Pub Date : 2022-05-09DOI: 10.1177/14680181221077866
Sophie Mitra, Jaclyn Yap, Justine Hervé, Wei Chen
Disability has received limited attention on the global data and social policy scene. There are few global data portals or indices tracking the socioeconomic situation of persons with disabilities. Global social policy initiatives tend to focus on disability benefits, while other social policies may impact the situation of persons with disabilities. The absence of internationally comparable data and tools to measure disability could explain this lack of attention until recently. Given progress with respect to measuring disability, this article set out to find out if human development indicators can be disaggregated by disability status using census and mainstream survey data and, if they can, consider what such disaggregation reveals regarding the socioeconomic situation of persons with disabilities and derive implications for social policies. Disability status is measured through self-reports of functional difficulties (e.g. seeing, hearing). For 19 low- and middle-income countries, the median prevalence stands at 13% among adults aged 15 years and older, and at 28% among households. We could disaggregate a range of human development indicators across disability status for all countries. There are consistent inequalities associated with disability, particularly in terms of educational attainment, employment population ratio, multidimensional poverty, and food security. At the same time, we find that not all persons with functional difficulties experience deprivations. Results in this article on the prevalence of functional difficulties and their association with socioeconomic deprivations show that disability should be central to social policies globally. More data collection, research, and policy work are needed to curb the inequalities associated with disability.
{"title":"Inclusive statistics: A disaggregation of indicators by disability status and its implications for policy","authors":"Sophie Mitra, Jaclyn Yap, Justine Hervé, Wei Chen","doi":"10.1177/14680181221077866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221077866","url":null,"abstract":"Disability has received limited attention on the global data and social policy scene. There are few global data portals or indices tracking the socioeconomic situation of persons with disabilities. Global social policy initiatives tend to focus on disability benefits, while other social policies may impact the situation of persons with disabilities. The absence of internationally comparable data and tools to measure disability could explain this lack of attention until recently. Given progress with respect to measuring disability, this article set out to find out if human development indicators can be disaggregated by disability status using census and mainstream survey data and, if they can, consider what such disaggregation reveals regarding the socioeconomic situation of persons with disabilities and derive implications for social policies. Disability status is measured through self-reports of functional difficulties (e.g. seeing, hearing). For 19 low- and middle-income countries, the median prevalence stands at 13% among adults aged 15 years and older, and at 28% among households. We could disaggregate a range of human development indicators across disability status for all countries. There are consistent inequalities associated with disability, particularly in terms of educational attainment, employment population ratio, multidimensional poverty, and food security. At the same time, we find that not all persons with functional difficulties experience deprivations. Results in this article on the prevalence of functional difficulties and their association with socioeconomic deprivations show that disability should be central to social policies globally. More data collection, research, and policy work are needed to curb the inequalities associated with disability.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"39 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46096121","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 : 2022-05-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221092682
N. Lari, N. Al-Thani
Policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are assessed by documenting the public’s perception, knowledge, and adherence to preventive behaviors to mitigate the spread of the virus. Using an online survey administered in both Qatar and Kuwait, this article examines the associated state-mandated compliance measures experienced by citizens and expats during the outbreak of COVID-19. The survey measured public attitudes, behavioral responses, and compliance with state-mandated preventive measures. The study showed that individuals were well informed about the pandemic, yet controversy exists concerning compliance with control measures to contain the virus, which continue to be challenged on the basis of multiple individual-level factors. These findings raise the imperative need to call for governments’ transparent communications with the public regarding information disclosure measures to gain public attention and trust, which are essential to strategic planning success.
