Pub Date : 2021-07-30DOI: 10.1177/14680181211029089
L. Leisering
Macro events like the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Second World War have triggered new departures in social policy. What about the COVID-19 pandemic and the attendant socio-economic crisis? This article analyses the social protection measures taken by governments in the global South in response to the crisis, the social protection concepts developed by international organisations, and the overall strategies of the organisations in view of future shocks. The finding is that while the measures taken by governments expectedly have just been stopgap measures of a transitory nature, international organisations are aspiring to future-oriented policies and present a range of concepts for the time after the crisis. However, these are old concepts from pre-COVID-19 times, and the main strategy is to expand rather than reform the old models, even though the international organisations themselves identify new forms of poverty and structural inequalities. Moreover, the organisations do not provide conclusive evidence of their strategy’s viability; the strategy rather reflects a belief in social progress. All in all, the crisis has hardly been used as a window of opportunity for generating new ideas of social protection. Rather, the crisis has revealed the flimsy nature of widespread thinking about building social protection in the global South. Conceptually, the article draws on world society theory, conceiving of the pandemic as a global macro event.
{"title":"Social protection responses by states and international organisations to the COVID-19 crisis in the global South: Stopgap or new departure?","authors":"L. Leisering","doi":"10.1177/14680181211029089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211029089","url":null,"abstract":"Macro events like the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Second World War have triggered new departures in social policy. What about the COVID-19 pandemic and the attendant socio-economic crisis? This article analyses the social protection measures taken by governments in the global South in response to the crisis, the social protection concepts developed by international organisations, and the overall strategies of the organisations in view of future shocks. The finding is that while the measures taken by governments expectedly have just been stopgap measures of a transitory nature, international organisations are aspiring to future-oriented policies and present a range of concepts for the time after the crisis. However, these are old concepts from pre-COVID-19 times, and the main strategy is to expand rather than reform the old models, even though the international organisations themselves identify new forms of poverty and structural inequalities. Moreover, the organisations do not provide conclusive evidence of their strategy’s viability; the strategy rather reflects a belief in social progress. All in all, the crisis has hardly been used as a window of opportunity for generating new ideas of social protection. Rather, the crisis has revealed the flimsy nature of widespread thinking about building social protection in the global South. Conceptually, the article draws on world society theory, conceiving of the pandemic as a global macro event.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211029089","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48097744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-30DOI: 10.1177/14680181211026182
Ani Kartikasari, Christina Stringer, G. Henderson
In 2014, New Zealand enacted the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Act in response to ongoing labour abuses on board South Korean vessels in New Zealand’s foreign charter vessel sector. Importantly, the legislation expresses the universality of the International Labour Organization’s Decent Work Agenda: all member countries must pursue policies based on the strategic objectives of equality, dignity, safe working conditions and that workers are protected from exploitation. The Act was in response to the identification of widespread labour abuses in this sector. In June 2011, the extent of the abuses came to light when 32 Indonesian crewmen of the Oyang 75 walked off their vessel. In this paper, we explore how a range of stakeholders worked organically to bring about change. We do this qualitatively by combining semi-structured interview (with over 160 Indonesian migrant crewmen between 2011 and 2017), observation and document analysis. We analyse our data through the lens of participatory action research which provides a framework to document the processes of who was involved, the cycles of change, what was achieved in each cycle, and importantly the platform for change. Specifically, we look at how stakeholders – the crew themselves, their advocates, academics, non-governmental organisations, journalists, activists, among others – all played a part in achieving legislated protections.
