Have Social Policy Responses to COVID-19 Been Institutionalised?

Abstract

Countries adopted a variety of social policy responses to reduce the social risks exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which in some cases took the form of institutional reforms. The study of the institutionalisation of emergency responses is relevant to understanding if and how a critical juncture, like the one opened by the pandemic, can generate path dependencies or changes that expand or retrench social protection. This state-of-the-art article offers an overview of how social policy responses to the pandemic have translated to institutional reform across the globe under various types of welfare systems. By conducting a systematic literature review of thirty-nine peer-reviewed journal articles in two leading bibliographic databases (Scopus and Web of Science), this article reviews the available evidence on the responses to the pandemic and their institutional consequences. We find four underlying research clusters regarding the degree of institutionalisation of the social policy responses implemented during the pandemic.

Interruptions, interventions, and innovations in social services during COVID‐19 in Bangladesh

“…The authorities had to intervene due to interruptions of social services and made innovations which were policy responses to deal with the situation that emerged because of the pandemic. The study investigated policy responses and changes in social services deploying the theories of institutionalism (Cruz‐Martínez et al., 2023; Hall, 1993; Hogan et al., 2022; Yuda, 2023; Yuda et al., 2022). It revealed that the nature and delivery system of social service programs had been changed due to the quick spread of COVID‐19 which was a short‐term policy response also found in many other studies (Cruz‐Martínez et al., 2023; Dorlach, 2023; Hogan et al., 2022; Yuda et al., 2022).…”

“…The study investigated policy responses and changes in social services deploying the theories of institutionalism (Cruz‐Martínez et al., 2023; Hall, 1993; Hogan et al., 2022; Yuda, 2023; Yuda et al., 2022). It revealed that the nature and delivery system of social service programs had been changed due to the quick spread of COVID‐19 which was a short‐term policy response also found in many other studies (Cruz‐Martínez et al., 2023; Dorlach, 2023; Hogan et al., 2022; Yuda et al., 2022). Policy response‐induced interventions like advanced payment, virtual social service delivery systems, expanding coverage, and flexibility in beneficiary selection had been introduced to fight the crises caused by COVID‐19.…”

“…On the other hand, Cruz‐Martínez et al. (2023) argued that the COVID‐19 pandemic created a ‘critical juncture’ for policy modifications with varying degrees in several countries. However, he pointed out that among the social policy responses to COVID‐19, a few have become institutionalized in some countries as the countries have strong path dependence (Cruz‐Martínez et al., 2023).…”

“…Many scholars (Gronbach & Seekings, 2021;Leisering, 2021) identified these initiatives as 'stopgap measures' and disagreed with declaring the COVID-19 crisis as a 'critical juncture'. On the other hand, Cruz-Martínez et al (2023) argued that the COVID-19 pandemic created a 'critical juncture' for policy modifications with varying degrees in several countries. However, he pointed out that among the social policy responses to COVID-19, a few have become institutionalized in some countries as the countries have strong path dependence (Cruz-Martínez et al, 2023).…”