{"title":"Patterns of compliance with COVID-19 preventive measures among the public in Qatar and Kuwait","authors":"N. Lari, N. Al-Thani","doi":"10.1177/14680181221092682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221092682","url":null,"abstract":"Policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are assessed by documenting the public’s perception, knowledge, and adherence to preventive behaviors to mitigate the spread of the virus. Using an online survey administered in both Qatar and Kuwait, this article examines the associated state-mandated compliance measures experienced by citizens and expats during the outbreak of COVID-19. The survey measured public attitudes, behavioral responses, and compliance with state-mandated preventive measures. The study showed that individuals were well informed about the pandemic, yet controversy exists concerning compliance with control measures to contain the virus, which continue to be challenged on the basis of multiple individual-level factors. These findings raise the imperative need to call for governments’ transparent communications with the public regarding information disclosure measures to gain public attention and trust, which are essential to strategic planning success.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"580 - 603"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49423152","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 : 2022-04-21DOI: 10.1177/14680181221084792
Katharine Jones
In 2014, the International Labour Organization (ILO) launched the Fair Recruitment Initiative (FRI) with the aim of tackling labour exploitation widely associated with the recruitment of low-wage migrant workers. To date, scholars have largely neglected the ILO’s role in developing ‘fair recruitment’ as a mechanism of global social policy. In response, this article analyses the ILO’s harnessing of fair recruitment to the global governance of migration. Through engaging in significant knowledge production, the ILO has promoted ‘fair recruitment’ as a new norm, generating consensus, despite its absence from international legal standards. In utilising multiple and varied tools, the article argues that the FRI is an example of the ‘coordinated governance’ which the ILO has had to pragmatically resort to in externally and internally challenging environments, and regardless of whether states have ratified its main convention on recruitment, C181. However, as of 2022, the concept of fair recruitment remains a muted challenge to the hegemonic precarity and inequalities associated with international labour migration in the 21st century.
{"title":"A ‘north star’ in governing global labour migration? The ILO and the Fair Recruitment Initiative","authors":"Katharine Jones","doi":"10.1177/14680181221084792","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221084792","url":null,"abstract":"In 2014, the International Labour Organization (ILO) launched the Fair Recruitment Initiative (FRI) with the aim of tackling labour exploitation widely associated with the recruitment of low-wage migrant workers. To date, scholars have largely neglected the ILO’s role in developing ‘fair recruitment’ as a mechanism of global social policy. In response, this article analyses the ILO’s harnessing of fair recruitment to the global governance of migration. Through engaging in significant knowledge production, the ILO has promoted ‘fair recruitment’ as a new norm, generating consensus, despite its absence from international legal standards. In utilising multiple and varied tools, the article argues that the FRI is an example of the ‘coordinated governance’ which the ILO has had to pragmatically resort to in externally and internally challenging environments, and regardless of whether states have ratified its main convention on recruitment, C181. However, as of 2022, the concept of fair recruitment remains a muted challenge to the hegemonic precarity and inequalities associated with international labour migration in the 21st century.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"303 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42130346","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 : 2022-04-14DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079202
Jill Jensen
The International Labour Organization (ILO) seeks to build consensus for a ‘fair migration agenda’ while linking development goals with the rights of migrant workers across national borders. Since the main drivers of international migration are employment-related, this is a topic of extreme concern for the readers of this special issue. Given the differences between nations and regions – between labor sending and labor receiving countries – promoting such an agenda is complicated, and ILO labor standards apply almost exclusively to workers crossing international borders. Nations aim to provide opportunities for their citizens, and international movement, in the words of an ILO specialist in migration from years ago, remains a second-best option compared to securing decent work at home. The challenge is how to nurture opportunities in countries that lack the resources and capital but have ample numbers looking for remunerative work. This article evaluates an historical example of attention to both development and migration in the 1970s and 1980s. Linking the dynamics of domestic migration, economic growth, and the structure of labor markets in poorer nations, I evaluate two important concepts that stemmed from research of this era: surplus labor and basic human needs. Through review of historical documents, including archival material and a multiplicity of reports, papers, and strategy guidelines, I seek to describe ILO projects and proposals meant to deal, simultaneously, with poverty, migration, and development.