{"title":"Co-creating changes to achieve decent work conditions in the New Zealand fishing industry","authors":"Ani Kartikasari, Christina Stringer, G. Henderson","doi":"10.1177/14680181211026182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211026182","url":null,"abstract":"In 2014, New Zealand enacted the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Act in response to ongoing labour abuses on board South Korean vessels in New Zealand’s foreign charter vessel sector. Importantly, the legislation expresses the universality of the International Labour Organization’s Decent Work Agenda: all member countries must pursue policies based on the strategic objectives of equality, dignity, safe working conditions and that workers are protected from exploitation. The Act was in response to the identification of widespread labour abuses in this sector. In June 2011, the extent of the abuses came to light when 32 Indonesian crewmen of the Oyang 75 walked off their vessel. In this paper, we explore how a range of stakeholders worked organically to bring about change. We do this qualitatively by combining semi-structured interview (with over 160 Indonesian migrant crewmen between 2011 and 2017), observation and document analysis. We analyse our data through the lens of participatory action research which provides a framework to document the processes of who was involved, the cycles of change, what was achieved in each cycle, and importantly the platform for change. Specifically, we look at how stakeholders – the crew themselves, their advocates, academics, non-governmental organisations, journalists, activists, among others – all played a part in achieving legislated protections.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"281 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211026182","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49013590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1177/14680181211019164
Jayeon Lindellee, J. Alkan Olsson, M. Koch
The need to develop synergetic policy frameworks, ideas, and instruments to tackle the double challenge of climate emergency and social inequality has increasingly gained momentum over the past few years and is reflected in the increasing number of academic contributions. The iconic model of a ‘safe and just space for humanity’ (Raworth, 2017) considers both planetary and social boundaries. Economy and society develop within a doughnut-shaped space, where resource use is below the level of critical planetary boundaries but above the sufficiency level required to meet people’s basic needs. Building on this, Fanning et al. (2020) discuss the complex processes through which patterns of material and resource extraction within this space result in different ecological and social outcomes. The concept of ‘sustainable welfare’ (Koch and Mont, 2016) addresses the intersection of environmental and social policies. This concept has resulted in critical assessments of the environmental consequences of existing welfare systems and suggestions of concrete eco-social policies. If integrated into a holistic policy framework, these have the potential of initiating a virtuous policy cycle (Hirvilammi, 2020) necessary to re-embed Western production and consumption patterns within planetary limits. We argue that theoretical terms such as sustainable welfare need to be complemented by bottom-up measures of operationalization. This is not only necessary because the frames and concepts listed above leave plenty of leeway for concrete policy development and implementation at the local, regional, and national levels, but also because of the pressing need for citizen mobilization to achieve systematic changes of national states and multi-national governance structures (Koch, 2020a; Pirgmaier and Steinberger, 2019). In many cases, national states and multi-national governance structures have
在过去几年中，为应对气候紧急情况和社会不平等的双重挑战，需要制定协同的政策框架、想法和工具的势头日益增强，这反映在越来越多的学术贡献上。“人类安全和公正的空间”的标志性模型(Raworth, 2017)考虑了地球和社会边界。经济和社会在一个环形空间内发展，资源利用低于关键的地球边界水平，但高于满足人们基本需求所需的充足水平。在此基础上，Fanning等人(2020)讨论了复杂的过程，通过这些过程，该空间内的物质和资源开采模式会导致不同的生态和社会结果。“可持续福利”的概念(Koch and Mont, 2016)解决了环境和社会政策的交集。这一概念导致了对现有福利制度的环境后果的批判性评估和具体生态社会政策的建议。如果整合到一个整体的政策框架中，这些有可能启动一个良性的政策循环(Hirvilammi, 2020)，这是将西方的生产和消费模式重新嵌入地球限制所必需的。我们认为，可持续福利等理论术语需要由自下而上的操作措施加以补充。这不仅是必要的，因为上面列出的框架和概念为地方、区域和国家层面的具体政策制定和实施留下了大量的余地，而且还因为迫切需要公民动员来实现民族国家和多国治理结构的系统变革(Koch, 2020a;Pirgmaier and Steinberger, 2019)。在许多情况下，民族国家和多民族治理结构
{"title":"Operationalizing sustainable welfare and co-developing eco-social policies by prioritizing human needs","authors":"Jayeon Lindellee, J. Alkan Olsson, M. Koch","doi":"10.1177/14680181211019164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211019164","url":null,"abstract":"The need to develop synergetic policy frameworks, ideas, and instruments to tackle the double challenge of climate emergency and social inequality has increasingly gained momentum over the past few years and is reflected in the increasing number of academic contributions. The iconic model of a ‘safe and just space for humanity’ (Raworth, 2017) considers both planetary and social boundaries. Economy and society develop within a doughnut-shaped space, where resource use is below the level of critical planetary boundaries but above the sufficiency level required to meet people’s basic needs. Building on this, Fanning et al. (2020) discuss the complex processes through which patterns of material and resource extraction within this space result in different ecological and social outcomes. The concept of ‘sustainable welfare’ (Koch and Mont, 2016) addresses the intersection of environmental and social policies. This concept has resulted in critical assessments of the environmental consequences of existing welfare systems and suggestions of concrete eco-social policies. If integrated into a holistic policy framework, these have the potential of initiating a virtuous policy cycle (Hirvilammi, 2020) necessary to re-embed Western production and consumption patterns within planetary limits. We argue that theoretical terms such as sustainable welfare need to be complemented by bottom-up measures of operationalization. This is not only necessary because the frames and concepts listed above leave plenty of leeway for concrete policy development and implementation at the local, regional, and national levels, but also because of the pressing need for citizen mobilization to achieve systematic changes of national states and multi-national governance structures (Koch, 2020a; Pirgmaier and Steinberger, 2019). In many cases, national states and multi-national governance structures have","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"328 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211019164","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46339504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-06DOI: 10.1177/14680181211019166
W. Hynes
New economic thinking and acting through a systemic approach could outline policy alternatives to tackle the global-scale systemic challenges of financial, economic, social and environmental emerge...
