How have welfare states responded to the coronavirus pandemic? In this introductory article, we provide a synopsis of papers that comprise this special issue on social policy responses to COVID‐19, an overview of some of the key questions they raise, and some provisional answers to these questions. Our conclusions are threefold: first, these social policy responses, while entailing new developments in many countries, nonetheless reflect, at least in part, existing national policy legacies. Second, these responses can be understood as a form of “emergency Keynesianism,” which is characterized by the massive use of deficit spending during economic crises, with the aim of to supporting rather than challenging core capitalist institutions. Third, there are clear differences in terms of the nature of the reforms enacted during the initial phase of the COVID‐19 crisis as compared to reforms enacted as a response to the 2008 financial crisis.

Older people spend much time participating in leisure activities, such as taking part in organized activities and going out, but the extent of participation may differ according to both individual and environmental resources available. Chronic health problems become more prevalent at higher ages and likely necessitate tapping different resources to maintain social participation. This paper compares predictors of participation in social leisure activities between older people with and those without multimorbidity. The European Project on Osteoarthritis (EPOSA) was conducted in Germany, UK, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden (N = 2942, mean age 74.2 (5.2)). Multivariate regression was used to predict social leisure participation and degree of participation in people with and without multimorbidity. Fewer older people with multimorbidity participated in social leisure activities (90.6 %), compared to those without multimorbidity (93.9 %). The frequency of participation was also lower compared to people without multimorbidity. Higher socioeconomic status, widowhood, a larger network of friends, volunteering, transportation possibilities and having fewer depressive symptoms were important for (the degree of) social leisure participation. Statistically significant differences between the multimorbidity groups were observed for volunteering and driving a car, which were more important predictors of participation in those with multimorbidity. In contrast, self-reported income appeared more important for those without multimorbidity, compared to those who had multimorbidity. Policies focusing on social (network of friends), physical (physical performance) and psychological factors (depressive symptoms) and on transportation possibilities are recommended to enable all older people to participate in social leisure activities.

It has been widely recognised that poor health is one of the main barriers to participation in volunteer activities in older age. Therefore, it is crucial to examine the participation of older people in volunteering, especially those in poor health. Based on the resource theory of volunteering, the aim of this study is to better understand the correlates of volunteering among older people with different health statuses, namely those without health problems (neither multimorbidity nor disability), those with mild health problems (multimorbidity or disability), and those with severe health problems (multimorbidity and disability). Data were drawn from the fourth wave (2011-2012, release 1.1.1) of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, which includes European people aged 50 years or older. The results showed that variables linked to volunteering were generally similar regardless of health status, but some differences were nevertheless identified. For older people with mild or severe health problems, for instance, depressive symptoms were negatively associated with their involvement in volunteer activities. We found a positive association of being widowed (rather than married) with volunteering in older people with particularly poor health, whereas high income was associated with volunteering in the case of mild health problems only. These results demonstrate that variables associated with volunteer participation partially differ between older people depending on their health status. These differences should be considered by policy makers in their attempts to promote volunteering in older people, as a means of preventing their social exclusion.

This paper provides an overview of the initial crisis responses to the coronavirus pandemic and asks whether and how both the nature of the COVID‐19 crisis and the national responses to this differ from those witnessed during the Great Recession. We argue that the speed and scale of the crisis are indeed distinctive, but that claims of symmetry—a crisis affecting all equally—are misplaced. We suggest that stimulus packages have, in broad terms, reflected the scale of the threat and that the wage subsidies and employment supports that were introduced or adjusted are novel in scope and scale, with innovative developments. There has been a greater emphasis on housing than was apparent in responses to the Great Recession and, while a focus on taxation in response packages has been a focus in both crises, its form differs, with a greater reliance on deferrals rather than tax reductions in the stimulus plans announced to date. Our account stresses the agility of crisis responses and this agility must be regarded as welcome, mitigating a great deal of social harm during the initial phase of the pandemic. Whether these short‐run responses create pressures for wider‐ranging change is much debated, but highly uncertain.