C. Segatto, Fernando Burgos Pimentel dos Santos, Renata Bichir, E. Morandi
This paper contributes to discussions about subnational responses to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in federal countries. In the scholarship on federalism and public policy, few studies seek to understand the factors that shape subnational differences in welfare levels. This article seeks to better understand this issue in Brazil by exploring how, in a context with little national-level coordination, subnational governments tackle the inequalities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyzes two social policy areas with distinct national-level coordination mechanisms and federal responsibilities: social assistance and education. Two multi-level cases are examined: the states of Amazonas and São Paulo and the cities of Manaus and São Paulo. This analysis relies on quantitative data, mainly social indicators, and qualitative data collected through documents and in-depth interviews. Social assistance and education policy actors in Amazonas and São Paulo faced at times significant obstacles adapting and/or creating policies to tackle inequalities, resulting in a fend-for-yourself federalism and fragmented subnational policies. Differences in subnational responses can be explained by distinct policy legacies and previous capacity, which were key in organizing a useful response to the pandemic. However, to fully explain subnational responses, the role of actors within institutional contexts must also be taken into account. In social assistance, shared responsibilities among different levels of government led to competition and credit claiming dynamics, reinforcing fragmented and uncoordinated responses. In education, decentralization and more stable funding allowed political leadership to activate and mobilize subnational capacities and other actors at the subnational level, producing more sustainable responses.
{"title":"Inequalities and the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: Analyzing un-coordinated responses in social assistance and education","authors":"C. Segatto, Fernando Burgos Pimentel dos Santos, Renata Bichir, E. Morandi","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper contributes to discussions about subnational responses to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in federal countries. In the scholarship on federalism and public policy, few studies seek to understand the factors that shape subnational differences in welfare levels. This article seeks to better understand this issue in Brazil by exploring how, in a context with little national-level coordination, subnational governments tackle the inequalities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyzes two social policy areas with distinct national-level coordination mechanisms and federal responsibilities: social assistance and education. Two multi-level cases are examined: the states of Amazonas and São Paulo and the cities of Manaus and São Paulo. This analysis relies on quantitative data, mainly social indicators, and qualitative data collected through documents and in-depth interviews. Social assistance and education policy actors in Amazonas and São Paulo faced at times significant obstacles adapting and/or creating policies to tackle inequalities, resulting in a fend-for-yourself federalism and fragmented subnational policies. Differences in subnational responses can be explained by distinct policy legacies and previous capacity, which were key in organizing a useful response to the pandemic. However, to fully explain subnational responses, the role of actors within institutional contexts must also be taken into account. In social assistance, shared responsibilities among different levels of government led to competition and credit claiming dynamics, reinforcing fragmented and uncoordinated responses. In education, decentralization and more stable funding allowed political leadership to activate and mobilize subnational capacities and other actors at the subnational level, producing more sustainable responses.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83954754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has created tremendous hazards to people worldwide. Incidence, hospitalization, and mortality rates have varied by individual and regional socioeconomic indicators. However, little is known about the indirect social and economic losses following the COVID-19 pandemic and to what extent they have disproportionately affected different groups of people. Building on the traditional conceptualizations of “old” and “new social risks,” this article tracks and analyzes the emerging “COVID social risks” in five critical areas: physical health, employment and income, skills and knowledge, care, and social relationships. The article empirically examines to what extent the manifestations of “COVID social risks” describe the makings of a new class divide in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Finally, this article discusses whether “COVID social risks” present a temporary or lasting phenomenon and to what extent interactions with processes of digitization and de-globalization are likely to produce similar problem pressures for East Asian governments amid future crises. East Asian governments should facilitate individuals’ ability to absorb “COVID social risks” and institutionalize a new welfare policy settlement that emphasizes complementarities between the social protection, social investment, and social innovation policy paradigms.
