In a recent NY Times opinion, David Wallace-Wells argues that ‘COVID remade America’ (2025), turning Americans into ‘hyperindividualists’ and ushering humanity into a new age of social ‘Darwinism’ where survival became a measure of merit. The pandemic became a ‘morality tale’ in which people’s fate was ultimately every person’s individual responsibility, similar to the framing of the crisis in Sweden. Wallace-Wells notes that “COVID destabilized and undermined politics almost everywhere,” pointing out that most people, even liberals, have grown skeptical of political institutions—though they cannot agree on how these institutions have failed them (ibid.).

Moreover, according to a recent report on the state of democracy by the V-Dem Institute in March 2025, we now live in a world with fewer democracies (N=88) than autocracies (N=91), indicating a truly global wave of autocratization (Nord et al., 2025). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Nordic countries each adopted unique regulatory approaches, leading to varying health outcomes and different experiences of the pandemic among citizens (Nguyen Duy & Stokstad, 2024). Recent studies highlight that among the five Nordic countries, Sweden and Denmark experienced the most significant public health crises. Policy choices and regulatory instruments significantly influenced the pandemic’s course and consequently, the public health outcomes (Heggebø & Pedersen, 2024).

As Egger et al., (2021) emphasize, crisis policymaking’s primary objective is to manage the disruptive impacts of crises on individuals, institutions, and societies. Decision-makers are primarily concerned with policy enforcement and stringency, perhaps less with citizen-based experiences and subsequent perceptions, which are important for the legitimacy of the process of crisis governance (e.g., representation and accountability, legality of measures and rule of law) (Grogan, 2022; Schmidt, 2013). However, exceptional measures can undermine democratic legitimacy, potentially leading to democratic backsliding (Edgell et al., 2021; Fiorina, 2023).

Echoing this sentiment, (Greene, 2022) explores the relationship between emergencies, policy perceptions, and illiberalism. He argues that liberal values may be temporarily suspended and potentially lead to permanent illiberal transformations during emergencies, by pleas to necessity and technocratic solutions. Other studies show that the willingness of citizens to sacrifice democratic principles for effective crisis management depends on their personal experiences and political attitudes (Lindholt et al., 2021).

To explore the Nordic citizenry’s perceptions of the pandemic policies, and what this potentially tells us about the potential for democratic backsliding during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, we surveyed representative samples from each Nordic country. We asked residents to rate the reasonableness of 17 restrictive measures implemented during the pandemic. This article presents the survey results, focusing on how residents in the Nordic countries perceive the reasonableness of COVID-19 regulations in their respective countries. We argue that this question also indirectly measures the level of personal freedom individuals are willing to sacrifice during a pandemic crisis. We explore whether individuals distinguish between regulations that infringe upon human rights (high-cost measures) and other types of measures based on perceived reasonableness. We ask the following question: To what extent do people in the Nordic countries perceive the various COVID-19 regulations in their respective countries as reasonable?

We aim to identify variables that may be associated with perceptions of reasonableness. For instance, are positive views on local performance associated with higher values of perceptions of reasonableness. Previous research identifies interpersonal trust, fear, and virus exposure as significant drivers of adherence to pandemic regulations (Helsingen et al., 2020; Jørgensen et al., 2021; Memoli, 2024; Siegrist & Bearth, 2021). Are these factors also relevant in understanding people’s perceptions of COVID-19 measures in the Nordic countries?

This article is structured as follows: The first section provides an overview of two perspectives on crisis management and regulations – state-centered and citizen-based including the important question of the consequences of the many measures that were implemented on the health of democratic institutions, such as rule of law and accountability. The second section presents a brief contextual overview of the differing Nordic crisis responses and public health outcomes. The third section discusses the theory of reasonableness, including its implications for administrative decision-making and citizens’ perceptions of reasonableness. The fourth section presents our hypotheses. The fifth section describes the study’s methods, including the operationalization of reasonableness, details on data collection, sample characteristics, survey instrument, variables, index construction, analytical techniques, and addressing methodological challenges. The sixth section presents the results, including descriptive data and regression analyses. The final section offers a discussion of the findings and their potential implications and ends with concluding remarks.

Our study revolves around two perspectives on the management strategies and regulations implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: a state-centered perspective and a citizen-based perspective. The COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges, leading to stringent infection control measures such as lockdowns, school closures, and movement limitations, impacting civil liberties and fundamental rights (Flood et al., 2020; Heinikoski & Hyttinen, 2022).