{"title":"The ILO World Employment Program research agenda on development and migration","authors":"Jill Jensen","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079202","url":null,"abstract":"The International Labour Organization (ILO) seeks to build consensus for a ‘fair migration agenda’ while linking development goals with the rights of migrant workers across national borders. Since the main drivers of international migration are employment-related, this is a topic of extreme concern for the readers of this special issue. Given the differences between nations and regions – between labor sending and labor receiving countries – promoting such an agenda is complicated, and ILO labor standards apply almost exclusively to workers crossing international borders. Nations aim to provide opportunities for their citizens, and international movement, in the words of an ILO specialist in migration from years ago, remains a second-best option compared to securing decent work at home. The challenge is how to nurture opportunities in countries that lack the resources and capital but have ample numbers looking for remunerative work. This article evaluates an historical example of attention to both development and migration in the 1970s and 1980s. Linking the dynamics of domestic migration, economic growth, and the structure of labor markets in poorer nations, I evaluate two important concepts that stemmed from research of this era: surplus labor and basic human needs. Through review of historical documents, including archival material and a multiplicity of reports, papers, and strategy guidelines, I seek to describe ILO projects and proposals meant to deal, simultaneously, with poverty, migration, and development.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"263 - 280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42161116","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 : 2022-04-05DOI: 10.1177/14680181221085477
Cecilia Bruzelius, Isabel Shutes
Over recent years, there has been increasing attention to migration in social policy research. Uniting this research has been a focus on cross-national migration, and predominantly immigration. In the meantime, the relationship between human mobility and social policy at other scales and sites has gained much less attention. This is in spite of the salience of multiple forms of mobility and measures for restricting, facilitating or promoting mobility not confined to the territorial borders of the nation-state. This article proposes an alternative mobility perspective for social policy research that moves us beyond the limitations of current migration approaches. To do so, we draw on interdisciplinary mobilities theory and research. Empirically, we apply a mobility perspective to examine how systems of social provision are shaped by and shape mobility and immobility, in restricting, facilitating or promoting the movement of people. We argue that such an approach allows us to frame and address questions that place mobility and immobility as central to the social relations of welfare, advancing our understanding of how social policies can reduce or reinforce the inequalities of mobility.
{"title":"Towards an understanding of mobility in social policy research","authors":"Cecilia Bruzelius, Isabel Shutes","doi":"10.1177/14680181221085477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221085477","url":null,"abstract":"Over recent years, there has been increasing attention to migration in social policy research. Uniting this research has been a focus on cross-national migration, and predominantly immigration. In the meantime, the relationship between human mobility and social policy at other scales and sites has gained much less attention. This is in spite of the salience of multiple forms of mobility and measures for restricting, facilitating or promoting mobility not confined to the territorial borders of the nation-state. This article proposes an alternative mobility perspective for social policy research that moves us beyond the limitations of current migration approaches. To do so, we draw on interdisciplinary mobilities theory and research. Empirically, we apply a mobility perspective to examine how systems of social provision are shaped by and shape mobility and immobility, in restricting, facilitating or promoting the movement of people. We argue that such an approach allows us to frame and address questions that place mobility and immobility as central to the social relations of welfare, advancing our understanding of how social policies can reduce or reinforce the inequalities of mobility.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"503 - 520"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46434147","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 : 2022-04-05DOI: 10.1177/14680181211070201
M. Pinilla-Roncancio, Mauricio Gallardo
In Latin America, approximately 70 million individuals live with a disability. Although global evidence suggests that people with disabilities are one of the poorest groups and present lower employment rates, the evidence for Latin America is still weak. This article aims to contribute to the literature by estimating and analysing the levels of employment opportunity for persons with disabilities in six countries in Latin America (Chile, Bolivia, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Costa Rica). Using household survey data, we measure inequality of opportunities using the Paes de Barros approach and compare the probability distributions of being employed for people with disabilities according to different individual characteristics. This research makes several contributions to the literature. First, it analyses and compares the characteristics of persons with disabilities in six countries of the region. Second, it is the first paper in the region that computes and compares the levels of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, using the Human Opportunity Index. Third, it analyses which are the main aspects contributing to the levels of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in each of the countries. The main results of the study reveal that people with disabilities face high levels of inequality of employment opportunity compared with people without disabilities in the six countries. Peru shows the lowest disadvantage, with higher coverage of opportunities for people with disabilities. Colombia and Costa Rica were the countries where this group presents the largest disadvantages to be employed. In addition, women with disabilities and people with disabilities living in rural areas have a lower probability of being employed compared with people without disabilities. These findings reveal that policies in the region aiming to include this group in the labour market have not been effective, and there is a necessity to guarantee the proper labour inclusion of this group.
