratives and personalizing power. Her analysis highlights how this strategy undermines democratic accountability and public trust while benefiting populist leaders politically.

These papers examine how political actors, institutions, and ideologies influence public health responses during crises. The panel highlights conditions that shape governance outcomes and demonstrate how misinformation and polarization complicate crisis management and how political considerations can exacerbate or work to resolve acute health crises, like pandemics. The discussion considers how institutional design, accountability, electoral politics, and communication strategies affect public trust and explores the challenges democratic institutions face in maintaining effective health governance.