新冠肺炎從2020年的年初開始席捲全球，成為當代影響全球經濟和國際政治最重要的事件，而若以染疫人口占總人口數的比率來看，民主國家在防疫的表現上並未明顯優於非民主國家的這個事實，也引起了政治制度孰優孰劣的辯論。針對這個現象，本文試圖回答「為什麼民主國家的防疫表現沒有比非民主國家來得好」以及「在什麼情況之下民主制度所擁有的優勢才能夠在防疫的表現上展現出來」這兩個問題。關於第一個問題，本文認為，由於民主國家通常全球化的程度較高，使得其在疫情初期的防堵上失去先機，再加上民主國家受限於民主的制度與規範，使得其難以採行嚴厲的防疫手段，因此民主國家在壓低染疫人口的比率上並未取得比非民主國家更好的防疫表現；關於第二個問題，本文認為，在非民主的政治制度中，基於其政治生存的邏輯，防疫表現不一定是政治領袖的重要施政目標，而在民主的政治制度中，雖然政府在民主的競爭壓力下有較高的誘因提供防疫的表現，但民主國家在防疫政策的形成和推動的過程之中牽涉到許多不同的政治行為者彼此之間的關係，而政治的穩定程度愈高的民主國家，其防疫政策在這之間所引發的「政治性衝突」的程度愈低，政府的防疫措施愈能被順利推動，因此政治穩定程度愈高的民主國家，防疫的表現愈好。來自全球140幾個國家的經驗證據支持了本文的論點。本文的發現也找回了「政治制度」在COVID-19防疫表現上的重要性。

The COVID-19 pandemic that has been sweeping the world since the early 2020 is the most important contemporary political and economic event. The fact that democracies do not outperform non-democracies in fighting the pandemic (in terms of the confirmed case percentage to their total population) aroused the debate about which kind of the political institutions is the better one. The goal of this study aims to answer the two questions about “why democracies do not outperform non-democracies in fighting COVID-19” and “when they will do so”. For the first question, I argue that because democracies tend to have higher degree of globalization and are more restricted by democratic norms, which make them often miss the golden window of pandemic preventing and are more reluctant to use coercive and severe restriction policies. As a consequence, democracies do not perform better than non-democracies that usually have lower degree of globalization and are more willing to use coercive and severe restrictions. For the second one, I argue that, due to the logic of political survival, in non-democracies, fighting against the spread of COVID-19 may not be their leaders’ priority, and the democratic leaders are more committed to epidemic prevention. However, since in democracies the formation and implementation of the anti-epidemic policies involve the interaction between the incumbent and the oppositions, the different government departments, and the central-local governments, the degree of political stability conditions how “political” the whole policy process is. In democracies that have higher degree of political stability, the anti-epidemic policies are more likely to be passed and obeyed because they arouse less political tensions between these different policy actors. Therefore, the positive influence of democratic institutions on epidemic prevention performance is stronger when the countries have higher degree of political stability. Empirical evidence from about 140 countries around the world supports my argument. The findings of this study also bring back the importance of countries’ “political institutions” in terms of their epidemic-prevention performances.