在拉丁美洲，约有7000万残疾人。尽管全球证据表明残疾人是最贫穷的群体之一，就业率较低，但拉丁美洲的证据仍然薄弱。本文旨在通过估计和分析拉丁美洲六个国家（智利、玻利维亚、墨西哥、秘鲁、哥伦比亚和哥斯达黎加）残疾人的就业机会水平，为文献做出贡献。利用家庭调查数据，我们使用Paes de Barros方法测量了机会的不平等，并根据不同的个人特征比较了残疾人就业的概率分布。这项研究对文献做出了一些贡献。首先，分析和比较了该地区六个国家残疾人的特点。其次，这是该地区第一篇使用人类机会指数计算和比较残疾人就业机会水平的论文。第三，它分析了每个国家残疾人就业机会水平的主要因素。研究的主要结果表明，与六个国家的非残疾人相比，残疾人在就业机会方面面临着高度的不平等。秘鲁的劣势最低，残疾人的机会覆盖率更高。哥伦比亚和哥斯达黎加是这一群体就业劣势最大的国家。此外，与非残疾人相比，残疾妇女和生活在农村地区的残疾人就业的概率较低。这些调查结果表明，该地区旨在将这一群体纳入劳动力市场的政策并不有效，有必要保证这一群体的适当劳动力融入。
{"title":"Inequality in labour market opportunities for people with disabilities: Evidence for six Latin American countries","authors":"M. Pinilla-Roncancio, Mauricio Gallardo","doi":"10.1177/14680181211070201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211070201","url":null,"abstract":"In Latin America, approximately 70 million individuals live with a disability. Although global evidence suggests that people with disabilities are one of the poorest groups and present lower employment rates, the evidence for Latin America is still weak. This article aims to contribute to the literature by estimating and analysing the levels of employment opportunity for persons with disabilities in six countries in Latin America (Chile, Bolivia, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Costa Rica). Using household survey data, we measure inequality of opportunities using the Paes de Barros approach and compare the probability distributions of being employed for people with disabilities according to different individual characteristics. This research makes several contributions to the literature. First, it analyses and compares the characteristics of persons with disabilities in six countries of the region. Second, it is the first paper in the region that computes and compares the levels of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, using the Human Opportunity Index. Third, it analyses which are the main aspects contributing to the levels of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in each of the countries. The main results of the study reveal that people with disabilities face high levels of inequality of employment opportunity compared with people without disabilities in the six countries. Peru shows the lowest disadvantage, with higher coverage of opportunities for people with disabilities. Colombia and Costa Rica were the countries where this group presents the largest disadvantages to be employed. In addition, women with disabilities and people with disabilities living in rural areas have a lower probability of being employed compared with people without disabilities. These findings reveal that policies in the region aiming to include this group in the labour market have not been effective, and there is a necessity to guarantee the proper labour inclusion of this group.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"67 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48582226","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 : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079086
Sarah Cook, Silke Staab
COVID-19 has been unique among recent crises in the swift attention directed to gender impacts and inequalities in relation both to the initial pandemic and to the economic and social crises that followed. Gender equality activists, advocates and researchers mobilized at extraordinary speed to raise concerns on issues from health, violence and care to employment and social protection. They rapidly formed networks and groups, collecting data, monitoring impacts and policy responses, and making efforts to hold governments and international organizations to account. Thanks to these efforts, the gendered impacts of the interlinked health, economic and social crises have been well-documented and widely publicized.1 While initially men appeared most adversely affected by COVID-19, it quickly became apparent that women – who make up 70 per cent of the global health workforce – were more exposed. The subsequent public health response, including varying degrees of lockdown, had other dramatic consequences for women, including increasing care burdens, rising levels of domestic violence and a disproportionate loss of jobs and working hours due to their concentration in hard hit sectors and their role as default unpaid care providers. National policy responses to the economic crisis, including social protection, job protection or labour furlough measures, bypassed many in informal or non-standard employment, again with women often disproportionately excluded from such measures. Most early analyses drew predominantly on evidence from the global North, examining national social policy responses, and often highlighting the gaps and limitations of policy responses in addressing women’s needs or gendered inequalities. This Forum takes a more global perspective, both geographically and in terms of levels of analysis. It brings together feminist researchers and advocates from civil society, academia, and