Our study focuses on two conditions that illuminate the implications of pandemic management strategies adopted by the Nordic countries. Firstly, we explore the concept of reasonableness within legal scholarship and by ordinary citizens, leading to expectations related to citizens’ assessments of human rights and regulatory stringency. Secondly, we discuss other influencing factors, such as pandemic exposure, local performance, and trust as demonstrated in the hypotheses.

Reasonableness, as conceptualized at the intersection of legal and political philosophy, is described as a complex mix of features exercised at both institutional and individual levels (Grossmann et al., 2020; Weinstock, 2006; Young, 2017). It enters the scene when formal or instrumental rationality cannot provide solutions acceptable to individuals and communities (Mangini, 2022). Crucial criteria for decision-making according to reasonableness include proportion and balance (Mangini, 2022, p. 938). Reasonableness within legal scholarship involves the soundness of reason and judgment (Borriello, 2021) and is closely connected to the “culture of justification,” which emphasizes substantive reasoning in decision-making processes (Möller et al., 2011).

In public administration, reasonableness is a constitutional imperative, ensuring that administrative actions are reasonable and protecting individuals against arbitrary decisions (Borriello, 2021, p. 155; Brynard, 2013, p. 69). The underlying values to determine reasonableness are identified in a state’s constitution, which implies a standard for reasonable decision-making during crises (Brynard, 2013, p. 71).

During the pandemic, legal scholars frequently criticized regulations that wrongfully suspended core human rights enshrined in several national constitutions (Cathaoir, 2021; Høgberg et al., 2023; Lebret, 2020; Maria et al., 2021; Spadaro, 2020). People’s experiences during the pandemic varied at national, local, and individual levels, affecting how they perceive the reasonableness of measures (Spruill & Lewis, 2023). National preparedness plans and risk assessments articulate important societal values to be protected during emergencies, creating “priors” that influence judgments about reasonableness (Lidén, 2022; Spruill & Lewis, 2023).

Taken together, citizens’ perceptions of the reasonableness of measures depend on expectations about societal values and priorities, constitutional provisions, and awareness of their rights. Human rights by virtue of being unversal, and constitutional rights set expectations for citizens and regulate government actors, establishing standards for reasonable decision- making during crises (Garrett, 2017, p. 78).

As shown in the section above, reasonableness is a demanding concept but suitable for capturing people’s attitudes towards pandemic measures. Below, we present four main hypotheses to identify predictors of people’s perceptions of the reasonableness of pandemic measures. Each hypothesis has the potential to explain the variation in citizens’ perceived reasonableness of the pandemic measures.

To test the extent to which “ordinary citizens” assess the pandemic measures as reasonable, we presented representative population samples in all five Nordic countries (N = 5674) with the following text two years into the pandemic: “The health authorities have recommended or imposed a series of restrictive measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 but have also sought to compensate individuals and businesses for losses incurred. These measures have varied over time.” Then, we asked them the following question: “How reasonable or unreasonable do you think the following restrictive measure has been in view of the hardships experienced by individuals and society at large?” We explicitly guided the respondents to think about the individual and societal level. They were then confronted with a total of 17 measures implemented during the pandemic. This data is the foundation for this study.

The surveys conducted via web panels targeted representative samples of residents, yielding approximately 1300 completed responses per country (with Iceland yielding 549 responses). The data file represents a broad cross-section of the population in each country, aged 18 and older, and maintains quotas for gender, age, and geographic region. The total number of responses collected was 5,674. The survey was provided in the respective Nordic languages, with English as a common reference, ensuring the concept of “reasonableness” maintains consistent meaning across all countries. Each country’s final net dataset was weighted to account for inconsistencies with population statistics, ensuring nationally representative comparisons (Haug, 2024).

Table 2 presents the means of perceptions of the reasonableness of various infection control measures in the Nordic countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The scale ranges from 0 (completely unreasonable) to 10 (completely reasonable). Measures likely to be temporary violations of human rights (Reasonableness I) are marked with an asterisk (*).

On average, over half of the measures score at or above 7, indicating a high level of acceptance. This is evident for both measures that temporarily violate human rights and other measures. The highest mean score across all countries is for propagation of vaccination and social distancing (7.77), followed by recommendation of use of face mask (7.60) and travel restrictions (7.50). The lowest mean score is for the prohibition on stays in vacation/summer houses (5.63), indicating this measure was perceived as the least reasonable among the respondents.