{"title":"From “new social risks” to “COVID social risks”: the challenges for inclusive society in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan Amid the pandemic","authors":"Y. Choi, Stefan Kühner, Shih‐Jiunn Shi","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has created tremendous hazards to people worldwide. Incidence, hospitalization, and mortality rates have varied by individual and regional socioeconomic indicators. However, little is known about the indirect social and economic losses following the COVID-19 pandemic and to what extent they have disproportionately affected different groups of people. Building on the traditional conceptualizations of “old” and “new social risks,” this article tracks and analyzes the emerging “COVID social risks” in five critical areas: physical health, employment and income, skills and knowledge, care, and social relationships. The article empirically examines to what extent the manifestations of “COVID social risks” describe the makings of a new class divide in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Finally, this article discusses whether “COVID social risks” present a temporary or lasting phenomenon and to what extent interactions with processes of digitization and de-globalization are likely to produce similar problem pressures for East Asian governments amid future crises. East Asian governments should facilitate individuals’ ability to absorb “COVID social risks” and institutionalize a new welfare policy settlement that emphasizes complementarities between the social protection, social investment, and social innovation policy paradigms.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"18 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90752749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Diego Cagigas, Judith Clifton, Daniel Díaz‐Fuentes, Marcos Fernández, J. Echevarría-Cuenca, Celia Gilsanz-Gómez
Blockchain is emerging as one of the major disruptive technologies of our times. In the context of public administration, blockchain heralds major transformations of public service provision and has the potential to increase the transparency of, and citizens’ trust in, public administration and its services. However, the introduction of blockchain to public administrations means potentially changing aspects of the job performed by public officials, including their day-to-day activities and responsibilities, and even their very control over administrative processes. While some public officials may view blockchain positively as a means of improving current administrative practices, others may view it more negatively and resist it. The acceptance or otherwise of blockchain is, therefore, a fundamental issue for analysis. We conduct a vignette experiment to probe public officials’ opinions on the introduction of blockchain in the provision of public services in a local council. We follow an influential classification of blockchain configurations to analyze whether different configurations of blockchain affect public officials’ opinions toward its implementation. Results show that a more public configuration of certain aspects of the blockchain increases the likelihood that public officials will accept blockchain, while it is also associated with an increase in trust in public administration and its services.
{"title":"Explaining public officials’ opinions on blockchain adoption: a vignette experiment","authors":"Diego Cagigas, Judith Clifton, Daniel Díaz‐Fuentes, Marcos Fernández, J. Echevarría-Cuenca, Celia Gilsanz-Gómez","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puab022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Blockchain is emerging as one of the major disruptive technologies of our times. In the context of public administration, blockchain heralds major transformations of public service provision and has the potential to increase the transparency of, and citizens’ trust in, public administration and its services. However, the introduction of blockchain to public administrations means potentially changing aspects of the job performed by public officials, including their day-to-day activities and responsibilities, and even their very control over administrative processes. While some public officials may view blockchain positively as a means of improving current administrative practices, others may view it more negatively and resist it. The acceptance or otherwise of blockchain is, therefore, a fundamental issue for analysis. We conduct a vignette experiment to probe public officials’ opinions on the introduction of blockchain in the provision of public services in a local council. We follow an influential classification of blockchain configurations to analyze whether different configurations of blockchain affect public officials’ opinions toward its implementation. Results show that a more public configuration of certain aspects of the blockchain increases the likelihood that public officials will accept blockchain, while it is also associated with an increase in trust in public administration and its services.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76144394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Poor people proved especially vulnerable to economic disruption during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which highlighted the importance of poverty reduction as a policy concern. In this article, we explore the politics of poverty reduction during the COVID-19 crisis in Canada and the United States, two liberal welfare-state regimes where poverty reduction is a key policy issue. We show that, since the beginning of the pandemic, policies likely to reduce poverty significantly have been adopted in both Canada and the United States. Yet, this poverty reduction logic has emerged in different ways in the two countries—with the United States embracing more significant departures from its policy status quo. This situation leads us to ask the following question: in each country, what are the political conditions under which public policies susceptible of reducing poverty are enacted? To answer this question, we study the politics of poverty reduction both before and during the pandemic, as we suggest that grasping the evolution of partisan and electoral patterns over time is necessary to explain what happened during the pandemic, whose impact is closely related to how it interacts with such patterns. Our analysis suggests the need to consider more carefully the impact of both crises and partisanship on social policy, including poverty reduction.