{"title":"Introduction: COVID-19: Lessons for gender-responsive recovery and transformation","authors":"Sarah Cook, Silke Staab","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079086","url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 has been unique among recent crises in the swift attention directed to gender impacts and inequalities in relation both to the initial pandemic and to the economic and social crises that followed. Gender equality activists, advocates and researchers mobilized at extraordinary speed to raise concerns on issues from health, violence and care to employment and social protection. They rapidly formed networks and groups, collecting data, monitoring impacts and policy responses, and making efforts to hold governments and international organizations to account. Thanks to these efforts, the gendered impacts of the interlinked health, economic and social crises have been well-documented and widely publicized.1 While initially men appeared most adversely affected by COVID-19, it quickly became apparent that women – who make up 70 per cent of the global health workforce – were more exposed. The subsequent public health response, including varying degrees of lockdown, had other dramatic consequences for women, including increasing care burdens, rising levels of domestic violence and a disproportionate loss of jobs and working hours due to their concentration in hard hit sectors and their role as default unpaid care providers. National policy responses to the economic crisis, including social protection, job protection or labour furlough measures, bypassed many in informal or non-standard employment, again with women often disproportionately excluded from such measures. Most early analyses drew predominantly on evidence from the global North, examining national social policy responses, and often highlighting the gaps and limitations of policy responses in addressing women’s needs or gendered inequalities. This Forum takes a more global perspective, both geographically and in terms of levels of analysis. It brings together feminist researchers and advocates from civil society, academia, and","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"172 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42896012","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 : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079097
Julia Smith
Back in 2008, David Fidler coined the term ‘the gender paradox’, which he described in the following terms: ‘We perceive that problems concerning women’s health . . . are growing at the same time that gender-informed analysis of global health issues has become more pervasive’ (Fidler, 2008: 148). He goes on to describe an inverted triangle within global health where there are numerous standards related to women’s health, but little incorporation of these into organizational practices or national implementation, and even less evidence of improved health outcomes for women. The response to COVID-19 has taken the gender paradox to a new level. We see unprecedent attention to the gendered effects of pandemics, in terms of not only health effects, but also the disproportionate social and economic impacts on women, yet little progress in rectifying these inequities (Harman, 2021). In this brief comment, I share two examples of how the gender paradox plays out in policy spaces – both global (the World Health Organization (WHO)) and national (Canada) – and then reflect on what can be learned in order to overcome barriers to transformative change. The WHO is mandated by the International Health Regulations to lead and coordinate responses to Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. While not an implementing organization, WHO provides technical guidance and holds normative power in its ability to set standards and champion agendas within global health; as such, its leadership in promoting gender-sensitive health responses is paramount (Wenham and Davies, 2021). The WHO has demonstrated some follow through on its commitments to mainstream gender (adopted in its Gender Strategy in 2008 and continued in the 13th General Programme of Work 2019–2023) in its COVID-19 response. In May 2020, it released a Gender and COVID advocacy brief and issued guidance on monitoring the unintended consequences of public health lockdowns, including gender-based violence and access to sexual and reproductive healthcare (WHO, 2020). Partially in response to pressure from organizations like Women in Global Health, as well as feminist advocates within and outside the organization, WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus met with civil society organizations, in September 2020, and
{"title":"COVID-19 and the gender paradox","authors":"Julia Smith","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079097","url":null,"abstract":"Back in 2008, David Fidler coined the term ‘the gender paradox’, which he described in the following terms: ‘We perceive that problems concerning women’s health . . . are growing at the same time that gender-informed analysis of global health issues has become more pervasive’ (Fidler, 2008: 148). He goes on to describe an inverted triangle within global health where there are numerous standards related to women’s health, but little incorporation of these into organizational practices or national implementation, and even less evidence of improved health outcomes for women. The response to COVID-19 has taken the gender paradox to a new level. We see unprecedent attention to the gendered effects of pandemics, in terms of not only health effects, but also the disproportionate social and economic impacts on women, yet little progress in rectifying these