Comparing countries, Iceland almost consistently has the highest mean scores, indicating that its citizens perceived the measures as more reasonable. Finland generally has the lowest scores. Variations between countries are significant on some measures, assigned with an asterisk in total mean. The measures in the table are listed in descending order, with the measure receiving the highest mean scores at the top. Table 2

Perceptions of the Reasonableness of Infection Control Measures in the Nordic Countries

The propagation of vaccination and travel restrictions was viewed as highly reasonable by respondents across all countries. However, there are exceptions. In Iceland, the ban on visiting care homes for the elderly was seen as slightly more reasonable than travel restrictions. Similarly, Swedish respondents also viewed the ban on visiting care homes as more reasonable than travel restrictions, unlike respondents in Finland, Norway, and Denmark.

Measures such as home schooling, closedown of kindergartens, and limitations or suspension of leisure activities for children and young people were perceived as less reasonable. Notably, perceptions on the reasonableness of limitations in private homes and limitations or suspension of leisure activities varied among countries. In Denmark and Iceland, limitations on visits in private homes were seen as less reasonable than the limitations or suspension of leisure activities. Conversely, in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, the limitation or suspension of leisure activities were viewed as less reasonable than limits on visits in private homes.

While the average scores are broadly similar, the scope and severity of the restrictions varied, as did the institutional choices and strategies for their implementation. Therefore, it is expected that citizens’ perceptions of these measures would vary accordingly. To illustrate individual- level variation in perceptions of human rights-related measures versus other measures, we present a histogram in Figure 1. Figure 1.

Histogram: Dependent variables

Note. Reasonableness I calculated by the sum of six measures that were clear impediments on human rights, and Reasonableness II by the sum of measures that did not. The distribution of responses from Nordic residents regarding their perceptions of reasonableness of measures that infringe on rights (Reasonableness I N=5049) and other measures (Reasonableness II N = 4993).

Note that the y-axis in the figure shows the number of respondents in all countries combined, and the x-axis represents the score on the dependent variable (Reasonableness I and Reasonableness II). As shown in Table 2, the distribution is skewed to the right; most respondents find the measures quite reasonable in both categories. The maximum score is 10; the average for Reasonableness I is 6.963, with a standard deviation of 2.11; and the average for Reasonableness II is 7.099, with a standard deviation of 2.05. The correlation between the variables (indices) is very high (.891**).

Based on Table 2 above and the histograms, we find no support for our assumption about human rights (H1.1). However, the mean is indeed lower for RI than RII, so we performed a paired t-test for the index variables. The paired t-test results, presented in Appendix 3, reveal a statistically significant difference between the perceived reasonableness of measures infringing on human rights (RI) and other measures (RII). Specifically, the mean difference of -0.136 (Std. Err. = 0.013) between RI and RII is statistically significant, with a t-value of -10.591 and a p- value of 0.000, indicating strong evidence against the null hypothesis that the means are equal. The 95% confidence interval for the difference ranges from -0.161 to -0.111, further reinforcing that measures perceived to infringe human rights are indeed considered less reasonable by citizens. All in all, we cannot reject H1.

Additionally, the figures illustrate significant variation in policy perceptions between the Nordic citizens. The question is, what drives this variation in perceptions of the reasonableness of COVID measures?

The results from the OLS regressions are presented below. As discussed earlier, we developed two dependent variables. Table 3 show the regression outputs by Reasonableness I and Reasonableness II. Note that all regression tables include representative samples of the entire Nordic citizenry (18+). In Appendix 1, the complete suggested model is run by separate country-wise OLS regressions, which will be referred to when relevant. The independent variables were detailed previously (cf. methodology and data) and further elaborated in Appendix 2. The table below presents the results from an OLS regression with robust standard errors, in parentheses, for both endogenous and exogenous explanatory variables. The table also includes the model’s adjusted R-square (total explanatory power) and the number of respondents(N). Collinearity is satisfactory (no VIF higher than 1.8), and all indices have a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha. The citizen survey provides insights into factors influencing the perceived reasonableness of COVID-19 measures in the Nordic countries. Table 3

Nordic Residents’ Assessment of perception of reasonableness by dependent variables Reasonableness I and Reasonableness II