{"title":"COVID-19, poverty reduction, and partisanship in Canada and the United States","authors":"D. Béland, S. Dinan, P. Rocco, Alex Waddan","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Poor people proved especially vulnerable to economic disruption during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which highlighted the importance of poverty reduction as a policy concern. In this article, we explore the politics of poverty reduction during the COVID-19 crisis in Canada and the United States, two liberal welfare-state regimes where poverty reduction is a key policy issue. We show that, since the beginning of the pandemic, policies likely to reduce poverty significantly have been adopted in both Canada and the United States. Yet, this poverty reduction logic has emerged in different ways in the two countries—with the United States embracing more significant departures from its policy status quo. This situation leads us to ask the following question: in each country, what are the political conditions under which public policies susceptible of reducing poverty are enacted? To answer this question, we study the politics of poverty reduction both before and during the pandemic, as we suggest that grasping the evolution of partisan and electoral patterns over time is necessary to explain what happened during the pandemic, whose impact is closely related to how it interacts with such patterns. Our analysis suggests the need to consider more carefully the impact of both crises and partisanship on social policy, including poverty reduction.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89202593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The existing literature suggests that external shocks, such as pandemics, stimulate people’s demand for social protections and prompt them to favor short-term social consumption over long-term investments. However, this argument may not apply fully in a society with an urban–rural divide in addition to an unequal welfare system. Through a telephone survey conducted in July 2020, this study sought to investigate public opinions on the social policy response to the coronavirus disease pandemic in China. Quantitative evidence showed large economic hardship among the respondents, who expressed a strong expectation for labor market interventions instead of social assistance. This study reveals that the preexisting inequalities in people’s access to welfare benefits have led local residents and migrants to develop differential preferences for social policies. This attitudinal heterogeneity is illustrative of the inequalities in the Chinese welfare system as well as of the labor market dynamics that have resulted from massive internal migration and the informalization of the workforce. The division between locals and migrants in China’s urban welfare system has shaped a demarcation of welfare preferences between the two groups through peculiar interpretive feedback effects.
{"title":"COVID-19 and social inequality in China: the local–migrant divide and the limits of social protections in a pandemic","authors":"A. He, Chunni Zhang, Jiwei Qian","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The existing literature suggests that external shocks, such as pandemics, stimulate people’s demand for social protections and prompt them to favor short-term social consumption over long-term investments. However, this argument may not apply fully in a society with an urban–rural divide in addition to an unequal welfare system. Through a telephone survey conducted in July 2020, this study sought to investigate public opinions on the social policy response to the coronavirus disease pandemic in China. Quantitative evidence showed large economic hardship among the respondents, who expressed a strong expectation for labor market interventions instead of social assistance. This study reveals that the preexisting inequalities in people’s access to welfare benefits have led local residents and migrants to develop differential preferences for social policies. This attitudinal heterogeneity is illustrative of the inequalities in the Chinese welfare system as well as of the labor market dynamics that have resulted from massive internal migration and the informalization of the workforce. The division between locals and migrants in China’s urban welfare system has shaped a demarcation of welfare preferences between the two groups through peculiar interpretive feedback effects.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77109255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wu, Howlett, and Ramesh’s understanding of policy capacity has been used to identify generalizable strengths and weaknesses of specific jurisdictions and policy sectors such as health. In an extension of this work, Howlett and Ramesh have argued that the mode of governance of a policy sector accentuates the importance of specific elements of policy capacity. In this paper we focus on the implementation of the System Level Measures Framework (SLMF) in New Zealand that has been specifically focused on health systems improvement and which aimed to do so by fostering network governance at the local level. However, this policy is introduced in a context in which there has been significant contestation regarding which mode of governance—network or hierarchy—is dominant in New Zealand health policy. By exploring three divergent local cases of implementation of the SLMF we develop three arguments that contribute to the literature on policy capacity and health. Firstly, local histories of interorganizational play a crucial role in shaping health policy capacity. Secondly, it is crucially important to understand the dynamics and feedback loops between operational, political, and analytical policy capacity. Network and hierarchical governance are characterized by distinct and contrasting understandings of the content of policy capacity elements and of the way in which they are dynamically related. Thirdly, the key challenge in developing policy capacity compatible with network governance is how to facilitate this capacity when connections between operational, political, and analytical policy capacity fail to fire.
