Social policy in the face of a global pandemic: Policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis

Systems analysis of the effects of the 2014-16 Ebola crisis on WHO-reporting nations' policy adaptations and 2020-21 COVID-19 response: a systematized review

BACKGROUND

Recent case studies indicate that the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak, one of the worst pre-2020 global biological catastrophes in modern history, helped some nations to better prepared their responses for the COVID-19 pandemic. While such national case studies explore how specific nations applied EVD-related policies in their domestic battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no known study that assesses how many WHO nations learned from the West African crisis and to what scale.

OBJECTIVE

Applying the policy legacies analytical framework and a systematized literature review, this research examines how prior policy experiences with the 2014-16 EVD crisis as a large-scale emergent outbreak helped to inform and to condition WHO nations to proactively prepare their national policies and health systems for future threats, including ultimately COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematized literature review of 803 evaluated sources assesses to what extent Ebola-affected and non-affected nations directly modified governmental health systems in relation to this warning. The study further evaluates how nations with documented Ebola-related changes fared during COVID-19 compared to nations that did not. We present a categorical theoretical framework that allows for classifying different types of national response activities (termed conditioned learning).

RESULTS

Ten (90.9%) of 11 nations that were affected by 2014-16 Ebola crisis have documented evidence of repurposing their EVD-related policies to fight COVID-19. 164 (70.0%) of 234 non-EVD-affected nations had documented evidence of specifically adapting national systems to incorporate policy recommendations developed from the 2014-16 crisis, which informed their COVID-19 responses in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

The shock of 2014-16 EVD outbreak affected most nations around the world, whether they experienced Ebola cases. We further develop a categorical framework that helps characterised nations previous experiences with this biological catastrophe, providing a means to analyse to what extent that individual nations learned and how these EVD-related changes helped inform their COVID-19 response. Nations that demonstrated EVD-related conditioned learning nations tended to have more stringent COVID-19 responses before April 2020 and utilized documented response mechanisms developed out of the West African crisis.

Increases in income-support payments reduce the demand for charity: A difference-in-difference analysis of charitable-assistance data from Australia over the COVID-19 pandemic

Charities play an increasingly important role in helping people experiencing poverty. However, institutionalized charity shifts the burden of poverty reduction away from the state and exposes recipients to stress and stigma. In this paper, we examine whether the need for institutionalized charity can be offset through enhanced state support. As in other countries, the Australian government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by substantially increasing the level of income support to citizens through several temporary payments. We draw on this natural experiment and time-series data from the two largest charity organizations in Queensland, Australia to examine how these payments altered the demand for institutionalized charity. We model these data using difference-in-difference regression models to approximate causal effects. By exploiting the timing and varying amounts of the payments, our analyses yield evidence that more generous income support reduces reliance on charity. Halving the demand for charity requires raising pre-pandemic income-support by AUD$42/day, with supplements of approximately AUD$18/day yielding the greatest return on investment.

Government Preparedness Towards Ebola and Covid-19 Health Crises in Ghana

The African continent has witnessed most health crises including yellow fever, meningitis, cholera, and Ebola. Two recent health crises faced by Ghana have been the Ebola virus and the Covid-19 virus diseases. This paper attempts to compare these two crises to understand what preparedness approaches were used by the government of Ghana during these two crises. Also, the paper attempts to identify what the similarities and differences have been and why these similarities and differences existed in the preparedness towards these crises that happened over different periods and whether Ghana’s Covid-19 preparedness was based on lessons from Ebola. Through the policy legacies analytical framework and a review of the literature, the paper argues that Ghana’s preparedness shows a lot of similarities from the training of healthcare workers, the health infrastructure introduced, approaches to public engagement, and political decisions made to fight both crises.

Learning from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparing policy responses in Uruguay with 10 other Latin American and Caribbean countries

A range of public health and social measures have been employed in response to the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Yet, pandemic responses have varied across the region, particularly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, with Uruguay effectively limiting transmission during this crucial phase. This review describes features of pandemic responses which may have contributed to Uruguay's early success relative to 10 other LAC countries - Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago. Uruguay differentiated its early response efforts from reviewed countries by foregoing strict border closures and restrictions on movement, and rapidly implementing a suite of economic and social measures. Our findings describe the importance of supporting adherence to public health interventions by ensuring that effective social and economic safety net measures are in place to permit compliance with public health measures.

