Policy capacity and co-production in crisis response: a comparative analysis of COVID-19 management in Hong Kong and Singapore

Purpose This paper investigates the interplay between policy capacity dimensions and state-society co-production during crises. Through analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore’s COVID-19 management, it examines how variations in policy capacity configurations, particularly political and integration capacities, shaped societal engagement. Design/methodology/approach A comparative case study methodology analyzes Hong Kong and Singapore’s pandemic responses (2020-2022). This study uses secondary qualitative data, including government documents, academic research, news archives, and public health statistics, to compare policies and state-society interactions. Findings Both city-states possessed strong analytical and operational capacities, but outcomes differed based on political and integration capacities. Singapore leveraged high public trust and effective coordination for state-directed, high-compliance co-production (e.g., vaccination, contact tracing). Hong Kong, facing a trust deficit and coordination challenges, experienced fragmented co-production with mandated compliance alongside autonomous civil society action. Political and integration capacities critically determine the state’s ability to mobilize society and the resulting co-production modes. A reciprocal relationship exists between state actions, trust, and cooperation, influencing outcomes via feedback loops. Originality/value This study offers a nuanced analysis beyond state strength, showing how specific capacity dimensions (political/analytical/operational) shape crisis governance and co-production. It illuminates mechanisms linking capacity configurations to co-production forms and highlights the crucial roles of trust and policy coherence, providing insights for understanding crisis management and building resilient state-society relations.