{"title":"Cultivating health policy capacity through network governance in New Zealand: learning from divergent stories of policy implementation","authors":"T. Tenbensel, P. Silwal","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puab020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Wu, Howlett, and Ramesh’s understanding of policy capacity has been used to identify generalizable strengths and weaknesses of specific jurisdictions and policy sectors such as health. In an extension of this work, Howlett and Ramesh have argued that the mode of governance of a policy sector accentuates the importance of specific elements of policy capacity. In this paper we focus on the implementation of the System Level Measures Framework (SLMF) in New Zealand that has been specifically focused on health systems improvement and which aimed to do so by fostering network governance at the local level. However, this policy is introduced in a context in which there has been significant contestation regarding which mode of governance—network or hierarchy—is dominant in New Zealand health policy. By exploring three divergent local cases of implementation of the SLMF we develop three arguments that contribute to the literature on policy capacity and health. Firstly, local histories of interorganizational play a crucial role in shaping health policy capacity. Secondly, it is crucially important to understand the dynamics and feedback loops between operational, political, and analytical policy capacity. Network and hierarchical governance are characterized by distinct and contrasting understandings of the content of policy capacity elements and of the way in which they are dynamically related. Thirdly, the key challenge in developing policy capacity compatible with network governance is how to facilitate this capacity when connections between operational, political, and analytical policy capacity fail to fire.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83126197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has tested the mettle of governments across the globe and has thrown entrenched fault lines within health systems into sharper relief. In response to the outbreak of the pandemic, governments introduced a range of measures to meet the growth in demand and bridge gaps in health systems. The objective of this paper is to understand the nature and extent of the changes in health systems triggered by the COVID-19 crisis. The paper examines changes in the role of governments in (1) sector coordination, (2) service provision, (3) financing, (4) payment, and (5) regulations. It outlines broad trends and reforms underway prior to the pandemic and highlights likely trajectories in these aspects in the future. The paper argues that while the pandemic has accelerated changes already underway before the crisis, it has made little headway in clearing the path for other or deeper health policy reforms. The reform window that COVID-19 opened has not been wide enough to overcome the entrenched path dependency and structural interests that characterize the sector.
{"title":"Health policy and COVID-19: path dependency and trajectory","authors":"A. Bali, A. He, M. Ramesh","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puab014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has tested the mettle of governments across the globe and has thrown entrenched fault lines within health systems into sharper relief. In response to the outbreak of the pandemic, governments introduced a range of measures to meet the growth in demand and bridge gaps in health systems. The objective of this paper is to understand the nature and extent of the changes in health systems triggered by the COVID-19 crisis. The paper examines changes in the role of governments in (1) sector coordination, (2) service provision, (3) financing, (4) payment, and (5) regulations. It outlines broad trends and reforms underway prior to the pandemic and highlights likely trajectories in these aspects in the future. The paper argues that while the pandemic has accelerated changes already underway before the crisis, it has made little headway in clearing the path for other or deeper health policy reforms. The reform window that COVID-19 opened has not been wide enough to overcome the entrenched path dependency and structural interests that characterize the sector.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83165570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper offers an analysis of the theoretical and empirical challenges the coronavirus pandemic poses for theories of policy change. Critical events like coronavirus disease are potentially powerful destabilizers that can trigger discontinuity in policy trajectories and thus are an opportunity for accentuating path shifts. In this paper, we argue that three dynamic pathways of change are possible and must be considered when analysing post-COVID policymaking: normalization, adaptation, and acceleration. These different pathways need to be explored in order to understand the mid- and long-term policy effects of the pandemic. This introduction contextualizes the articles in this special issue, situating them broadly within two broad categories: (a) assessment of how the coronavirus disease pandemic should be understood as a crisis event, and its role in relationship to mechanisms of policy change; and (b) mapping the future contours of the pandemic’s impact on substantive policy areas, including education, health care, public finance, social protection, population ageing, the future of work, and violence against women.
{"title":"Long-term policy impacts of the coronavirus: normalization, adaptation, and acceleration in the post-COVID state","authors":"G. Capano, Michael Howlett, D. Jarvis, M. Ramesh","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puab018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper offers an analysis of the theoretical and empirical challenges the coronavirus pandemic poses for theories of policy change. Critical events like coronavirus disease are potentially powerful destabilizers that can trigger discontinuity in policy trajectories and thus are an opportunity for accentuating path shifts. In this paper, we argue that three dynamic pathways of change are possible and must be considered when analysing post-COVID policymaking: normalization, adaptation, and acceleration. These different pathways need to be explored in order to understand the mid- and long-term policy effects of the pandemic. This introduction contextualizes the articles in this special issue, situating them broadly within two broad categories: (a) assessment of how the coronavirus disease pandemic should be understood as a crisis event, and its role in relationship to mechanisms of policy change; and (b) mapping the future contours of the pandemic’s impact on substantive policy areas, including education, health care, public finance, social protection, population ageing, the future of work, and violence against women.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85512358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Education has been extremely affected by the coronavirus disease crisis, with almost all countries temporarily closing their schools in 2020. After the first stage of the pandemic, in which national governments focused on guaranteeing the academic year’s continuity, key international organizations emphasized the need to adopt structural policy reforms to face the challenges posed by the crisis. Based on international and European countries’ policy documents, this paper analyzes long-term responses articulated in the education sector. The analysis has allowed us to identify three preponderant areas of response: the digitalization of the educational system, educational inequalities, and teachers’ development. The agendas and policy instruments that international organizations have so far pushed for in relation to each of these areas do not differ substantially from the agendas and instruments they promoted in the pre-pandemic era. It is still early to assess the deepness of the transformations in course, but in most cases, prevailing responses represent the intensification of change processes initiated before the pandemic. Nonetheless, the type and intensity of country responses vary among the European Union member states. Although the pandemic represents a common thread, countries have experienced the crisis differently according to the characteristics of their educational systems and the main problems the crisis has revealed.
