Unequal Britain: attitudes to inequalities after Covid-19

Duffy, Bobby; Hewlett, Kirstie; Hesketh, Rachel; Benson, Rebecca; Wager, Alan

doi:10.18742/pub01-043

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the OECD, in response to the pandemic there were about 10 times more job retention schemes in place across OECD nations than during the 2008/2009 crisis (Scarpetta et al, 2020). Particularly novel were these schemes in more liberal economies (such the US and UK), where people understood them as essential to protect livelihoods and careers (82% agreement, Duffy, Hewlett, Hesketh, Benson, & Wager, 2021). It would be interesting to find out whether a novel introduction of job retention schemes (and other social protective measures) lead to a change in attitudes towards equality, trust in the government or even political thinking more so than when workers are already familiar with worker protection schemes.…”

Section: Implications For Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The job insecurity of others: On the role of perceived national job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic

Shoss

Hootegem

Selenko

et al. 2022

Economic and Industrial Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political scientists and sociologists have highlighted insecure work as a societal ill underlying individuals’ lack of social solidarity (i.e., concern about the welfare of disadvantaged others) and political disruption. In order to provide the psychological underpinnings connecting perceptions of job insecurity with societally-relevant attitudes and behaviors, in this article the authors introduce the idea of perceived national job insecurity. Perceived national job insecurity reflects a person’s perception that job insecurity is more or less prevalent in their society (i.e., country). Across three countries (US, UK, Belgium), the study finds that higher perceptions of the prevalence of job insecurity in one’s country is associated with greater perceptions of government psychological contract breach and poorer perceptions of the government’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis, but at the same time is associated with greater social solidarity and compliance with COVID-19 social regulations. These findings are independent of individuals’ perceptions of threats to their own jobs.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The job insecurity of others: On the role of perceived national job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic

Shoss

Hootegem

Selenko

et al. 2022

Economic and Industrial Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surveys, focus groups and workshops have all been used to gain a better understanding of public perspectives on key issues during the pandemic. For example, a 1,003-person survey inquired about views on coronavirus certification (Serco Institute, 2021), while another survey of over 2,000 UK adults investigated attitudes towards inequalities and coronavirus (Duffy et al, 2021). An online focus group was used to explore participant perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation during the pandemic (Williams et al, 2020), while a dialogic workshop investigated attitudes towards vaccination among minoritised groups (Traverse, 2021).…”

Section: An Overview Of Pandemic Public Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where are publics in pandemic public policy?

Webb,

Manku

2024

Governance, Democracy and Ethics in Crisis-Decision-Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter we argue that when the UK government engaged publics during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, it did so in ways that reduced them to imagined publics or passive objects to be measured, rather than elevating them as active citizens whose values should be incorporated into decision-making. 1 To support this claim, we provide a brief survey of pandemic public engagement, contrasting the diverse range of activities conducted by non-central government agencies with the limited way the UK government engaged publics during the pandemic, remaining on the lower rungs of Sherry Arnstein's (1969) ladder of citizen participation (Figure 6.1).We highlight how the narratives and policies deployed by the government actively removed values from policymaking and communication with publics. This reflected a hollowing out of values in policy, supposedly justified by the oft-repeated scientistic mantra, 'follow the science' (GOV.UK, 2020: 8), an impossible guiding principle given the irreducible trade-offs governments face during a pandemic, but one which demonstrated a disinclination to engage with the plurality of values that publics would bring to policy questions.This status quo posed a challenge for those who wished to engage publics more substantively in pandemic decision-making. In our experience, centring the perspectives of publics can uncover new questions, positions and values that may be neglected in their absence, particularly because of the epistemic benefits that engaging diverse non-expert publics can bring (Bohman, 2006;Landemore, 2013). This is a very different activity from providing direct guidance on the questions and policy challenges that 6

show abstract

“…A recent report titled Unequal Britain -Attitudes to Inequality after COVID-19, by the Policy Institute, King's College London [11] confirms that inequalities continue to be a major issue in contemporary Britain (cf. [12]); the report states that "The crisis and its aftermath also give fresh impetus to the government's "levelling up" agenda and its broader "fight for fairness"...The pandemic has led to calls for the government to go further, to embrace a "Beveridge moment"...Greater action on inequality will certainly be seen by some as a logical progression from the unprecedented state intervention that's been required to weather the COVID-19 crisis" [11. P.5].…”

Section: Plutocracy and Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plutocracy, Platonism and Education in Brazil: Some Reflections on the COVID-19 Pandemic

Guilherme

Picoli

2021

Vestn. Ross. univ. družby nar., Ser. Filosofiâ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Lancet stated in its editorial on the 9th of May 2020 that the situation in Brazil was very problematic insofar as the COVID-19 pandemic was concerned. More than a year later, Brazil already registered more than half a million deaths from complications of COVID-19, which places it in second place in the world ranking of deaths despite having the seventh-largest population in the world. Despite this utterly tragic situation, in July 2021, almost 40% of the Brazilian population approved of the federal government's role in confronting the pandemic, and the Brazilian elites have defended openly the view that the economy was more important than individuals' lives. Given this context, in this article, we reflect on the issue of plutocracy, demonstrating its platonic authoritarian foundations, in order to understand the Brazilian elites' attitude toward the pandemic, which had no proper regard or care for the most vulnerable in society. Through this philosophical inquiry we indicate the importance of education, particularly of philosophy of education, in encouraging educationists and educational systems to reflect on problematic issues and self-reflect so as to identify possible educational deficiencies and shortcomings that created the conditions for individuals' attitudes of indifference to the victims of the pandemic and the vulnerable in society.

show abstract

Unequal Britain: attitudes to inequalities after Covid-19

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

The job insecurity of others: On the role of perceived national job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic

The job insecurity of others: On the role of perceived national job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic

Where are publics in pandemic public policy?

Plutocracy, Platonism and Education in Brazil: Some Reflections on the COVID-19 Pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About