Search results

AbstractThis 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.

AbstractHow 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.

As they were just coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, Southern European nations were confronted with a new shock to their economies – this time in the form of a steep rise in prices. This article describes and typifies the social policy responses and measures adopted in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain in response to rising inflation. We find that Southern European (SE) governments have put forward a substantive fiscal response – which compares well with that of its neighbours, and even with the previous crisis. The thrust of the response was targeted at limiting the pass-through of international energy prices to consumers. This was complemented, albeit to a lesser degree, with direct support to families. Nevertheless, we do find important differences concerning the weight given to (traditional) welfare transfers, and the role given to indexation mechanisms and wage increases. We also find important continuities with the model of crisis-response adopted during the pandemic.

AbstractThis paper aims to describe and discuss the significance of the social policy measures implemented in Southern European countries—Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain—in response to the first wave of COVID‐19. Our analysis covers interventions from 1 March to June 30, 2020. Despite significant differences in how the COVID‐19 pandemic spread—with Italy and Spain experiencing much higher rates of infection and lethality—Southern European economies are among the most hard‐hit—and are likely to find themselves in the eye of the storm, once more. The paper shows that despite differences in how countries have countered the spread of COVID‐19, there are important commonalities in the actions governments took to counteract the economic impact of the pandemic. Foremost efforts were directed at wage subsidy schemes to contain mass job destruction, additional temporary benefits to compensate self‐employed and other non‐standard workers for the loss of earnings; the expansion of unemployment insurance; and finally, the introduction and/or strengthening of schemes to provide support to families with care responsibilities. The scale of the social policy and employment protection response has nevertheless been constrained by the fiscal position of each individual country in the post‐Euro crisis context. We argue that, in the long run, the response capacity of these governments and the social and economic consequences of this crisis will need to be contextualised against the backdrop of the deep and prolonged impact of austerity‐driven measures on public budgets, production and welfare regimes over the last decade.

The sustainability of the pensions system is a concern for both citizens and political decision makers alike. This study shows until when the system will remain financially sustainable and what will be its future cost. Beyond that, it shows at what point will the system cease to be able to provide adequate pensions, avoid sudden cuts of income for pensioners and protect them from poverty. Lastly, it provides an analysis of several pension system reform scenarios and their respective impact. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

This introduction to our themed section on social policy responses to the recent cost-of-living crisis spells out this topic and the key issues examined in the section's main contributions before summarising their findings and overall contribution to the literature. More specifically, to frame this themed section, the present Introduction begins with a concise, up-to-date overview of the inflationary crisis that emerged in late 2021 and evolved throughout 2022 and the first half of 2023. It then charts, and reflects upon, the diversity of responses enacted in a variety of countries reflective of different models of welfare provision in Europe and North America.

Informal care is often accompanied by a reduction or abandonment of professional activity by the caregiver. Therefore, caregiving may be associated with a lower pension for the former caregiver than for people without care obligations. There is a large gender difference in informal care responsibilities, and this may contribute to the gender pension gap. As the impact of care-related labour market decisions depends on the design of the pension system, we carry out a cross-country comparison, in which we analyse the impact of care obligations in countries with high (Luxembourg), middle (Liechtenstein, Belgium, Portugal) and low (Slovenia) gender pension gaps. Using typical-case simulation models, we examine how the impact of care-related events is mediated by pension rules, given women's labour market decisions. To what extent does working part time or interrupting one's career at the age of 30 or 54 reduce the later pension benefit? How are these losses mitigated by pension credits that are conditional on caregiving? We find that the mitigating effects are generally strongest in Belgium, followed by Luxembourg and Slovenia. Such credits hardly exist in Portugal, while in Liechtenstein they have only a small impact. However, the consequences of either working part time or interrupting work can also be mitigated via general rules in the system that are unrelated to caregiving (such as in Portugal and Liechtenstein). They can, on the other hand, be aggravated by the existence of higher accrual rates for individuals who extend their careers, as in Luxembourg and Slovenia.

This article explores how the Gender Pension Gap (GPG)—the relative difference in average pension received by men and women—might evolve in the future in various European countries, given past, current, and projected future labour market behaviour and earnings of women and men, and current pension regulations. The GPG reflects career inequalities between women and men, though these are partly mitigated by the redistributive impact of the public retirement pensions. They are further mitigated by survivor benefits. This study aims to document both mechanisms in the projections of the GPG. As the GPG varies widely across European countries, we analyse countries with a high (Luxembourg), high and low middle (Belgium and Switzerland Portugal), and low (Slovenia) GPG. We find that the GPG will fall significantly in all five countries over the coming decades. The fundamental drivers behind this development are discussed. In addition to the base scenario, we simulate two variants to show the impact of the Gender Pension Coverage Gap and of survivor pensions. Additionally, we project the GPG if current labour market gender gaps were to remain at their present level, and, conversely, if these were to disappear overnight. These alternative scenarios, one of which also serves as a robustness test, suggest that the future decline of the GPG is largely the result of labour market developments that have already happened during the past decades.

Population ageing today affects most industrialised countries, and it will have an impact on many facets of the social system. Intergenerational relationships will play a key role in dealing with the demographical and societal change. This book provides innovative views in the multidisciplinary research field of intergenerational family relations in society, with a focus on Europe. Different, but complementary, perspectives are integrated in one volume bringing together international scholars from sociology, psychology and economics. The book's chapters are grouped into three thematic sections which cover conceptual issues, multigenerational and cross-cultural perspectives, as well as applied issues. Implications for research, policy and practice are addressed and suggestions for future directions are discussed. By raising recent discussions on controversial issues, this book will stimulate the current discourse at various levels. Intergenerational relations in society and family will be equally interesting for researchers, advanced-level students and stakeholders in the fields of social policy, population ageing and intergenerational family relationships