inequities (Harman, 2021). In this brief comment, I share two examples of how the gender paradox plays out in policy spaces – both global (the World Health Organization (WHO)) and national (Canada) – and then reflect on what can be learned in order to overcome barriers to transformative change. The WHO is mandated by the International Health Regulations to lead and coordinate responses to Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. While not an implementing organization, WHO provides technical guidance and holds normative power in its ability to set standards and champion agendas within global health; as such, its leadership in promoting gender-sensitive health responses is paramount (Wenham and Davies, 2021). The WHO has demonstrated some follow through on its commitments to mainstream gender (adopted in its Gender Strategy in 2008 and continued in the 13th General Programme of Work 2019–2023) in its COVID-19 response. In May 2020, it released a Gender and COVID advocacy brief and issued guidance on monitoring the unintended consequences of public health lockdowns, including gender-based violence and access to sexual and reproductive healthcare (WHO, 2020). Partially in response to pressure from organizations like Women in Global Health, as well as feminist advocates within and outside the organization, WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus met with civil society organizations, in September 2020, and","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"202 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47451094","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 : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181211048126
A. Zúñiga-Fajuri, Fuad Hatibovic, J. Gaete
Chile has become the first country in the world where an equal number of men and women will draft the new Constitution due a parity law that was passed in March 2020. In addition, this historic opportunity will take place during one of the worst health pandemics in recorded history, COVID-19, which has revealed deep gender inequalities. The new Chilean Constitution, drafted with gender parity, will have a unique opportunity to grant a right to a universal basic income (UBI), which has been targeted to address some of the worst consequences of the pandemic: the increase in poverty, unemployment, and vulnerability of women. This article reviews the theories developed to justify a UBI and the feminist critics who argue that not all UBI is equally advantageous to women. The misconception that a ‘morally neutral’ model is sufficient and women-friendly disregards the way in which it encourages stereotypes that feminists have fought for centuries. We argue for the development of public policies with a gender focus, especially the right to a ‘gendered UBI’. This means a UBI that meets two basic requirements: first, that every citizen or resident be guaranteed the same amount of income from birth; second, that caregivers be provided with management rights to turn the UBI into a compensatory income that can also promote changes in gender roles, encouraging men to become caregivers.
{"title":"A gendered UBI proposal for the new Chilean constitution (or why being a surfer is not the same as being a caregiver)","authors":"A. Zúñiga-Fajuri, Fuad Hatibovic, J. Gaete","doi":"10.1177/14680181211048126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211048126","url":null,"abstract":"Chile has become the first country in the world where an equal number of men and women will draft the new Constitution due a parity law that was passed in March 2020. In addition, this historic opportunity will take place during one of the worst health pandemics in recorded history, COVID-19, which has revealed deep gender inequalities. The new Chilean Constitution, drafted with gender parity, will have a unique opportunity to grant a right to a universal basic income (UBI), which has been targeted to address some of the worst consequences of the pandemic: the increase in poverty, unemployment, and vulnerability of women. This article reviews the theories developed to justify a UBI and the feminist critics who argue that not all UBI is equally advantageous to women. The misconception that a ‘morally neutral’ model is sufficient and women-friendly disregards the way in which it encourages stereotypes that feminists have fought for centuries. We argue for the development of public policies with a gender focus, especially the right to a ‘gendered UBI’. This means a UBI that meets two basic requirements: first, that every citizen or resident be guaranteed the same amount of income from birth; second, that caregivers be provided with management rights to turn the UBI into a compensatory income that can also promote changes in gender roles, encouraging men to become caregivers.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"8 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43332359","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 : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079099
A. Kaasch
