Qualitative comparative analysis of policies implemented by 26 European countries during the 2020 great lockdown

Introduction During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, from March 1 to April 15, 2020, significant variations emerged among countries regarding the implementation of lockdown policies. During this period, viewed strictly from an epidemiological perspective, lockdown measures are considered the most effective means of containing a pandemic. However, the adoption of such measures varied, raising questions about whether the reluctance or failure of countries to implement lockdown policies reflected a disregard for epidemiological knowledge or stemmed from an inability to enforce these measures. Methods This article employs Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) with 26 European countries as case studies to investigate under what combination of conditions a country would implement lockdown policies. Results The QCA results identify three distinct combinations of conditions that lead countries to implement lockdown measures. First, countries with relatively concentrated political power are more likely to implement lockdown policies. Among the 10 countries governed by a majority party or majority coalition within a two-party or moderate multi-party system, seven implemented lockdown policies. Second, in cases of relatively dispersed political power, countries facing state fragility risks are more likely to implement lockdown policies. Among the eight countries that meet both conditions, five implemented lockdown policies. Finally, factors such as political heritage, severity of the pandemic, demographic composition, healthcare access, quality standards, and the ruling party’s ideology play a lesser role in the decision to enact lockdown measures. Discussion This article offers a novel perspective on the dynamics of party politics and state capacity in the context of decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. It contributes to a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship between political systems and public health crisis management, highlighting how various political and governance factors influence the adoption of public health interventions during crises.