From SARS to COVID‐19: Crisis Governance and Institutional Learning in Taiwan
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management·
- DOI
- 10.1111/1468-5973.70225
- PMID
- —
- PMCID
- —
- OpenAlex
- —
- Study type
- Journal article
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The article offers an analytical account of Taiwan's pandemic preparedness trajectory and identifies conditions under which lessons from one public health crisis transfer (or fail to transfer) to a subsequent one, informing comparative crisis management scholarship.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The study examines how Taiwan's crisis governance evolved between the 2003 SARS outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2023), and what institutional learning mechanisms accounted for this transformation.
Study design
A diachronic comparative case study using documentary analysis of governmental, oversight, and secondary sources spanning 2003–2023, organized around five crisis leadership tasks and supplemented by governance capacity/legitimacy and crisis-induced learning frameworks.
Population and setting
Taiwan's crisis governance institutions and policy apparatus across the 2003 SARS outbreak and the 2020–2023 COVID-19 pandemic period.
Main findings
SARS prompted double-loop learning that produced legislative, organizational, and operational reforms (e.g., the National Health Command Center, revised communicable disease legislation, infection control protocols) supporting early-phase COVID-19 governance. Three boundary conditions of inter-crisis learning are identified: crisis-type specificity, temporal distance, and institutional scope.
Public-health relevance
The article offers an analytical account of Taiwan's pandemic preparedness trajectory and identifies conditions under which lessons from one public health crisis transfer (or fail to transfer) to a subsequent one, informing comparative crisis management scholarship.
Important limitations
The summary is limited to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata; no explicit limitations are stated in the abstract, and the original paper is required for decision-grade interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
The article is discoverable through crisis management and outbreak investigation classifiers and is contextualized to SARS and Taiwan within the published literature; this entry does not connect the paper to any live surveillance signal.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 5 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.