As shown in the histograms in Figure 1, respondents do not seem to differentiate between measures that conflict with rights and other measures (H1.1). The regulatory strategy (stringency H1.2) is represented by dummy variables for each country (with Sweden as the reference category). Negative coefficients for Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway suggest that respondents in these countries perceived the measures as less reasonable compared to those in Sweden, potentially due to differences in implementation and communication of COVID-19 measures. However, two-sample t-tests on RI and RII indicate no statistically significant difference in the perceived reasonableness of measures between Swedish respondents and those from other Nordic countries for both indices. The p-values for all tests are greater than 0.05, indicating a failure to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, hypothesis H1.2, which posits that less stringent regulation positively influences the perception of reasonableness among Swedish citizens compared to other Nordic countries, is not supported by the data.

The impact of COVID exposure (H2) on the perceived reasonableness of the measures is mixed. Personal exposure to health-related consequences or fear, in addition to exposure related to family and social activities of the pandemic increased the perceived reasonableness of the measures (positive coefficients), while exposure to work-related consequences decreased it (negative coefficients). This suggests that the perceived reasonableness of the measures is influenced by the personal impact of the pandemic on respondents. Those who experienced or feared severe health consequences or family and social impact were more likely to find the measures reasonable, while those who experienced negative work were less likely to do so. The hypotheses (H2) are supported, particularly regarding the effect of fear. However, there are significant variations between countries regarding health exposure (H2.1), with Swedish residents being more positive about regulations, even those that restrict human rights (RI). This is presumably a reaction to the significant consequences of the pandemic in Sweden at the time of data collection, combined with a relatively relaxed COVID-19 management approach (Appendix 1).

Regarding performance (H3), negative experiences with local COVID management or disagreement with local authorities’ actions (H3.1) decreased perceived reasonableness (negative coefficients). As coded (see Appendix 2), this suggests that the perceived effectiveness and appropriateness of local responses (adaptation – H3.2) to the pandemic play a significant role in shaping perceptions of reasonableness, as demonstrated in the regression for both RI and R11 with significant coefficients on all performance variables. In short, local performance significantly affects ordinary people’s perceptions of reasonableness, supporting hypotheses H3. Higher levels of trust in municipal services or other people (H4.1) increased the perceived reasonableness of the measures, as shown with strong positive coefficients on both RI and RII. Moreover, the interpersonal trust variable (H4.2) is significant, although not as strong. Altogether, our findings indicate that trust – both in local authorities/services and interpersonal trust– is important for shaping perceptions of reasonableness. Our hypotheses on trust (H4) are supported. Yet, here too, there is variation by country, and the effect of interpersonal trust is particularly strong in Sweden (see Appendix 1).

Among the control variables, gender, presence of children age group and municipality size (2022) all had significant effect (positive or negative) on the perceived reasonableness of the measures. On gender the results suggest a positive association between being female and perceptions of reasonableness: women generally tend to perceive the measures more positively, which is particularly evident for Sweden, (.385***) (See Appendix 1). Age group had a significant positive effect on perceived reasonableness (.165*** and .169***), suggesting older respondents were more likely to find the measures reasonable. This could be due to older individuals being at higher risk from COVID-19 and therefore more likely to appreciate the importance of the measures. Presence of children under the age of 18 in the household also seem to be associated with lower perceptions on high-cost measures, RI (-.0759**), but not regarding RII. This is likely due to the character of the measures that are included in the RI index such as school closure, limitations on leisure activities and limitations on guests in private home, which likely had strong negative bearings on the parents in addition to the children themselves. The size of the municipality (number of inhabitants) also had some influence on RI and RII, yet it was not very strong. This nevertheless suggests that respondents in larger municipalities found COVID-19 regulations slightly more reasonable.

A central aspect in the literature on COVID-19 concern the consequences of infection control measures, derogations of rights, and declared states of emergency on ‘the health of democracy’ (Katsanidou et al., 2022). The pandemic provided a context where liberal democratic norms could be – and arguably were – undermined (Arceneaux et al., 2021). The question of how citizens view control measures and derogations of rights is an important factor influencing the legitimacy of crisis governance. Thus, citizens’ policy perceptions can inform us about the state of the relationship between citizens and the government (Fimreite et al., 2024).

