Managing COVID-19 Crisis in Lithuania: What Can We Learn?

In the spring of 2020, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) named Lithuania as the fourth country dealing most effectively with a crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, when the second wave of the pandemic struck in the autumn, Lithuania met it with relatively mild measures, and at the end of the year it established itself among the world countries with the highest number of the infected.

Researchers from the Institute of International Relations and Political Science of Vilnius University (VU IIRPS) conducted a study to compare the health and economic policy response of Lithuania and the EU to the COVID-19 crisis, assess its impact on public policy and governance and recommend how to respond more effectively to crises of this nature in the future. The study showed that the complex health crisis had highlighted the need to strengthen the resilience of the public sector. “In managing this crisis, Lithuania lacked the resilience of the public administration system, which could help us to adapt more quickly to new realities and be better prepared for the second wave of the pandemic,” pointed out Vitalis Nakrošis, head of the project “Lithuania and other EU Member States’ response to COVID-19: impact on public policy and emergency management”.

What was Lithuania and other EU countries’ response to COVID-19 crisis?

Comparing the response of Lithuania and other EU member states to the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers noted that at the beginning of the pandemic Lithuania’s reaction was early and strict in the general context of the EU countries. According to Assoc. Prof. Vytautas Kuokštis, "the initial reaction should be regarded as appropriate – this can be explained by decision-making in a relatively depoliticized environment, based on the prevailing global pandemic paradigm, recommendations of medical experts and the experience of other countries." He underlined that more liberal measures were applied in the summer due to objective reasons and the fact that EU countries that were more successful in controlling the first wave were more inclined to loosen restrictions.

Prof. Ramūnas Vilpišauskas says that “the announcement of the economic support package was coordinated with the response in the field of health care (the declaration of quarantine in Lithuania), the planned scope of support was average compared to other EU countries, and the measures envisaged for the operation of health and public protection systems, the preservation of jobs and income of the population, business liquidity and economic stimulus were quite similar to the measures introduced by other EU countries.”

Crisis exposed weaknesses in the public sector’s capacity

Despite the fact that the economic stimulus package was announced relatively instantly, the absorption of aid was complex and, therefore, slow. The researchers found that although the response to the COVID-19 crisis was adequate, key challenges were encountered since the implementation of the response. According to Prof. Vilpišauskas, those economic policy measures the use of which required the least involvement of administrative institutions produced the fastest results: “It is not enough to provide financial resources. In response to the crisis, the “bottleneck” may not be a lack of money, but the ability to distribute it quickly, transparently and accurately.”

“An important factor behind the problems of implementation efficiency is insufficient skills of managing the country,” says Assoc. Prof. Kuokštis. In his words, the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted gaps in the systemic skills of public sector workers: difficulties have been encountered in ensuring inter-institutional and cross-sectoral cooperation and coordination of resources. Digital governance challenges are also important: countries that are more advanced in this area have managed the pandemic more successfully.

The researchers highlight that in the spring, as the process of distributing business support was delayed, the government, following the first weeks of quarantine, responded to criticism, learning from the experience and practice of other EU countries. However, this process was hindered by the fact that the most important role in crisis management was played not by career civil servants but by politicians and politically confident officials who went into opposition after the Seimas elections. Public conflicts between those in power and the opposition, and the insufficient involvement of experts and other groups of society, also show a lack of leadership in crisis management.

Strengthening resilience and adaptability in the public sector is the key to success

Prof. Nakrošis supposes that the preparation for systemic threats must not be limited to crisis forecasting, prevention and control. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that crises are difficult to predict, so it is important to strengthen the resilience of the public administration system and individual institutions.

“Most of the decisions taken during the COVID-19 crisis were aimed at controlling the current situation and dealing with the challenges that arose at the time, without systemic change and without establishing strategic principles that could help to overcome this type of threat in the future. However, it must be acknowledged that some adaptation has taken place – interinstitutional cooperation has been transformed, the excess hierarchy has weakened, and the capacity to work together dynamically has developed,” says Prof. Nakrošis.

A research study prepared on the basis of the project “Lithuania and other EU Member States’ response to COVID-19: impact on public policy and emergency management” financed by the Lithuanian Science Council will appear in bookstores in 2021. The study analyzes COVID-19 crisis management in terms of the complex interplay between crisis type, crisis response and its management paradigms, governance capabilities, government legitimacy, political context (2020 Seimas elections), crisis management structure and other factors.

Based on the material collected during the study, the researchers provide specific recommendations covering a wide range of public policy and governance proposals and present a detailed description of the optimal crisis management model. Given the lack of an impartial and objective assessment of the situation during the COVID-19 crisis, this study will also be useful as a systematic summary of lessons learned from crisis management.