Initial social-policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Global North – A scoping review

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this scoping review is to analyse comparative studies on social-policy measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in Global North welfare states. The authors also consider the potential influence of the regimes on the responses.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a scoping review of six databases including peer-reviewed comparative studies. In an iterative process with exact inclusion criteria, the authors screened 699 titles/abstracts/articles and found 16 comparative research articles to be included in the review and analysis. The review summarises the main themes of the comparative articles and the articles' typical features.FindingsThe results show that social-policy measures were directed specifically at working-age people to minimise income loss and to save jobs. The pandemic also increased care-related responsibilities, necessitating the expansion of current policies and the implementation of new instruments. Despite the differences in responses between universalistic and residual welfare states, the influence of welfare regimes on COVID-19 social-policy measures remains unclear. The emergency responses in the different regimes varied widely in terms of coverage.Research limitations/implicationsThe results of this review provide a basis on which to conduct future studies, identify new research topics and knowledge gaps and inspire new research questions and hypotheses. Given the accumulation of scientific knowledge in the area of social-policy measures, the need for systematic reviews will grow in the future.Originality/valueThe authors identified three main themes: changes in employment protection, changes in care-related income protection and the potential influence of welfare-state regimes on COVID-19-related measures.

Navigating responsible bio-political citizenship: Cross-country comparison of stigma in Covid-19 illness narratives in Germany, Japan, the UK and the USA

“…The experiences of blameful and stigmatising responses across the different nations included in this study were remarkably similar. This is perhaps unsurprising given that each state adopted similar pandemic management approaches which targeted citizens rather than the virus ( Jasanoff et al, 2021 ) and, in the first year of the pandemic at least, offered comparable social support to citizens ( Mäntyneva, 2022 ). Differences in broad governance structures did not impact strongly on stigma on the level of social interaction.…”

“…Each nation has different approaches to healthcare provision and operates under different welfare models. However, during 2020, the pandemic policies of the , , Germany and Japan broadly converged in terms of citizen access to healthcare services when severely ill with Covid and the provision of unemployment support benefits ( Mäntyneva et al, 2022 ). The longer-term impact of differences in social support across nations are explored by Qureshi et al (forthcoming – 2023).…”

Capability of welfare states to foster inclusion through employment-related measures

“…A recent literature review of comparative studies showed that overall, social policy measures particularly in Europe have focussed mainly on the risk of unemployment and responses to the increased care-related needs of families due to COVID-19 (Mäntyneva et al. , 2023).…”

Do welfare regimes matter? Perceptions of welfare in contemporary word

“…Aidukaite et al ., 2021; Hick and Murphy, 2021; Béland et al ., 2021a, b; Bariola and Collins, 2021; Greve et al ., 2021; Pereirinha and Pereira, 2021). A review of previous studies (Mäntyneva et al. , 2023a) evidenced that while measures have been interpreted as strengthening the Nordic model in Nordic countries, for example, in Liberal welfare regime countries, the regime's effect on social policy measures has not been that clear.…”

“…From the outset of this decade, in the times of the COVID-19 pandemic, the share of public spending peaked in most OECD countries, which has led not only to austerity and economic adjustment measures, but also reforms and emphasis on welfare safety nets and proactive measures in various countries as crisis resilience. Social risks refer to traditional risks like health, unemployment, minimum income for a decent living (or last income support) and pensions (Mäntyneva et al. , 2023a, 2023b).…”