{"title":"A systemic socio-ecological recovery from Covid-19","authors":"W. Hynes","doi":"10.1177/14680181211019166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211019166","url":null,"abstract":"New economic thinking and acting through a systemic approach could outline policy alternatives to tackle the global-scale systemic challenges of financial, economic, social and environmental emerge...","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"335 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211019166","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42780207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-06DOI: 10.1177/14680181211019281
A. Seemann, U. Becker, Linxin He, Eva Maria Hohnerlein, N. Wilman
This article provides a comparative study of the labour market and social policy measures introduced in light of the COVID-19 crisis in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom between March 2020 and January 2021. Its main aim is to understand whether the crisis response has changed the structures of the welfare states concerned. Focusing in particular on the differences regarding the crisis measures taken for individuals in ‘standard employment’ and ‘non-standard workers’ in each country, it argues that, although extensive temporary protection instruments were introduced for both groups during the crisis, these did not lead to an immediate convergence as regards these groups’ social protection. Rather than changing the underlying structures of welfare systems, many of the measures in fact highlighted the specific vulnerabilities of large segments of Europe’s labour markets. States have, however, granted social compensation at unprecedented levels, which could result in improved infrastructures and a clearer understanding of the responsibility of the welfare state in future emergencies.
{"title":"Protecting livelihoods in the COVID-19 crisis: A comparative analysis of European labour market and social policies","authors":"A. Seemann, U. Becker, Linxin He, Eva Maria Hohnerlein, N. Wilman","doi":"10.1177/14680181211019281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211019281","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides a comparative study of the labour market and social policy measures introduced in light of the COVID-19 crisis in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom between March 2020 and January 2021. Its main aim is to understand whether the crisis response has changed the structures of the welfare states concerned. Focusing in particular on the differences regarding the crisis measures taken for individuals in ‘standard employment’ and ‘non-standard workers’ in each country, it argues that, although extensive temporary protection instruments were introduced for both groups during the crisis, these did not lead to an immediate convergence as regards these groups’ social protection. Rather than changing the underlying structures of welfare systems, many of the measures in fact highlighted the specific vulnerabilities of large segments of Europe’s labour markets. States have, however, granted social compensation at unprecedented levels, which could result in improved infrastructures and a clearer understanding of the responsibility of the welfare state in future emergencies.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"550 - 568"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211019281","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49371707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181211021260
S. Devereux
Most African countries implemented measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 during 2020, such as restrictions on business activity and travel, school closures and stay-at-home lockdowns for several months. These restrictive policies had adverse economic and social consequences that triggered a follow-up wave of expansionist public interventions intended to mitigate these effects. ‘Shock-responsive’ social protection measures included increased benefits to existing beneficiaries (vertical expansion) and registration of new beneficiaries on existing programmes (horizontal expansion). These approaches had the advantages of being quick and administratively simple, but the disadvantage of bypassing people who were made most vulnerable by COVID-19, notably retrenched and informal workers with no access to social insurance. On the other hand, setting up new humanitarian relief or temporary social assistance programmes was slow and susceptible to targeting errors and corruption. COVID-19 also prompted a reassessment of the social contract regarding social protection, with some governments recognising that they need to become better coordinated, more inclusive and rights-based.
