Scientists assess Lithuania’s decline in COVID-19 management: at one stage we stand out from other countries

This is how the researchers from the Institute of International Relations and Political Sciences of Vilnius University described the current crisis in Lithuania and around the world, who implemented the study “Response of Lithuania and other Member States of the European Union (EU) to the pandemic of COVID-19: impact on public policies and emergency management ”.

During the first wave, Lithuania reacted quickly and severely, which later had a negative impact on the reaction to the second wave of the crisis, the autumn elections were influenced by the Seimas elections, the measures chosen were appropriate, but their implementation practice stalled.

“This was the first crisis of its kind in the history of Lithuania, when money was not the main problem, but there was a lack of management capacity and in some cases of trust between state institutions and society or companies”, described the crisis. Dr. Ramūnas Vilpišauskas.

It was seconded by prof. Dr. Vitalis Nakrošis. “The nature of the crisis required a specific response. It was a complex and confusing public health crisis that had far-reaching effects on the economy. Due to the lack of information and the high risk to public health, it demanded quick and innovative solutions. .

It was a chilling crisis that affected politicians, officials and other stakeholders, ”said the professor.

Lithuania stood out for the variability of the response

“We can speak of three stages. In February-March, all the countries of the European Union (EU) strongly tightened the management of the pandemic. Lithuania also did so and stood out for its austerity and speed of reaction. At the end of the Spring and especially in the summer, all EU countries liberalized the management of the virus and Lithuania was no exception. But Lithuania is distinguished by the fact that it released more than many other states. The third stage is the second wave “, – The dynamics of the crisis were defined by doc. Vytautas Kuokštis.

According to him, during the third stage, Lithuania was thought to have learned to handle the crisis, so that it would no longer be necessary to shut down as tightly during the second wave of the virus. However, in Lithuania, as in many other countries, a severe deterioration of the situation led to a return to a strict management policy.

According to V. Kuokštis, during the first wave, the environment of the coronavirus crisis was quite depoliticized and the role of experts was really important. The researcher noted that the large-scale releases seen in Lithuania in the summer were also typical of other countries that were quite successful in coping with the first wave of the virus. Countries with less successful first wave control have been more cautious.

Meanwhile, in autumn, when the epidemiological situation was deteriorating rapidly, Lithuania was forced to again impose extremely strict restrictions. “The second wave showed problems with contact tracing, revealed insufficient management skills related to competencies, insufficient coordination, analytical skills. Again, the initial success can be mentioned: this excess of security could be due to the fact that I was not sufficiently prepared for the second wave ”, explained the scientist.

He said the study revealed that the coronavirus had highlighted deep problems in the public sector. Although Lithuania in the EU was characterized by a high degree of flexibility in its response to the crisis, when the changing epidemiological situation, especially during the second wave, was subject to strict quarantine conditions, this could not be considered exclusively positive.

“Even with the best data, there will always be uncertainty. One of the biggest dangers is to calm down and think that we already know how to manage things. (..) In Lithuania, the variability of the response was one of the highest in the EU. This shows flexibility to respond to a situation. On the other hand, inconsistency makes it difficult for the population to meet changing requirements, “summarized V. Kuokštis.

The influence of the election was

“The Seimas elections may have had an impact due to the fact that priorities changed differently”, V. Kuokštis defined the impact of the elections on crisis management.

Professor V. Nakrošis pointed out that due to the elections to the Seimas in Lithuania, there was a serious lack of impartial assessment of the situation. However, Professor R. Vilpišauskas cautioned that the hypothesis raised during the investigation due to the influence of the Seimas elections was only partially confirmed.

“The hypothesis about the elections to the Seimas was only partially confirmed, because only some of the one-time payments approved in the summer for groups in society not directly affected by the crisis are related to the next elections,” detailed R. Vilpišauskas.

Not just a pandemic, but also an economic crisis

Professor R. Vilpišauskas drew attention to the nature of the crisis caused by the coronavirus.

Regarding the economic policy response, I would like to emphasize the nature of this crisis, because the response must be in line with nature. This crisis is special not only because it is a pandemic with all the consequences for human health and life, but it is also an economic crisis, arising both from the direct impact of the pandemic and in response to various measures that restrict economic activity. “What many analysts highlight is the supply and demand crisis,” explained the researcher.

When evaluating the nature of the crisis, according to R. Vilpišauskas, several analysts urged not to think about austerity and to manage expectations to prevent pessimism from prevailing in society.

“Do not think about saving, borrow, if necessary, to support companies, jobs, people’s incomes until the crisis passes. Respond quickly to the situation and manage expectations so that there is no panic or pessimism”, R. Vilpišauskas defined the general position of analysts in the management of the economy in crisis conditions.

The economic policy response to the crisis in Lithuania, as the study revealed, was of an appropriate nature, but the practical implementation of the response stalled.

As for Lithuania’s response, in terms of intentions, the response was swift in mid-March. Volumes compared to the EU, although unprecedented in Lithuania’s history, facing external shocks, but compared to other countries, were average, lower than average.

When implementation began, many support measures began to stagnate. By the way, the measures themselves were directed at both supply and demand. This was also in keeping with the nature of the crisis. But the biggest challenge was its practical implementation, especially due to the various preconditions to which the distribution of support was linked. This implementation has been slow, leading in part to the effectiveness of horizontal support measures, in particular tax deferrals.

Lithuania has learned, there is a lot of evidence for that. There was also direct communication with the ministers of other countries and the diplomatic service compiled material on how other countries reacted, but most of it was learned from their experience ”, R. Vilpišauskas summarized the reaction.