The COVID-19 pandemic provoked a difficult dichotomy for most of western States, whether to focus in saving the economy from a collapse bigger than the one suffered during the Great Recession or saving as many lives as possible. To balance these two elements has been a key element in how different countries managed the COVID-19 crisis. In this article, through the comparison in up to six countries, we will describe how were the measures taken into place and how effective they were in both saving the economy and saving lives. Through a comparative analysis we will be able to provide certain trends in crisis management and in sustainable growing despite the economic chaos that the COVID-19 has made in Western economies.
The data were collected in the research project "Political cohesion under conditions of fiscal scarcity - German federalism in the time of COVID-19" (funded by VolkswagenStiftung). The data collection consists of two datasets. The first dataset, labeled as "CovDebate", encompasses a total of 3,117 parliamentary proceedings related to Covid-19 that were debated in the German Bundestag and the 16 state parliaments between 1 February 2020 and 26 September 2021. The dataset includes the titles of the proceedings and contextual variables that facilitate a detailed analysis. The second dataset, labeled as "CovFed", comprises 4,610 manually coded statements of political parties that were identified in a qualitative content analysis of 212 key parliamentary debates in the same investigation period. The statements reflect different discursive strategies parties employ in the federal arena. The dataset covers all parties represented in the Bundestag as well as the "Freie Wähler"; all parliaments at both levels of government (Bundestag and 16 state parliaments); and three Covid-19-waves. It contains the statements as well as contextual variables, enabling a detailed analysis of the data. The new dataset is a novel and unique contribution to federalism scholarship because it provides insights into political behavior in the federal arena. It also contains analytical categories which are relevant beyond the German case and in political contexts other than Covid-19.
The period from the outbreak of the first Covid19 diseases in China to the epidemic in Italy and currently also the drastically increasing number of reports of infected people in Switzerland lasted only 8 weeks. As a consequence, public life was drastically reduced, schools were closed and employees were recommended or ordered to work in their home office. One basis for these preventive measures was a high degree of flexibility of each individual and alternative forms of work and also alternate forms of care in society. Nevertheless, there are institutions that are reaching their limits and are neither able to maintain physical distance nor couldn't work without their employees. These are institutions with a governmental mandate, whose clients are in a total system, the coercive context in mandated settings. In particular, these are institutions of the prison system, therapy facilities, as well as care facilities for children and young people. Here, on the one hand, the possibilities of living in a distance are drastically restricted, the employees must already be on site due to the security aspect, and the possibilities for information and communication are also classically handled restrictively. In addition, these are per se vulnerable groups because of infectious diseases such as hepatitis and HIV occur 9 times more frequently than in the overall population (Getaz 2019). In order to stop the epidemic, actually work opportunities have to be stopped for the inmates/clients, visits are forbidden and educational and leisure activities are nearly restricted. Furthermore, in particular, holidays and releases are suspended and pandemic containment plans are applied if necessary. However, it is not clear what these plans are (Amt für Justizvollzug 2020). Therapy talks and preparations for release are also restricted, which hinders the new admission of new persons due to capacity reasons. Nevertheless, the institutions of the justice system and of care in the area of children and young people have a duty of care and the statutory mandate to adapt life in a coercive context to the conditions in freedom, including the health care. (StGB Art. 75). The questions that arise are as follows: • How can prevention measures be implemented in closed coercive contexts? • How can health care be guaranteed with regard to Covid19 in coercive contexts? and: Which particular challenges arise from the specific clients who are described as a high risk group of persons with pre-ilnesses and psychological problems? • How is the right to information and the right to contact clients/residents implemented during the phase of exclusion and additional preventive restrictions? In order to answer these questions, several institutions of mandatory context, will be examined in more detail by means of qualitative interviews with employees from: prisons, youth housing and therapy facilities as well as residential and work externalities. In addition, leaders of the Concordats and the offices of correctional services will be included. The aim of the study is to find out which strategies and measures have proven to be helpful in dealing with pandemics and crisis situations, so they can be managed better in the future and the repertoire of action can be expanded by identifying problem areas from a scientific perspective across institutions and cantons in order to recommend best practice. The questions relate to three sub-areas of the call for proposals: - Management of Covid19 Desease – (in coercive contexts) - Infection prevention, including protection of the employees (and the clients) - Impact of the (social) media communication