{"title":"Social protection responses to COVID-19 in Africa","authors":"S. Devereux","doi":"10.1177/14680181211021260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211021260","url":null,"abstract":"Most African countries implemented measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 during 2020, such as restrictions on business activity and travel, school closures and stay-at-home lockdowns for several months. These restrictive policies had adverse economic and social consequences that triggered a follow-up wave of expansionist public interventions intended to mitigate these effects. ‘Shock-responsive’ social protection measures included increased benefits to existing beneficiaries (vertical expansion) and registration of new beneficiaries on existing programmes (horizontal expansion). These approaches had the advantages of being quick and administratively simple, but the disadvantage of bypassing people who were made most vulnerable by COVID-19, notably retrenched and informal workers with no access to social insurance. On the other hand, setting up new humanitarian relief or temporary social assistance programmes was slow and susceptible to targeting errors and corruption. COVID-19 also prompted a reassessment of the social contract regarding social protection, with some governments recognising that they need to become better coordinated, more inclusive and rights-based.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"421 - 447"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211021260","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49061606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-30DOI: 10.1177/14680181211019153
M. Büchs
One of the main challenges of sustainable welfare is to design welfare systems that are “growth resilient” or independent of economic growth. When the sustainable welfare literature discusses the relationship between welfare states and economic growth, it mostly focuses on the growth dependency of welfare states. This is undoubtedly an important component. However, I argue in this contribution that the relationship between welfare states and growth is bidirectional. Hence, it is equally important to understand the various roles that welfare states can play for economic growth, as some of the earlier welfare state literature has argued. Welfare states and growth can influence each other in both negative and positive ways depending on the context and on the time horizon that one focuses on. Designing sustainable welfare systems will only be possible if we acknowledge the mutual and complex dependencies between welfare states and economic growth and if we seek to reduce the mutual dependencies between them. Why is a decoupling of welfare and growth so important for sustainable welfare? Sustainable welfare can be defined as welfare systems that support the satisfaction of human needs within planetary boundaries (Büchs and Koch, 2017). Sustainable welfare systems prioritise needs satisfaction and adherence to planetary boundaries over economic growth. They also provide a fair distribution of resources and opportunities, and are democratically governed. A deprioritisation of economic growth in the Global North is necessary because available evidence suggests it is unlikely that global climate targets can be achieved in a context of economic growth. Very few countries have managed to decouple economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms, and even where it has been achieved, the rates of emission decline are far too slow to match climate targets (Haberl et al., 2020). Globally, the carbon intensity per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) has decreased by an average of 1.1% per year between 1960 and 2016, while economic
{"title":"Sustainable welfare: Independence between growth and welfare has to go both ways","authors":"M. Büchs","doi":"10.1177/14680181211019153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211019153","url":null,"abstract":"One of the main challenges of sustainable welfare is to design welfare systems that are “growth resilient” or independent of economic growth. When the sustainable welfare literature discusses the relationship between welfare states and economic growth, it mostly focuses on the growth dependency of welfare states. This is undoubtedly an important component. However, I argue in this contribution that the relationship between welfare states and growth is bidirectional. Hence, it is equally important to understand the various roles that welfare states can play for economic growth, as some of the earlier welfare state literature has argued. Welfare states and growth can influence each other in both negative and positive ways depending on the context and on the time horizon that one focuses on. Designing sustainable welfare systems will only be possible if we acknowledge the mutual and complex dependencies between welfare states and economic growth and if we seek to reduce the mutual dependencies between them. Why is a decoupling of welfare and growth so important for sustainable welfare? Sustainable welfare can be defined as welfare systems that support the satisfaction of human needs within planetary boundaries (Büchs and Koch, 2017). Sustainable welfare systems prioritise needs satisfaction and adherence to planetary boundaries over economic growth. They also provide a fair distribution of resources and opportunities, and are democratically governed. A deprioritisation of economic growth in the Global North is necessary because available evidence suggests it is unlikely that global climate targets can be achieved in a context of economic growth. Very few countries have managed to decouple economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms, and even where it has been achieved, the rates of emission decline are far too slow to match climate targets (Haberl et al., 2020). Globally, the carbon intensity per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) has decreased by an average of 1.1% per year between 1960 and 2016, while economic","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"323 - 327"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211019153","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43700746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-30DOI: 10.1177/14680181211013725
L. Gronbach, J. Seekings
While Covid-19 caused few fatalities across most of Africa – with the notable exception of South Africa – the indirect economic effects were substantial, especially in urban areas. International organizations encouraged governments to expand their provision, especially for the urban poor. South Africa extended temporarily its already considerable system of social protection and introduced new implementation systems. Elsewhere, governments that had hitherto appeared ambivalent about social protection resisted major reforms, even on a temporary basis. In Zambia, the government committed considerable resources to small farmers but ignored almost entirely cash transfers to the poor. Botswana provided food parcels but did not expand its social grant programmes. The shock of Covid-19 in Southern Africa did not prove to be a ‘critical juncture’: Powerful pro-reform coalitions did not form to shift governments onto new policy paths. National governments were generally reluctant either to introduce programmes that were targeted on the urban poor specifically or to allow countrywide emergency programmes to become permanent. The crisis thus did not lead to any clear ‘urbanisation’ of welfare regimes in the region, despite the disproportionate effect of the crisis on the urban poor.
