The politics of social policies in Portugal: Different responses in times of crises

Jorge Caleiras, Renato Miguel Carmo
{"title":"The politics of social policies in Portugal: Different responses in times of crises","authors":"Jorge Caleiras, Renato Miguel Carmo","doi":"10.1111/spol.13008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Portugal has been confronted with a succession of crises in recent years. This article explores the differences in the way that, in Portugal, the welfare regime tackled the Great Recession context (financial, euro, sovereign debt, structural adjustment crises) and COVID‐19 crisis through very different policy responses. The fact that the governments in office acted differently when faced with realities that were close in time but very distinct, generates a paired comparative scenario, without forgetting the interim period. Supported by a plural methodological approach that gathers information from various sources, the outcomes reveal important aspects about the policy direction of changes and in terms of socio‐economic indicators. First, policy responses have followed three dynamics in tension: Retrenchment, Mitigation, and Expansion. Second, the policies make a difference, producing distinct outcomes in terms of socioeconomic indicators (unemployment, inequality, poverty). Third, the responses to crises induced more “radical” measures (towards Retrenchment or Expansion), which are not consistent with interim situations. Finally, while the austeritarian response was part of the government in office's program, this was not the case during the pandemic, when the response was involuntary and unprogrammed. This means that, in being a provisional and dated response, there is a high risk that in the near future there will be a resumption of Mitigation or even Retrenchment policies.","PeriodicalId":271904,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"57 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Policy & Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Portugal has been confronted with a succession of crises in recent years. This article explores the differences in the way that, in Portugal, the welfare regime tackled the Great Recession context (financial, euro, sovereign debt, structural adjustment crises) and COVID‐19 crisis through very different policy responses. The fact that the governments in office acted differently when faced with realities that were close in time but very distinct, generates a paired comparative scenario, without forgetting the interim period. Supported by a plural methodological approach that gathers information from various sources, the outcomes reveal important aspects about the policy direction of changes and in terms of socio‐economic indicators. First, policy responses have followed three dynamics in tension: Retrenchment, Mitigation, and Expansion. Second, the policies make a difference, producing distinct outcomes in terms of socioeconomic indicators (unemployment, inequality, poverty). Third, the responses to crises induced more “radical” measures (towards Retrenchment or Expansion), which are not consistent with interim situations. Finally, while the austeritarian response was part of the government in office's program, this was not the case during the pandemic, when the response was involuntary and unprogrammed. This means that, in being a provisional and dated response, there is a high risk that in the near future there will be a resumption of Mitigation or even Retrenchment policies.
葡萄牙的社会政策政治:危机时期的不同对策
近年来,葡萄牙遭遇了一系列危机。本文探讨了葡萄牙福利制度在应对大衰退背景(金融、欧元、主权债务、结构调整危机)和 COVID-19 危机时采取的截然不同的政策措施。面对时间上接近但又截然不同的现实,执政政府采取了不同的行动,这就产生了一个成对的比较方案,同时不忘过渡时期。在从各种渠道收集信息的多元方法支持下,研究结果揭示了政策变化方向和社会经济指标的重要方面。首先,政策应对措施呈现出三种紧张态势:紧缩、缓解和扩张。其次,这些政策产生了影响,在社会经济指标(失业、不平等、贫困)方面产生了不同的结果。第三,应对危机的措施更加 "激进"(走向紧缩或扩张),这与临时情况并不一致。最后,虽然紧缩对策是在任政府计划的一部分,但在大流行病期间并非如此,当时的对策是非自愿和无计划的。这就意味着,作为一种临时的、过时的应对措施,在不久的将来很有可能会恢复缓解甚至紧缩政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信