Dear GSP readers, This issue consists of eight articles, a Forum entitled “COVID-19: Lessons for genderresponsive recovery and transformation” and a Digest covering the fields of global social governance, global social policies (redistribution, regulation, rights), health, employment and work, social protection, education, environment, migration and gender, but with an ongoing emphasis on the Covid-19 pandemic. As usual, this editorial briefly presents the discussions and contributions to this issue, but also hints at a number of recently published books in the field. The insights and discussions from our last issue (GSP 21.3) – a special issue on Covid-19 – are continued in the GSP Forum edited by Sarah Cook and Silke Staab, as well as in an article by Zuñiga-Fajuri et al., with a particular focus on gendered and feminist perspectives. The Forum contains short reflections by feminist researchers and advocates from civil society, academia, and intergovernmental agencies. They explore the role feminist activism and ‘policy entrepreneurship’ has played in responding to crisis and driving a more forward-looking gender transformative agenda. Among the insights we get from these contributions are the following: Covid-19 has highlighted gender impacts and inequalities in relation not only to the pandemic but also the crises arising from various measures to prevent the virus from spreading. Activism on genderrelated needs and rights rapidly intensified at the start of the pandemic, drawing on existing evidence and transnational networks. Particularly interesting are the considerations of what transformative, sustainable gender-sensitive policies could be like, linking feminist arguments about care and the environment. In a related vein, the chapter by Warria Ajwang’ in “The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Problems” (Baikady et al., 2021) describes Covid-19 as a “catalyst for transformative socio-political activism for accountability and justice”. It highlights the potential of the regularization of migrant work for accessing social rights (irrespective of residence, gender, and status). That fits well with the GSP Digest’s comment on the new 1079099 GSP0010.1177/14680181221079099Global Social PolicyKaasch editorial2022
亲爱的普惠制读者，本期共有八篇文章，一个题为“新冠肺炎：性别响应性复苏和转型的教训”的论坛和一个涵盖全球社会治理、全球社会政策（再分配、监管、权利）、健康、就业和工作、社会保护、教育、环境、移民和性别等领域的摘要，但同时持续强调新冠肺炎大流行。和往常一样，这篇社论简要介绍了对这一问题的讨论和贡献，但也暗示了该领域最近出版的一些书籍。Sarah Cook和Silke Staab编辑的《普惠制论坛》以及Zuñiga-Fajuri等人的一篇文章继续介绍了我们上一期（普惠制21.3）——关于新冠肺炎的特刊——的见解和讨论，特别关注性别和女权主义观点。论坛包含了来自民间社会、学术界和政府间机构的女权主义研究人员和倡导者的简短思考。他们探讨了女权主义激进主义和“政策创业”在应对危机和推动更具前瞻性的性别变革议程方面所发挥的作用。我们从这些贡献中得到的见解如下：新冠肺炎突出了性别影响和不平等，不仅与疫情有关，还与防止病毒传播的各种措施引起的危机有关。在新冠疫情开始时，利用现有证据和跨国网络，关于性别相关需求和权利的活动迅速加剧。特别有趣的是，考虑到变革性、可持续的性别敏感政策可能是什么样的，将女权主义关于护理和环境的论点联系起来。与此相关的是，Warria Ajwang在《全球社会问题帕尔格雷夫手册》（Baikady et al.，2021）中的章节将新冠肺炎描述为“促进问责制和正义的变革性社会政治行动的催化剂”。它强调了移民工作正规化对获得社会权利（不分居住地、性别和地位）的潜力。这与《普惠制文摘》对新的1079099 GSP0010.1177/14680181221079099全球社会政策Kaasch社论2022的评论非常吻合
{"title":"What is (successfully) “social” in global social policy and how does it diffuse?","authors":"A. Kaasch","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079099","url":null,"abstract":"Dear GSP readers, This issue consists of eight articles, a Forum entitled “COVID-19: Lessons for genderresponsive recovery and transformation” and a Digest covering the fields of global social governance, global social policies (redistribution, regulation, rights), health, employment and work, social protection, education, environment, migration and gender, but with an ongoing emphasis on the Covid-19 pandemic. As usual, this editorial briefly presents the discussions and contributions to this issue, but also hints at a number of recently published books in the field. The insights and discussions from our last issue (GSP 21.3) – a special issue on Covid-19 – are continued in the GSP Forum edited by Sarah Cook and Silke Staab, as well as in an article by Zuñiga-Fajuri et al., with a particular focus on gendered and feminist perspectives. The Forum contains short reflections by feminist researchers and advocates from civil society, academia, and intergovernmental agencies. They explore the role feminist activism and ‘policy entrepreneurship’ has played in responding to crisis and driving a more forward-looking gender transformative agenda. Among the insights we get from these contributions are the following: Covid-19 has highlighted gender impacts and inequalities in relation not only to the pandemic but also the crises arising from various measures to prevent the virus from spreading. Activism on genderrelated needs and rights rapidly intensified at the start of the pandemic, drawing on existing evidence and transnational networks. Particularly interesting are the considerations of what transformative, sustainable gender-sensitive policies could be like, linking feminist arguments about care and the environment. In a related vein, the chapter by Warria Ajwang’ in “The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Problems” (Baikady et al., 2021) describes Covid-19 as a “catalyst for transformative socio-political activism for accountability and justice”. It highlights the potential of the regularization of migrant work for accessing social rights (irrespective of residence, gender, and status). That fits well with the GSP Digest’s comment on the new 1079099 GSP0010.1177/14680181221079099Global Social PolicyKaasch editorial2022","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"3 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47571734","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：