Singapore's COVID-19 crisis decision-making through centralization, legitimacy, and agility: an empirical analysis

Background: Decision-making during health crises differs from routine decision-making and is constrained by ambiguity about evolving epidemiological situations, urgency of response, lack of evidence, and fear. Recent analyses of governance and decision-making during COVID-19, focusing on leadership qualities, involvement of specific stakeholders, and effective resource management, do not adequately address a persisting gap in understanding the determinants of decision-making during health crises at the national level. Methods: We undertook a study to understand the processes and characteristics of decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. We used a case study approach and collected empirical evidence about public health decision-making, using a combination of key informant interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders from government, academia and civil society organizations. Findings: We argue that administrative centralization and political legitimacy played important roles in agile governance and decision-making during the pandemic in Singapore. We demonstrate the role of the Singapore government's centralization in creating a unified and coherent governance model for emergency response and the People's Action Party's (PAP) legitimacy in facilitating people's trust in the government. Health system resilience and financial reserves further facilitated an agile response, yet community participation and prioritization of vulnerable migrant populations were insufficient in the governance processes. Interpretation: Our analysis contributes to the theory and practice of crisis decision-making by highlighting the role of political and administrative determinants in agile crisis decision-making. Funding: This study is funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through a Cooperative Research Agreement (NU2HGH2020000037).