We have analysed citizens’ policy perceptions and the extent to which they were willing to support policies that violate their civil liberties in a crisis. Our study employed a framework containing four main hypotheses to explain this variation, focusing on measures that violated human rights (RI) and other COVID-19 regulations (RII). The explanatory variables highlighted the importance of national regulatory strategies, personal exposure to the pandemic, local performance, trust, and demographic factors.

With an average score of about 7 out of 10 across 17 measures implemented during the pandemic, people perceive these measures as highly reasonable, indicating a willingness to sacrifice significant freedoms in pandemic crises. This acceptance largely applies to both measures that violate human rights and other measures. On the surface suggesting that citizens do not differentiate between the two categories. However, this mean score conceals individual variation that corresponds with Boin and ‘t Hart’s argument about how compliance with – and hence acceptance of measures – can reflect people’s life situations where individuals discriminate between regulations according to their own circumstances (Boin & ’t Hart, 2024).

The least reasonable measure overall was the ban on staying in vacation homes with a mean of 5.63, which is relatively well below the overall mean. The ban on staying in vacation homes was criticized in Norway and became a sensitive issue for municipalities as well as the government. The perception that this ban was perceived as the least reasonable among respondents can be perhaps understood by analysing through the framework of critical compliance in how the ban suspended several rights simultaneously but importantly the right to one’s own property. The Norwegian Institute of Human Rights (NIM) argued in a letter to the Government that the ban constituted an intervention in the freedom of movement and the right to property (Mestad & Nystuen, 2020, p. 9; cf. Nordensvärd et al., 2023, pp. 7-8). Furthermore, the enforcement of the ban in the first months of the pandemic involved the Norwegian National Home Guard, who assisted municipalities in preventing people from traveling to and staying in their vacation homes (Nordensvärd et al., 2023, p. 8). Thus, both the nature of the ban and its enforcement likely affected perceptions negatively.

While trust and fear are significantly associated with higher perceptions, we find significant variation in policy perceptions among Nordic citizens that are seemingly related to individual socio-demographic factors such as gender, age, marital status, residence, and education. The analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of various factors influencing the perceived reasonableness of COVID-19 measures in the Nordic countries (predictors). The explanatory power of the model is good, with adjusted R-squared values of .366 for Reasonableness I and

.371 for Reasonableness II. However, it also underscores the complexity of these influences, with some factors having different effects in different contexts. Regarding regulatory strategies, respondents from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway perceived the measures as less reasonable than those in Sweden. COVID-19 exposure had a mixed impact.

Key predictors for people’s perceptions of the reasonableness of pandemic measures and regulations include trust in local services, fear, local performance, and age. As discussed in the methodology, performance is moderately to strongly associated with Reasonableness I and Reasonableness II, which does not imply causation, and if so, we cannot know the direction of causation. However, the negative correlations with Reasonableness I and Reasonableness II suggest that poorer perceived performance is associated with lower perceived reasonableness of both human rights-infringing and non-infringing measures. This highlights the role of perceived performance in shaping perceptions of reasonableness.

Personal exposure to health-related consequences and fear of the pandemic increased perceived reasonableness, while exposure to work-related consequences or social activity restrictions decreased it. This is potentially associated with variables that interact, such as home office combined with homeschooling and closed kindergartens, and marital status (e.g., single versus married). Experiences with local COVID-19 management and trust in municipal services also increased perceived reasonableness. However, the case with trust is similar to performance: the coefficients in the correlation analysis indicated a moderate correlation between trust and perceptions of reasonableness, suggesting possible reverse causality between trust and RI and RII. Among control variables, gender and presence of children had a significant negative effect on RI and RII while age group and municipality size (2022) had a significant positive effect on the perceived reasonableness of the measures.

Our study emphasizes the importance of a citizen-based perspective. Acceptance of pandemic measures is not solely a state-centered process shaped by state policies but also a citizen-based process shaped by individuals’ experiences and life situations, shaping perceptions.. It signals the state of the relationship between citizens and the government, but importantly also that the measures are not uniformly accepted. Although there is substantial support, this support varies by measure and socio-demographic factors.

These results must be discussed as part of the broader debate on the limits of the state and the balance between rights, liberties, and duties, and subsequently for legitimacy in crisis governance, where there is a real risk for temporal democratic backsliding in democracies (Anisin, 2022; Edgell et al., 2021). Political liberalism emphasizes the protection of individual rights and liberties, especially in the face of state power. During the pandemic, the high level of acceptance of regulations that violated human rights is concerning but necessary for effective crisis management (Edgell et al., 2021; Sorsa & Kivikoski, 2023). When infection control measures are perceived as unreasonable, they risk being seen as expressions of lower democratic quality, potentially undermining public trust (Werner & Heinisch, 2024). So, how can policymakers and decision-makers square this equation?

