新冠(新)平等:德国、瑞典和英国的劳动力市场保护、健康和寄宿护理

IF 5.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Society Pub Date : 2022-02-16 DOI:10.1093/polsoc/puac004
N. Ellison, P. Blomqvist, T. Fleckenstein
{"title":"新冠(新)平等:德国、瑞典和英国的劳动力市场保护、健康和寄宿护理","authors":"N. Ellison, P. Blomqvist, T. Fleckenstein","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n How have differently institutionalized welfare regimes dealt with the Covid-19 crisis? In particular, how have they confronted the social and economic inequalities exposed by the virus? Taking three European countries—Germany, Sweden, and the UK, corresponding broadly to conservative-continental, social democratic, and liberal regime types—this paper tracks the virus response in the areas of income and employment protection and health and residential care. With attention paid to issues of “capacity” and the institutional arrangements in each case, we find that institutional histories in Germany and Sweden permitted a certain recidivistic reliance on established practices in the areas of employment and social protection. In sum, certain social and economic inequalities were mitigated as these countries set aside recent trends toward “liberalization” and mobilized longer-standing institutional capacities to protect some groups, although by no means all. Evidence of this trend is less clear in the health and residential care sectors, where Germany had existing capacity, allowing its older population to weather the crisis in better order than its counterparts in Sweden and the UK. In the UK, welfare liberalization has led to increased social and economic inequalities and funding reductions in health and residential care—all of which have reduced the country’s ability to deal with severe crisis. The Covid response in this case was agile, but also chaotic, with little being done to ameliorate the positions of the most vulnerable groups.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Covid (In)equalities: labor market protection, health, and residential care in Germany, Sweden, and the UK\",\"authors\":\"N. Ellison, P. Blomqvist, T. Fleckenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/polsoc/puac004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n How have differently institutionalized welfare regimes dealt with the Covid-19 crisis? In particular, how have they confronted the social and economic inequalities exposed by the virus? Taking three European countries—Germany, Sweden, and the UK, corresponding broadly to conservative-continental, social democratic, and liberal regime types—this paper tracks the virus response in the areas of income and employment protection and health and residential care. With attention paid to issues of “capacity” and the institutional arrangements in each case, we find that institutional histories in Germany and Sweden permitted a certain recidivistic reliance on established practices in the areas of employment and social protection. In sum, certain social and economic inequalities were mitigated as these countries set aside recent trends toward “liberalization” and mobilized longer-standing institutional capacities to protect some groups, although by no means all. Evidence of this trend is less clear in the health and residential care sectors, where Germany had existing capacity, allowing its older population to weather the crisis in better order than its counterparts in Sweden and the UK. In the UK, welfare liberalization has led to increased social and economic inequalities and funding reductions in health and residential care—all of which have reduced the country’s ability to deal with severe crisis. The Covid response in this case was agile, but also chaotic, with little being done to ameliorate the positions of the most vulnerable groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47383,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Society\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac004\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac004","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

不同的制度化福利制度是如何应对新冠肺炎危机的?特别是,他们如何面对病毒暴露的社会和经济不平等?本文以三个欧洲国家——德国、瑞典和英国为例,大致对应于大陆保守主义、社会民主主义和自由主义政体类型,追踪了收入和就业保护、健康和住宿护理领域的病毒反应。注意到“能力”问题和每一种情况下的体制安排,我们发现德国和瑞典的体制历史允许在就业和社会保护领域某种程度上累犯地依赖既定做法。总而言之,由于这些国家不顾最近的“自由化”趋势,并调动长期存在的体制能力来保护一些群体,但绝不是所有群体,某些社会和经济不平等现象得到了缓解。这一趋势在医疗和寄宿护理领域的证据不太明显,在这些领域,德国拥有现有的能力,使其老年人口能够比瑞典和英国的同行更好地度过危机。在英国,福利自由化导致社会和经济不平等加剧,医疗和寄宿护理的资金减少——所有这些都降低了国家应对严重危机的能力。在这种情况下,Covid的应对措施是灵活的,但也是混乱的,几乎没有采取任何措施来改善最弱势群体的处境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Covid (In)equalities: labor market protection, health, and residential care in Germany, Sweden, and the UK
How have differently institutionalized welfare regimes dealt with the Covid-19 crisis? In particular, how have they confronted the social and economic inequalities exposed by the virus? Taking three European countries—Germany, Sweden, and the UK, corresponding broadly to conservative-continental, social democratic, and liberal regime types—this paper tracks the virus response in the areas of income and employment protection and health and residential care. With attention paid to issues of “capacity” and the institutional arrangements in each case, we find that institutional histories in Germany and Sweden permitted a certain recidivistic reliance on established practices in the areas of employment and social protection. In sum, certain social and economic inequalities were mitigated as these countries set aside recent trends toward “liberalization” and mobilized longer-standing institutional capacities to protect some groups, although by no means all. Evidence of this trend is less clear in the health and residential care sectors, where Germany had existing capacity, allowing its older population to weather the crisis in better order than its counterparts in Sweden and the UK. In the UK, welfare liberalization has led to increased social and economic inequalities and funding reductions in health and residential care—all of which have reduced the country’s ability to deal with severe crisis. The Covid response in this case was agile, but also chaotic, with little being done to ameliorate the positions of the most vulnerable groups.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy and Society
Policy and Society Multiple-
CiteScore
18.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
43
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Policy and Society is a prominent international open-access journal publishing peer-reviewed research on critical issues in policy theory and practice across local, national, and international levels. The journal seeks to comprehend the origin, functioning, and implications of policies within broader political, social, and economic contexts. It publishes themed issues regularly and, starting in 2023, will also feature non-themed individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Exploring cultures of evidence in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands Variation in evidence use across policy sectors: the case of Brazil A world of evidence: the global spread and silent politics of evidence cultures Understanding policy integration through an integrative capacity framework Words not deeds: the weak culture of evidence in the Canadian policy style
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1