{"title":"Pandemic, lockdown and the stalled urbanization of welfare regimes in Southern Africa","authors":"L. Gronbach, J. Seekings","doi":"10.1177/14680181211013725","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211013725","url":null,"abstract":"While Covid-19 caused few fatalities across most of Africa – with the notable exception of South Africa – the indirect economic effects were substantial, especially in urban areas. International organizations encouraged governments to expand their provision, especially for the urban poor. South Africa extended temporarily its already considerable system of social protection and introduced new implementation systems. Elsewhere, governments that had hitherto appeared ambivalent about social protection resisted major reforms, even on a temporary basis. In Zambia, the government committed considerable resources to small farmers but ignored almost entirely cash transfers to the poor. Botswana provided food parcels but did not expand its social grant programmes. The shock of Covid-19 in Southern Africa did not prove to be a ‘critical juncture’: Powerful pro-reform coalitions did not form to shift governments onto new policy paths. National governments were generally reluctant either to introduce programmes that were targeted on the urban poor specifically or to allow countrywide emergency programmes to become permanent. The crisis thus did not lead to any clear ‘urbanisation’ of welfare regimes in the region, despite the disproportionate effect of the crisis on the urban poor.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"448 - 467"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211013725","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44232913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-23DOI: 10.1177/14680181211013717
L. Frisina Doetter, Benedikt Preuß, H. Rothgang
The current COVID-19 pandemic has come to impact all areas of life involving the health, psycho-social and economic wellbeing of individuals, as well as all stages of life from childhood to old age. Particularly, the frail elderly have had to face the gravest consequences of the disease; while reporting measures tend to differ between countries making direct comparisons difficult, national statistics worldwide point to a disproportionate and staggering share of COVID-19 related mortality coming from residential long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Still, the severity of the impact on the institutionalized elderly has not been uniform across countries. In an effort to better understand the disparities in impact on Europe’s elderly living in LTCFs, we review data on mortality outcomes seen during the first wave of the pandemic (months March to June 2020). We then set out to understand the role played by the following two factors: (1) the infection rate in the general population and (2) member state adherence to policy recommendations put forth by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) targeting the LTC sector. Regarding the latter, we compare the content of national policy measures in six countries – Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Sweden – with those of the ECDC. Our findings establish that infection rates in the general population accounted for most of the variation in mortality among member states, however adherence to EU policy helped to explain the residual variation between cases. This suggests that in order to best protect the institutionalized elderly from infectious disease of this kind, countries need to adopt a two-pronged approach to developing measures: one that aims at reducing transmission within the general population and one that specifically targets LTCFs.
{"title":"Taking stock of COVID-19 policy measures to protect Europe’s elderly living in long-term care facilities","authors":"L. Frisina Doetter, Benedikt Preuß, H. Rothgang","doi":"10.1177/14680181211013717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211013717","url":null,"abstract":"The current COVID-19 pandemic has come to impact all areas of life involving the health, psycho-social and economic wellbeing of individuals, as well as all stages of life from childhood to old age. Particularly, the frail elderly have had to face the gravest consequences of the disease; while reporting measures tend to differ between countries making direct comparisons difficult, national statistics worldwide point to a disproportionate and staggering share of COVID-19 related mortality coming from residential long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Still, the severity of the impact on the institutionalized elderly has not been uniform across countries. In an effort to better understand the disparities in impact on Europe’s elderly living in LTCFs, we review data on mortality outcomes seen during the first wave of the pandemic (months March to June 2020). We then set out to understand the role played by the following two factors: (1) the infection rate in the general population and (2) member state adherence to policy recommendations put forth by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) targeting the LTC sector. Regarding the latter, we compare the content of national policy measures in six countries – Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Sweden – with those of the ECDC. Our findings establish that infection rates in the general population accounted for most of the variation in mortality among member states, however adherence to EU policy helped to explain the residual variation between cases. This suggests that in order to best protect the institutionalized elderly from infectious disease of this kind, countries need to adopt a two-pronged approach to developing measures: one that aims at reducing transmission within the general population and one that specifically targets LTCFs.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"146801812110137"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14680181211013717","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45771236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：