First, it is imperative to recognize the temporary nature of these regulations (Eichler & Sonkar, 2021; Staronova et al., 2023), as all the Nordic countries employed sunset clauses limiting the duration of emergency measures (Nguyen Duy & Stokstad (2024). Furthermore, balancing the need for stringent measures with maintaining the rule of law is a challenge inherent in managing pandemics, but a challenge that can be handled with for instance transparent decision-making processes and communication concerning the justifications for implementing the measures. Here, considerations such as necessity, alternative measures and context (i.e. proportionality) are important to consider for citizens to find them reasonable (Bassan, 2022; Weißschnur, 2021).

Our study contributes to the scholarship on crisis governance and challenges for democracy by documenting substantial support for stringent regulations, but it is not that ‘anything goes.’ The perception of measures as unreasonable demonstrates that significant segments of the population find the measures unreasonable, such as the example with the ban on vacation homes and are wary of government overreach. This is likely associated with individual-level factors that we have not examined in this article, e.g. gender, presence of children, and accommodation. However, this reflects sentiments that circulated during the pandemic, highlighting the delicate balance that governments must strike between implementing stringent measures and maintaining public trust.

The findings of our study underscore the importance of balancing the need for stringent measures while protecting individual rights. Too much trust and confidence in the benevolence of the government during a crisis can place the quality of democratic governance at risk. Conversely, too little trust and confidence in the government’s intentions also pose a risk for effective crisis governance. This points to the most delicate and important task governments are responsible for during a crisis: balancing the need for stringent measures while also protecting individual rights. This requires careful consideration and transparent communication to citizens.

There are limitations to our study. Firstly, we ask about perceptions, not about people’s actions and behaviors according to the regulations during the crisis (Fimreite et al., 2024). The second limitation is temporality. We ask about people’s perceptions after the fact, which can affect how they respond compared to responses they might have given during the first wave of infection. However, as argued by Fimreite et al. (2024), “perceptions are important on their own, as a precondition for the formulation of public policies” (p. 17). This links to our argument about the importance of both state-centered and citizen-based perspectives in understanding public acceptance of pandemic measures and the importance of the relationship between citizens and the government in crises.

Our study contributes to research that explores and tries to explain the complex relationship between crisis management, public perception, and democratic governance. Our findings underscore the delicate balance that governments must maintain between implementing necessary measures to ensure public safety and preserving individual rights and democratic processes. This balance is critical for maintaining public trust and the legitimacy of governmental actions during crises. The willingness of citizens to accept measures that infringe upon their rights highlights the need for ongoing scrutiny and debate on the limits of state power and the protection of individual liberties. Transparent communication and accountability mechanisms are essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring the legitimacy of emergency measures. As societies continue to face challenges related to crisis governance, it is vital to recognize the role of citizen perceptions in shaping successful policy responses. By understanding the factors that influence these perceptions, policymakers can craft strategies that not only address immediate threats but also uphold democratic values and protect individual freedoms. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics and how combined variables such as gender, marital status, and presence of children are associated with perceptions of specific measures like home office. Studies may also need to explore the behavioral responses of citizens, the temporality of responses, and the potential implications of these findings for other crises. Longitudinal data could provide deeper insights into how trust levels and perceptions evolve over time, especially in response to different phases of a crisis. Further research should also examine the role of political attitudes and cultural contexts in shaping perceptions of reasonableness. This deeper understanding will better inform policy responses to future crises, ensuring that they are both effective and respectful of fundamental democratic principles.

In conclusion, while the pandemic has tested the boundaries of democratic governance and civil liberties, it also offers an opportunity to reflect on the importance of balancing security needs with the preservation of democratic principles.

This article is a product of the research project “Crisis Management in a Polycentric Nordic Local Democracy: Different Governance Structures - Different Results?” funded by the Norwegian Research Council, project number 326136. Drafts of this article have been presented at NORKOM in 2023, in a Ph.D. course on crisis governance at University of California Berkley organized by University of Agder in 2024, and at NOPSA in Bergen in 2024. All comments, including the reviewers’ have been helpful and instructive in getting this article to its present form.