{"title":"Digitalization and beyond: the effects of Covid-19 on post-pandemic educational policy and delivery in Europe","authors":"Adrián Zancajo, Antoni Verger, P. Bolea","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puab016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Education has been extremely affected by the coronavirus disease crisis, with almost all countries temporarily closing their schools in 2020. After the first stage of the pandemic, in which national governments focused on guaranteeing the academic year’s continuity, key international organizations emphasized the need to adopt structural policy reforms to face the challenges posed by the crisis. Based on international and European countries’ policy documents, this paper analyzes long-term responses articulated in the education sector. The analysis has allowed us to identify three preponderant areas of response: the digitalization of the educational system, educational inequalities, and teachers’ development. The agendas and policy instruments that international organizations have so far pushed for in relation to each of these areas do not differ substantially from the agendas and instruments they promoted in the pre-pandemic era. It is still early to assess the deepness of the transformations in course, but in most cases, prevailing responses represent the intensification of change processes initiated before the pandemic. Nonetheless, the type and intensity of country responses vary among the European Union member states. Although the pandemic represents a common thread, countries have experienced the crisis differently according to the characteristics of their educational systems and the main problems the crisis has revealed.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73355029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on older people, in terms of their susceptibility to the disease and increased fatality rates, while also by creating barriers to health care access, social isolation, psychological and financial burdens. Policy responses provide an opportunity to understand whether the demands of this crisis have led to the development of policy innovations to meet the needs of aging populations. We analyzed an illustrative corpus of policies collected by HelpAge International across Asia in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Japan, Korea, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Vietnam. We identified different policy types that impacted older persons during the pandemic. We also observed the degree to which these policies support arguments for paradigmatic policy changes by examining different models of intersectoral and multisectoral collaborations, and the kinds of policies where these multiactor arrangements were the most common. From our analysis, we identify two main areas where COVID-19 policies are most likely to lead to more long-lasting innovation in Asia. The first is in the upgrading of infrastructures to ensure access to benefits, and to develop remote and doorstep banking. The second area is well-being and caring support, such as the development of programs to provide increased services to support home-based older persons, including telemedicine, delivery services for medical and other supplies, and remote support for older persons and their carers. These changes, while important, are consistent with “acceleration” models of policy change, where COVID-19 responses sped up, and scaled up, programs consistent with current institutional and organizational structures.
{"title":"COVID-19 as a trigger for innovation in policy action for older persons? Evidence from Asia","authors":"Stuart A. Gietel-Basten, K. Matus, R. Mori","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puab012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on older people, in terms of their susceptibility to the disease and increased fatality rates, while also by creating barriers to health care access, social isolation, psychological and financial burdens. Policy responses provide an opportunity to understand whether the demands of this crisis have led to the development of policy innovations to meet the needs of aging populations. We analyzed an illustrative corpus of policies collected by HelpAge International across Asia in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Japan, Korea, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Vietnam. We identified different policy types that impacted older persons during the pandemic. We also observed the degree to which these policies support arguments for paradigmatic policy changes by examining different models of intersectoral and multisectoral collaborations, and the kinds of policies where these multiactor arrangements were the most common. From our analysis, we identify two main areas where COVID-19 policies are most likely to lead to more long-lasting innovation in Asia. The first is in the upgrading of infrastructures to ensure access to benefits, and to develop remote and doorstep banking. The second area is well-being and caring support, such as the development of programs to provide increased services to support home-based older persons, including telemedicine, delivery services for medical and other supplies, and remote support for older persons and their carers. These changes, while important, are consistent with “acceleration” models of policy change, where COVID-19 responses sped up, and scaled up, programs consistent with current institutional and organizational structures.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"1965 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91318631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：