Unlike local crises that typically unfold within closed community borders, global crisis is a phenomenon with the potential to affect people across geographic boundaries. From the 2008 financial crisis to climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, global crises reshape the lives of millions and cause economic uncertainty, disruptions in global supply chains, loss of life and livelihood, and even destabilization of international trade.
People’s reactions to global crises are rooted in their beliefs about the desirability of globalization and their self-determined positions on the political spectrum. Conservatives view national and international institutions as competitive trust referents, transfer blame for crisis mismanagement to the highest-ranked institution in their region, and promote adherence to national institutional advice in times of crises. Meanwhile, globalists see national and international institutions as collaborative trust referents, refrain from blaming international institutions for global crises, and support adherence to regional and global crisis-prevention guidance.
These findings suggest that policymakers should design strategies for increasing citizens’ tolerance of global crises and maximizing their well-being during these events. First, they should close cross-country impact gaps by diffusing expert knowledge from successful crisis handling countries to areas struggling locally by redirecting best practices and consulting with national governments. Moreover, they should communicate their contributions to crisis resolution at the country level to promote their credibility in the eyes of consumers. Finally, they should identify and address the drivers of regional differences in the onset and management of global crises (e.g., cultural or economic factors) to improve the efficacy of their interventions.