路径依赖还是重大改革的步骤?10个经合发组织国家与大流行病有关的社会保护措施

Q2 Social Sciences
Päivi Mäntyneva, Eeva-Leena Ketonen, H. Hiilamo
{"title":"路径依赖还是重大改革的步骤?10个经合发组织国家与大流行病有关的社会保护措施","authors":"Päivi Mäntyneva, Eeva-Leena Ketonen, H. Hiilamo","doi":"10.1017/ics.2023.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines with empirical evidence the social protection measures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in ten welfare states in the Global North. We analysed the potential similarities and differences in responses by welfare regimes. The comparative study was conducted with data from 169 measures, collected from domestic sources as well as from COVID-19 response databases and reports. In qualitative terms, we redeveloped Hall’s theory on the distinction between first-, second- and third-order changes. In accordance with the path-dependence thesis, we show systematically that the majority of the studied changes (91%) relied on a pre-pandemic tool demonstrating flexibility within social security systems. The relative share of completely new instruments was notable but modest (9%). Thematically, the social protection measures converged beyond traditional welfare regimes, particularly among the European welfare states. Somewhat surprisingly, the changes to social security systems related not just to emergency aid to mitigate traditional risks but, to a greater extent, also to prevent new risks from being actualised.","PeriodicalId":38249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Path dependence or steps for major reforms? Pandemic-related social protection measures in ten OECD countries\",\"authors\":\"Päivi Mäntyneva, Eeva-Leena Ketonen, H. Hiilamo\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ics.2023.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article examines with empirical evidence the social protection measures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in ten welfare states in the Global North. We analysed the potential similarities and differences in responses by welfare regimes. The comparative study was conducted with data from 169 measures, collected from domestic sources as well as from COVID-19 response databases and reports. In qualitative terms, we redeveloped Hall’s theory on the distinction between first-, second- and third-order changes. In accordance with the path-dependence thesis, we show systematically that the majority of the studied changes (91%) relied on a pre-pandemic tool demonstrating flexibility within social security systems. The relative share of completely new instruments was notable but modest (9%). Thematically, the social protection measures converged beyond traditional welfare regimes, particularly among the European welfare states. Somewhat surprisingly, the changes to social security systems related not just to emergency aid to mitigate traditional risks but, to a greater extent, also to prevent new risks from being actualised.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2023.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2023.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文以实证为依据,考察了全球北方十个福利国家为应对COVID-19大流行而实施的社会保护措施。我们分析了福利制度在应对方面的潜在异同。这项比较研究使用了从国内来源以及COVID-19应对数据库和报告中收集的169项措施的数据。在定性方面,我们重新发展了霍尔关于一阶、二阶和三阶变化区别的理论。根据路径依赖理论,我们系统地表明,研究的大多数变化(91%)依赖于大流行前的工具,显示了社会保障系统内的灵活性。全新工具的相对份额值得注意,但并不大(9%)。从主题上讲,社会保护措施超越了传统的福利制度,尤其是在欧洲福利国家。有些令人惊讶的是,社会保障制度的变化不仅与缓解传统风险的紧急援助有关,而且在更大程度上也与防止新风险成为现实有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Path dependence or steps for major reforms? Pandemic-related social protection measures in ten OECD countries
Abstract This article examines with empirical evidence the social protection measures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in ten welfare states in the Global North. We analysed the potential similarities and differences in responses by welfare regimes. The comparative study was conducted with data from 169 measures, collected from domestic sources as well as from COVID-19 response databases and reports. In qualitative terms, we redeveloped Hall’s theory on the distinction between first-, second- and third-order changes. In accordance with the path-dependence thesis, we show systematically that the majority of the studied changes (91%) relied on a pre-pandemic tool demonstrating flexibility within social security systems. The relative share of completely new instruments was notable but modest (9%). Thematically, the social protection measures converged beyond traditional welfare regimes, particularly among the European welfare states. Somewhat surprisingly, the changes to social security systems related not just to emergency aid to mitigate traditional risks but, to a greater extent, also to prevent new risks from being actualised.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
×
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