Lockdown, Earnings Losses and Household Asset Buffers in Europe

Measures taken to contain the spread of COVID-19 affected some workers' capability to work and hence earning more than others. The initial impact may have been mitigated, for instance by relying on savings and assets, but access to these buffers likely varied within and across countries. In this article we estimate COVID-19 potential earnings losses using the Lockdown Working Ability Index and relate this to households' savings and assets observed in the Eurosystem Household Finance and Consumption Survey. We find that, without government support, households in the Euro Area could only offset on average half of their losses by relying on liquid assets and almost half would deplete their savings in doing so, although there is significant cross-country variation. When considering the effect of income support policies, liquid assets cover on average 65 percent of the remaining losses and still 20 percent would exhaust their liquid assets on average in the Euro Area.

Who spends more to combat COVID-19 social risks and why?

COVID-19 has gone beyond a public health crisis and poses a serious threat to people's livelihoods. In response to the growing employment and income crisis, most OECD countries have introduced various policies and programs to alleviate rapidly rising social risks and stabilise people's livelihoods. However, these measures vary, with some governments spending only 1% of GDP in 2020, while others spent more than 10%. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to examine factors associated with the level of additional social spending in 31 OECD countries. The results indicate that lower generosity of unemployment benefits was associated with additional social policy spending. However, contrary to the hypothesis, higher additional spending was found among countries with higher levels of government debt. We ended with policy recommendations.

Assuring Social Equity and Improving Income from an Assessment of Government’s Supports in a Pandemic and Migrant Workers’ Integration in Vietnam

Income improvement is the primary expectation when deciding to migrate. However, due to the limited resources and urban facilities, informal sector work leads to an increasing income gap with local workers, migrant workers in big cities are considered the most vulnerable population. When there is no social policy, migrants are even more susceptible to the negative impacts of COVID-19. To identify necessary bases for short-term and long-term intervention to attract workers to return and quickly adapt to the urban life in the economic recovery process, the study surveyed to clarify the assessment of COVID-19 support packages from which the most beneficial are electricity and water exemption and reduction, food support, loan interest reduction, and loan for salary payment. The study also used survey results from two pandemic centers in the southern region to estimate factors and impacts on the workers’ income in terms of integration, the results show that the major significant factors are education, housing, work sector, self-employment, and social insurance. We take notices to enhance workers’ integration to help retain workers by short-term measurements from the support package’s assessments and long-term measurements from the income and integration estimates to attract workers after the pandemic.

The antinomies of sovereigntism, statism and liberalism in European democratic responses to the COVID-19 crisis: a comparison of Britain and France

This paper argues that the current COVID-19 pandemic reveals and in a sense crystallizes a series of long-standing tensions about sovereignty that have become increasingly salient in the advanced capitalist democracies of the European Union. The spread of the pandemic led first to the activation of a conflict between a ‘sovereigntist reflex’ privileging the expression of national capacities and national self-reliance and a more ‘perforated’ understanding of sovereignty stressing the interdependence of peoples and states, both geographically and institutionally. As the response to COVID itself became more politicized we see the emergence of a second tension, between a libertarian ‘reflex’ supporting a residual state protecting liberties and facilitating individual choice and a sovereign-statist ‘instinct’, calling for an empowered guardian of the public good capable of ensuring collective security. A third tension relates to the seemingly growing opposition between a conception of sovereignty founded (and contingent) upon the will of the people and one in which the sovereign is, simultaneously, the discerner, defender and ultimate guarantor of the public good. After having mapped out these interwoven tensions and their main fault lines in general terms, the paper proceeds comparatively, tracking and tracing their (differential and specific) presence in governmental responses in two advanced capitalist democracies, France and Britain.

Introduction: EU constraints and opportunities in the COVID-19 pandemic—the politics of NGEU

This Special Issue focuses on how EU politics, policies and institutions, all nested in the past, have a bearing on welfare states in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In this introductory article, we first provide a brief overview of the growing scholarship on the impact of the pandemic on both national welfare systems and EU policies. We then contextualise the initial pandemic policy responses by highlighting the economic challenges to European welfare states leftover from the Great Recession and Eurozone crisis before outlining the timeline of the EU reaction to the COVID-19 crisis, culminating in the Next Generation EU deal. Finally, we summarize the distinctive empirical and theoretical perspectives of each contribution to this Special Issue. Taken together, the articles in this issue offer a much-needed analysis of the interplay between EU level and member state politics that furthers our understanding of the social and economic policies implemented in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe.