COvid and Policies

Policy and Society, 2022, 41(2), 187–198
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac021
Advance access publication date 18 May 2022
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/article/41/2/187/6587192 by Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas user on 14 August 2023
Introduction
COVID-19, crisis responses, and public

policies: from the persistence of
inequalities to the importance of policy
design
Daniel Béland1 , Alex Jingwei He2 and M. Ramesh3
1
Department of Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2
Department of Asian and Policy Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
3
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore
The authors thank Clara Commier, Josh Medicoff, Yuda Shi, and Christopher Yurris for their research assistance.
Corresponding author: A. J. He, Department of Asian and Policy Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po,
New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Email: jwhe@eduhk.hk
Abstract
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has once again highlighted the importance of social inequalities
during major crises, a reality that has clear implications for public policy. In this introductory article
to the thematic issue of Policy and Society on COVID-19, inequalities, and public policies, we provide an
overview of the nexus between crisis and inequality before exploring its importance for the study of
policy stability and change, with a particular focus on policy design. Here, we stress the persistence
of inequalities during major crises before exploring how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the
need to focus on these inequalities when the time comes to design policies in response to such crises.
Paying close attention to the design of these policies is essential for the study of, and fight against,
social inequalities in times of crisis. Both during and beyond crises, policy design should emphasize
tackling with inequalities. This is the case because current design choices shape future patterns of
social inequality.
Keywords: crisis; inequality; comparative public policy; COVID-19; policy design
Large-scale crises have become an integral part of modern life, emerging on a regular basis. Crisis may
be defined as “a specific, unexpected, non-routine event or series of events that create high levels of
uncertainty and a significant and perceived threat to high priority goals” (Sellnow & Seeger, 2013, p.
7). Crises emerge for various reasons, including political and economic upheavals and natural disas-
ters, and cause different types and extents of damage to society. Some crises affect a large swathe
of the population across geographic locations, and managing them normally requires cross-boundary
coordination among various actors. Crises are not purely objective in nature, as the perceptions of
key economic, political, and social actors are significant determinants of how they are defined and
addressed (e.g., Voltolini et al., 2020). Simultaneously, large-scale crises increase the uncertainty facing
policymakers, a reality conducive to the exploration of new policy solutions (Blyth, 2002; Boin & ‘t Hart,
2022; Capano et al., 2022; Bali et al., 2022).
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact
journals.permissions@oup.com
188 D. Béland et al.
More important for this thematic issue of Policy and Society, crises affect specific segments of the pop-
ulation differently, aggravating existing inequalities and sometimes creating new sources of inequality.
The concrete patterns of inequality caused by crises vary vastly across population segments and pol-
icy sectors, making generalization difficult. This is especially the case because crises themselves vary
greatly in scope, nature, and impact. In the case of the COVID-19 crisis, its strong impact on exist-
ing social inequalities is undeniable, regardless of whether we focus on its economic, social, or public
health impact (e.g., Bambra et al., 2021; Blundell et al., 2020).
In this introductory article, we stress the persistence of inequalities during major crises before
exploring how the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the need to focus on these inequalities when
the time comes to design policies in response to such crises. As we argue, paying close attention to
the design of these policies is essential to the study of social inequalities in times of crisis. Both during
and beyond crises, policy design should emphasize the proper tackling of inequalities. This is the case
because design choices can shape and reshape patterns of inequality over time.
This article aims to summarize and review the patterns of social inequality during large-scale crises
before stressing the importance of policy design as it intersects with these patterns. In our discus-
sion, we focus on economic crises and public health crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, which
have both public health and economic dimensions. We also devote some space to the literature on
inequalities and natural disasters but, due to the limited space available, we do not discuss civil
wars, international conflicts, and long-lasting environmental crises such as climate change. After our
brief and necessarily incomplete review of the relevant literature, we show how taking inequalities
seriously in times of crisis is necessary for the analysis of policy change and policy design before pro-
viding an overview of the articles featured in this collection examining the relationship between social
inequalities and public policy during the COVID-19 crisis.
Dimensions of social inequalities during large-scale crises

Large-scale crises can influence social equality in two ways. First, they directly contribute to social
inequalities, including disparities in the population’s economic, livelihood, and health conditions. Sec-
ond, they affect governments’ fiscal conditions, which limit their capacity to respond to the crisis
through policies designed to improve social equality. We can divide inequalities into several categories:
economic, livelihood, and health inequalities and unequal degrees of safety.
Economic inequalities
Major domestic crises typically lead to job losses, reduced working time, and unemployment. These
labor market vulnerabilities vary widely according to sector, gender, race, and age (Asian Development
Bank, 2012; Lee & Warner, 2005, 2006; OECD, 2010, 2021a). Unemployment and underemployment, in
turn, aggravate poverty and income inequality (Atkinson & Morelli, 2011). Crises also exacerbate gender
and racial inequalities, as has been the case during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (Batty et al., 2022;
Nieves et al., 2021).
Livelihood inequalities
As large-scale crises create economic inequality, they impose uneven pressure on the livelihood of peo-
ple belonging to different socio-economic categories. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic and the
associated lockdown measures imposed significant disruptions on the global food supply chain (OECD,
2021b) and posed difficulties in access to nutritious and healthy foods (UN Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization, 2020; McLoughlin et al., 2020). In addition, vulnerable populations living in poor sanitary
conditions were exposed to a higher risk of infection (Tavares & Betti, 2021).
Health inequalities
Public health crises often negatively impact the health status of vulnerable populations as pandemics
tend to disproportionately erode the well-being of the deprived population segments (OECD, 2021c;
Wright & Merritt, 2020). Economic crises have also been found to aggravate health inequalities in
three ways. First, an increase in poverty constrains vulnerable populations’ access to nutritious food,
healthy living, and employment, which in turn reduces their overall health status (Heggebø et al., 2019;
Ponnambalam et al., 2012; Ruckert & Labonté, 2014). Second, at the same time as income is declining,
the costs of medical treatment tend to increase during a pandemic. In addition, access to health services
Policy and Society 189
is severely constrained for the general population when authorities concentrate medical resources on
fighting pandemics and limit access to other services (OECD, 2021c). Third, a disparity between devel-
oping and developed countries in vaccine availability emerges during a pandemic, increasing global
health inequality (OECD, 2021d).
Unequal degrees of safety

Natural and socio-technical disasters exacerbate exposure to risks to the physical safety of the popu-
lation. Even when governments’ disaster response is forthcoming, it is usually unable to adjust to the
specific needs of different segments of the population. Vulnerable populations, such as the poor, people
with disabilities, older people, and those living in remote areas, are particularly likely to be underserved
by governments’ relief measures (Donner & Rodríguez, 2008; Wong et al., 2020).
Fiscal disruptions
Crises disrupt economic activities, which often lead to a recession, a situation that in turn reduces
tax revenues while increasing public expenditures, especially as they relate to social protection such as
unemployment benefits (Asian Development Bank, 2012; OECD, 2021e). As a result, under some political
circumstances, especially when conservative parties are in power, governments may take austerity
measures that reduce health budgets and social benefits (Heggebø et al., 2019; Ruckert & Labonté, 2014).
Conversely, during crises, governments may increase unemployment and social assistance benefits to
mitigate socio-economic harm to workers and families while generating economic stimulus to avoid an
even greater economic downfall (Béland et al., 2021a; Carcillo et al., 2015).
Patterns of social inequality during large-scale crises

Existing studies have highlighted a multitude of factors associated with social inequality during crises,
as summarized below.
Gender
Gender has long been considered as an important source of social inequalities, which is partly why it
is a central aspect of contemporary research on social policy and public health (Béland & Mahon, 2016;
Knowles et al., 1999; Shaver, 2018). Unsurprisingly, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its dispropor-
tionately adverse effects on women have drawn closer attention to gender disparities in society (Alon
et al., 2020; Bambra et al., 2021). For instance, this crisis has imposed a disproportionately negative
impact on women’s employment and income, especially mothers (Dugarova, 2020; Nieves et al., 2020;
OECD, 2021f). As the lockdowns shut down schools and childcare facilities, mothers have had to assume
the burden of additional unpaid care work, creating further labor market penalties and stress (Bambra
et al., 2021). The additional caregiving responsibilities triggered by the pandemic have increased women
and girls’ exposure to health risks, as they are often expected to do domestic chores and nurse sick fam-
ily members in many developing societies (Gender in Humanitarian Action (GiHA) Asia and the Pacific,
2020).
Gender disparities are aggravated when women have to compete for scarce financial resources to
spend on hygiene, healthcare, and education when faced with an economic crunch (International
Rescue Committee, 2021; Nieves et al., 2020). In the meantime, lower-income limits women’s access
to nutritious food (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2020). In some contexts, this problem is
exacerbated by social norms dictating that women eat last and least (UN World Food Program (WFP),
2020). Finally, in the context of COVID-19, lockdown measures are known to exacerbate the risk of
domestic violence faced by women in many societies (Bambra et al., 2021; Bettinger-Lopez & Bro, 2020;
Mittal & Singh, 2020; Nieves et al., 2020). The unequal burden of crises on women is not unique to
the COVID-19 crisis, as it was also documented during other pandemics. This was the case in the 2010
cholera epidemic in Haiti and the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak in Western Africa (Interagency Standing
Committee (IASC) GBV Sub-Sector Nigeria, 2017).
Ethno-racial minorities
In countries with significant ethno-racial minority populations, racial inequalities tend to be exacer-
bated by adverse events and crises. Before the outbreak of a crisis, ethno-racial minorities may lack
political representation and input on decisions on emergency plans (Wright & Merritt, 2020). They are
also more likely to have limited access to information on crisis preparedness due to language barriers
(Tierney, 1993). When natural disasters strike, ethno-racial minority populations often face challenges
evacuating their homes, partly because they are more likely to live in deprived areas with limited
transportation options (Deng et al., 2021; Stivers, 2007). In some cases, the rescue of specific minority
populations can be delayed due to language obstacles (Fothergill et al., 1999).
In the context of a pandemic, ethno-racial minorities are disadvantaged, as they tend to dispropor-
tionately live and work in areas with higher infection levels (Bambra et al., 2021). At the same time, they
typically face greater difficulties in accessing adequate health services, which increase the risks of infec-
tion and mortality (Placzek & Madoff, 2014; Wright & Merritt, 2020; OECD, 2021c). Minority children are
also more likely to face problems of food insecurity during a crisis (McLoughlin et al., 2020).
Overall, ethno-racial minorities tend to face greater difficulties in recovering from crises due to dis-
advantages arising from their lower economic status and the labor market obstacles they face (Elliott
& Pais, 2006; Fothergill et al., 1999). When members of ethno-racial minorities apply for financial aid
or social benefits, they may also face barriers arising from discrimination and, more generally, their
marginal status (Emrich et al., 2020). Moreover, politically powerful actors within ethno-racial commu-
nities might misuse aid programs for their own gains. Importantly, inequalities affecting ethno-racial
minorities are exacerbated when the government does not consider these relevant factors (Lowe, 2012).
Finally, the abovementioned problems facing ethno-racial minorities during crises are especially acute
for new immigrants (OECD, 2021f).
Education and income

People with low education and income tend to be more vulnerable to adverse impacts of large-scale
crises on economic and health well-being than their more educated counterparts. In some crises, such
as the Asian Financial Crisis, employment and income impacts were disproportionally greater on pop-
ulations with low income and education levels (Knowles et al., 1999). During the 2008 global financial
crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, populations with lower levels of education and income encoun-
tered difficulties in holding jobs, as they possessed less information and skills necessary for adapting
to the changed circumstances (Heggebø et al., 2019; OECD, 2021a, 2021g). Decreasing personal income
affected their health by eroding food and housing security. During the COVID-19 pandemic, populations
with low income and low education have experienced a higher risk of developing severe symptoms and
mortality (OECD, 2021c).
Age
While all age cohorts face additional hardships during times of crisis, the adverse economic effects are
particularly harsh on the youth (Knowles et al., 1999; OECD, 2010, 2014, 2021a). During the COVID-19
crisis, youth unemployment and working hours fell by more than 26% in OECD countries, close to double
the fall observed in the prime-aged and older categories (15%). In addition, new graduates confront more
severe competition in finding employment as job openings shrink due to the economic slowdown (OECD,
2021a). The increase in the number of youth not in employment, education, or training may create
additional mental health problems (OECD, 2014). Older people too are also not spared the ravaging
effects of deep crises. Not only does their income decline due to crises but also do they find it difficult
to find employment because of the prevailing recessionary conditions (OECD, 2010). As a result, they
may spend less money on medicine, adversely affecting their health (Knowles et al., 1999). In the case
of COVID-19, older people have also suffered from much higher death rates on average than younger
people, a situation especially dire for older people living in nursing homes (Béland & Marier, 2020;
Ciminelli & Garcia-Mandicó, 2020).
Economic sectors
Compared with other occupations, depending on the nature of the crisis at hand, people working in
specific economic sectors face higher risks of unemployment and loss of income. For example, during
the Asian Financial Crisis, employees in manufacturing and construction experienced heavier neg-
ative unemployment impacts than in other sectors, such as agriculture and service (Knowles et al.,
1999). Shantz (2010) observed that during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis in Canada,
workers in the tourism industry confronted heavier pressure than people belonging to other occupa-
tional categories. During the COVID-19 pandemic, workers in tourism and business services have been
especially negatively affected (OECD, 2021a). In addition, the overwhelming caseload of the COVID-19
disease not only imposed heavy workloads on health workers but also increased their risk of infection.
Finally, these occupational risks during the COVID-19 pandemic have intersected with the dispro-
portionate representation of women and ethno-racial minorities within employment sectors deemed
essential to society (Bambra et al., 2021).
Disability
Crises impose additional hardship on populations with disabilities. At the most basic level, disabled
people encounter difficulties in evacuation when natural disasters strike (Chakraborty et al., 2019;
Wolbring, 2009). They also face additional difficulties during pandemics. For example, Jesus and col-
leagues (Jesus et al., 2021) found that the overwhelming caseload in hospitals made it difficult for people
with disabilities to access health services. Moreover, as the community and public facilities and ser-
vices shut down, people with disabilities, including frail older people living at home, can be deprived
of personal assistance and community support. Public health measures to promote social distancing
during the COVID-19 pandemic have created the inadvertent effect of aggravating isolation among dis-
abled people, a situation that has negatively affected their physical and mental health. People suffering
from addictions and/or mental health issues have also been negatively impacted by both the pandemic
itself and social distancing measures.
COVID-19, Social Inequalities, and the Importance of Policy Design

While the COVID-19 pandemic, similar to other major crises, appeared unexpectedly and swept soci-
eties asunder, its adverse socio-economic impacts have been rather predictable. Unsurprisingly, large
population segments lost access to income, the sick and aged lost access to care, children lost opportu-
nities to learn, with women and minorities affected particularly badly in the wake of the pandemic. As
expected, the hardest hit in the pandemic are often the groups that were already vulnerable before the
crisis, reflecting the significant preexisting inequalities. Estimates suggest that the pandemic may lead
to a significant increase in global poverty, potentially wiping out at least a decade of poverty reduction
(Sumner et al., 2020). What was unexpected is not that the disadvantages of the weaker sections of the
society were aggravated but how much it benefited the well-off, not only in relative terms but also in
absolute terms, as male white-collar workers worked from home and thus maintained their income
while the investors saw their income skyrocket as a result of excess liquidity caused by central banks’
easy monetary policies.
The stark rise in inequalities as a result of COVID-19 promoted moral outrage and heated political
debates, raising hopes that the time was ripe for substantive policy changes to reduce inequality (Lynch,
2020). The lessons of history are mixed in this regard, however. The economic and social turmoil trig-
gered by the First World War was followed by a highly unequal era in which the rich saw a massive rise
in return on investment assets. A similar period followed the 2008 global financial crisis. On the other
hand, the massive social, economic, and dislocations caused by Second World War were followed by
unprecedented policy efforts to support the poor’ access to income, education, and health care. Looking
forward, in early 2022, it is unclear whether inequality will increase, decrease, or remain unchanged.
On the one hand, the pandemic did not cause the inequality problem and, hence, its abatement
cannot be expected to lead to the decline of the latter. It rather aggravated a widespread malady that
had festered and indeed aggravated for decades. Inequality is rooted in the very core of the market
economy, which offers disproportionate rewards to those with assets, be it capital or scarce skills. It is
reinforced by liberal-capitalist ideas and institutions that continue to remain robust despite widespread
dissatisfaction with some of its adverse effects. Over the past century, liberal-capitalist states have
survived economic and other crises by offering short- and long-term concessions to those most deeply
affected by it without making a substantial difference to the distribution of income or wealth in society.
The current pandemic appears to have followed the same trend: Large income support programs were
launched swiftly in many countries (Béland et al., 2021a), which are now being gradually withdrawn or
allowed to phase out. There is no evidence of deep political realignment, as in the post-War era, that
pressure governments to undertake major efforts to redistribute income or wealth and their asocial
unequal effects.
On the other hand, the recent experience with the unequal effects of the pandemic has raised the
issue on governments’ policy agenda in many countries. The Chinese government in 2021 launched
unprecedented efforts to curb the market powers of the rich in the name of promoting “common pros-
perity”. Politicians committed to a massive increase in spending on issues affecting the poor have
garnered strong political support in the USA and a few other countries. Increase in their popularity
with voters can be expected to lead to at least some efforts to address the ill effects of inequality, if
not its root causes. However, the conditions for promoting equality are simply not strong enough for
a major transformation, as was the case in the past when major redistributions took place (Scheidel,
2018). Partly due to the massive income protection programs launched in the wake of the pandemic,
the political forces of change are not strong enough to substantially weaken the ideational and institu-
tional roots that maintain and promote capitalism and the inequalities innate to it. At best, we may see
governments launching new programs to improve income support for the poor and broadening their
access to social services which, if substantial, may make a dent in the problem.
The ways in which countries respond to crises are closely related to existing policy designs and
legacies (Capano et al., 2020; on policy design see Howlett & Mukherjee, 2018). This is the case because,
in times of crisis, “political actors are likely to first rely on existing programs and approaches associated
with their welfare regime or, at least, the specific policy areas particularly affected by the crisis. This
is true when we consider issues such as the relationship between targeted and universal programs
but also the territorial organization of the welfare state, which is particularly crucial in federal and
devolved states.” (Béland et al., 2021a: 251). This institutional continuity in the policy responses to
crises is crucial for understanding how inequalities are tackled or neglected by governments. This is
the case because existing policy legacies are likely to shape the design of the policies adopted during
large crises. For instance, countries like Belgium and Germany that already rely extensively on social
insurance programs are more likely to expand them in response to a major crisis instead of looking at
alternative policy designs (Cantillon et al., 2021).
Simultaneously, when existing policy designs are seen as deficient by policy actors, they might
decide to innovate and create new programs in response to a large-scale crisis. For example, this is
what happened in Canada during the COVID-19 crisis. Aware of the limitations of the existing fed-
eral Employment Insurance (EI) program, which only covered a faction of the working population, the
Trudeau government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with the creation of an entirely new emer-
gency benefit featuring a universal policy design that made it available more rapidly and to a much
larger segment of the population than traditional EI payments (Béland et al., 2021b). This example sug-
gests that emergency measures adopted during a crisis can adopt new designs in reaction against the
apparent flaws of existing policies.
Regardless of whether the emergency measures adopted in response to a pandemic are path-
dependent or move away from existing policy legacies, paying close attention to their design is essential
to the analysis of social inequalities (Bambra et al., 2021). Conversely, the study of policy design during
crises requires direct and systematic attention to inequality, as design choices can have a major impact
on inequality patterns. Policy design choices have a direct impact on inequality, something that is true
during crises but also in normal times (Zuberi, 2006). This is something that is strongly emphasized by
students of the social construction of target populations, who have long stressed the deep relationship
between policy design and embedded forms of inequality in society (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). A key
point of the present special issue is to draw attention to this relationship in the context of crisis manage-
ment. In this context, scholars and practitioners interested in policy responses to crises must pay close
attention to inequalities so that they have a better grasp of how old and new policies are likely to affect
different economic, gendered, racial, and social populations. Not paying close attention to inequalities
is likely to skew our understanding of policy change, both during and between crises (Bashevkin, 2000).
This special issue

As suggested in the above overview, much has been written about social inequalities during crises,
including the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, much has already been written about policy
responses to the COVID-19 crisis, including from global and comparative perspectives (e.g., Béland et al.,
2021a; Cook & Ulriksen, 2021; Greer et al., 2021; Liu & Geva-May, 2021; Moon & Wu, 2022). In this the-
matic issue of Policy and Society, we contribute to this growing policy literature by looking at the nature,
status, and potential impact of social inequalities during the COVID-19 crisis. While the COVID-19 pan-
demic has focused our attention on key types of inequalities, it has also created room for debates about
the policy change and how to better address issues such as poverty, ethno-racial discrimination, health
disparities, and unemployment, among other things (Batty et al., 2022). This thematic issue presents
eight articles on the COVID-19 crisis, social inequalities, and public policies in a wide range of countries
in East Asia, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, North America, and Latin America. These articles examine
relationships between COVID-19, social inequalities, and public policies from a wide range of vantage
points and perspectives.
The first article by Zaki et al. (2022) and colleagues attempts to explore the complex relation-
ship between economic inequalities and excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe.
As suggested above, while there are studies reporting the different mortality rates across racial and
occupational lines, this article goes one step forward by elucidating the mechanisms through which
economic disparities have contributed to excess mortality during this global public health crisis. Their
analysis of 300 regions across 25 European countries reveals two pathways by which economic asym-
metries and inequalities can observably influence excess mortality: labor market structures (capturing
concentrations of industrial jobs) and income inequalities (capturing concentrations and asymmetries
in income distribution). The authors argue that this calls on policymakers to deliberately consider
the multidimensionality, societal embeddedness, and regional granularity underlying such complex
large-scale policy issues.
In the second article, Foli & Ohemeng (2022) analyze social policy response to COVID-19 in Ghana.
Abundant anecdotal evidence in the past 2 years has shown the massive adverse impact of the pan-
demic on livelihood in low-income countries. However, little is known about how social policies alleviate
economic hardships and reduce inequalities in these countries. This article finds that the existing social
policy system in Ghana was too weak to provide adequate relief to the vast affected population, a situa-
tion compounded by the limited administrative and fiscal capacities of the state. Individuals employed
in large informal sectors were especially hard hit, especially when a lockdown was imposed by the
government. The authors use historical institutionalism to explain the fragility of the Ghanaian social
policy system, which was rather fragmented and unable to respond to the mounting needs for social
protection triggered by the pandemic.
The third article by Michener (2022) explores racial disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic in the
USA. Higher infection rates among US racial minorities are widely documented in the existing COVID
literature (Bambra et al., 2021). There is increasing evidence that deeply entrenched racial inequities
were aggravated during the pandemic. Michener’s (2022) article focuses on housing policy and, more
specifically, on protection against eviction, to unpack the relationship between racial inequality and
social policy dynamics in the 50 US states. Drawing on the concept of racial power, she explains the
marked variance across these states in the timing of eviction policy response. As she argues, “policy is
passed more quickly in states with larger White populations and where larger shares of voters are Black.
Alternatively, state policy is less swift where larger shares of voters are Latino, more White legislators
populate state Houses, and more social movement activity occurs.” Her analysis stresses the importance
of race and racism in the COVID-19 politics of social policy in the USA.
The article by Ellison et al. (2022) compares the social policy responses to COVID-19 in Ger-
many, Sweden, and the UK, three countries that each represents a distinctive type of welfare regime
(Esping-Andersen, 1990). It focuses on two key welfare state sectors that bore the brunt of the COVID-19
shock: income and employment protection, and health and residential care. The authors find that in
Germany and Sweden, there was an evident return to established social policy practices that enabled
their governments to swiftly cushion the adverse impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the labor market
through social policy interventions. However, as the authors critically point out, this so-called “insti-
tutional recidivism” also led to a relative neglect of new vulnerable populations in both Germany and
Sweden, thus aggravating preexisting social inequalities. Compared to income and employment protec-
tion, the health and residential care sector witnessed a rather different trend. The welfare retrenchment
and marketization in the past decades significantly reduced the excess capacity of health care systems
in many high-income countries, resulting in a high fatality, particularly in the UK. This comparative
study, together with other recent ones (Bali et al., 2022; Moon & Wu, 2022), have highlighted the criti-
cal importance of capacity development as a key strategy in the world’s preparation for similar public
health crises in the future.
The tremendous health and social risks brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic are unprece-
dented. In their article, Choi et al. (2022) conceptualize “COVID social risks” in five key areas: physical
health, employment and income, skills and knowledge, care, and social relationships. In the wake
of the pandemic, the last 2 years have seen the spread of unskilling, unpaid leave, increased fam-
ily care burden, increased loneliness, and heightened educational divides. The authors illustrate
these new social risks in the context of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea which have done lit-
tle to protect those most exposed to COVID social risks. The gaps identified in the paper are not
unique to East Asia and may well be the “new normal” for the world and warrant greater political
attention.
The East Asian focus of Choi et al.’s article is extended to China by He et al. (2022). The case of China
occupies an important position in this special issue for two reasons. First, numerous studies have ana-
lyzed its impressive achievement in containing the pandemic in 2020, but much less is known about
China’s social policy responses. Second, the well-documented trend of widening income inequalities in
China over the past 3 decades needs to be further examined in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ana-
lyzing data collected from a major coastal province, this study reveals substantive inequalities in social
protection benefits local and migrant populations receive. The two populations also show remarkably
different preferences for social policy in the face of the pandemic. The authors argue that this attitu-
dinal heterogeneity was ultimately shaped by local and nonlocal residents’ unequal access to social
welfare. This study exposes the limit of social protection in China during a large-scale public health
crisis and suggests that the fissures in the social assistance system persist despite the government’s
efforts to bridge the urban–rural divide.
In their article, Béland et al. (2022) examine the politics of social policy as it intersects with the
issue of poverty reduction in Canada and the USA, both before and during the pandemic. The article
suggests that poverty reduction became a priority in both countries during the pandemic but that the
USA experienced more discontinuity than Canada, where this issue had been on the federal agenda
since the advent of the Liberal Justin Trudeau government in late 2015. According to the authors,
the evaluation of partisan and electoral patterns before and during the pandemic helps explain the
evolution of the policy agenda in both countries. Their analysis shows that, moving forward, stu-
dents of social policy should take a systematic look at how the evolution of partisanship over time
interacts with major crises to shape the politics of social policy and poverty reduction in different
countries.
In the eighth and last article in this collection, Segatto et al. (2022) investigate the social policy
responses to COVID-19 in Brazil. The authors focus on two social policy domains—social assistance
and education—in four subnational localities heavily hit by the pandemic to frame their study. The two
policy domains are characterized by different configurations of national–subnational responsibilities in
social welfare that are illustrative of the social policy dynamics in a federal country. Their analysis
suggests that decentralization greatly undermined the country’s ability to mount an effective social
policy response to the pandemic. Weak national-level coordination exacerbated fend-for-yourself fed-
eralism and fragmentation of subnational social policies. In the Brazilian context, policy legacies and
capacities rather than partisanship explain the variations in policy responses to the pandemic at the
subnational level. This article shows how uncoordinated social policies aggravate rather than alleviate
social inequalities in federal countries.
Overall, this thematic issue draws our attention to the relationship between the COVID-19 crisis,
social inequalities, and public policies around the world. The articles comprising this thematic issue
broadly contribute to our understanding of the relationship between crisis and inequalities discussed
in this introductory article by stressing the importance of this relationship for the international and
comparative study of public policy in different economic, political, and social contexts.
Another key contribution of this special issue is to stress the importance of inequality for the
study of both crisis management and policy change. The research articles in this special issue
together stress the need for students of policy design to pay close attention to inequality during
times of crisis. How specific policy designs can reduce or exacerbate problems such as poverty
or gender inequality is an essential topic that scholars and practitioners should take more seri-
ously, especially when they study crises that can reproduce and even exacerbate major patterns of
inequality.
Funding
None declared.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
Alon, T., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., & Tertilt, M. (2020, April). The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality
(NBER Working Paper 26947, CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series). https://www.nber.org/papers/w26947.
Asian Development Bank. (2012, May). Global crisis, remittances, and poverty in Asia. http://hdl.
handle.net/11540/102.
Atkinson, A. B., & Morelli, S. (2011). Economic crises and inequality. Human Development Reports series,
No. 2011-06, United Nations Development Program. https://hdr.undp.org/en/content/economic-crises-and-
inequality.
Bali, A. Z., He, A. J., & Ramesh, M. (2022). Health policy and COVID-19: Path dependency and trajectory. Policy
and Society, 41(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab014.
Bambra, C., Lynch, J., & Smith, K. E. (2021). The unequal pandemic: COVID-19 and health inequalities. Policy Press.
Bashevkin, S. (2000). Rethinking retrenchment: North American social policy during
the early Clinton and Chrétien years. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 7–36.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900000020.
Batty, G. D., Gaye, B., Gale, C. R., Hamer, M., & Lassale, C. (2022). Explaining ethnic differ-
entials in COVID-19 mortality: a cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 191(2), 275–281.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwab237.
Béland, D., Cantillon, B., Hick, R., & Moreira, A. (2021a). Social policy in the face of a global
pandemic: Policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Social Policy & Administration, 55(2), 249–260.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12718.
Béland, D., Dinan, S., Rocco, P., & Waddan, A. (2021b). Social policy responses to COVID-19 in Canada and
the United States: Explaining policy variations between two liberal welfare state regimes. Social Policy &
Administration, 55(2), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12656.
Béland, D., Dinan, S., Rocco, P., & Waddan, A. (2022). COVID-19, poverty reduction, and partisanship in
Canada and the United States. Policy and Society, 41(2), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac002.
Béland, D., & Mahon, R. (2016). Social policy: An advanced introduction. Edward Elgar.
Béland, D., & Marier, P. (2020). COVID-19 and long-term care policy for older people in Canada. Journal of
Aging & Social Policy, 32(4–5), 358–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2020.1764319.
Bettinger-Lopez, C., & Bro, A. (2020, May 13). A double pandemic: Domestic violence in the age of COVID-19. Coun-
cil on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/double-pandemic-domestic-violence-age-covid-19.
Blundell, R., Dias, M. C., Joyce, R., & Xu, X. (2020). COVID-19 and inequalities. Fiscal Studies, 41(2), 291–319.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12232.
Blyth, M. (2002). Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge
University Press.
Boin, A., & ‘t Hart, P. (2022). From crisis to reform? Exploring three post-COVID pathways. Policy and Society,
41(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab007.
Cantillon, B., Seeleib-Kaiser, M., & van der Veen, R. (2021). The COVID-19 crisis and policy
responses by continental European welfare states. Social Policy & Administration, 55(2), 326–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12715.
Capano, G., Howlett, M., Darryl, D. S. L., Ramesh, M., & Goyal, N. (2020). Mobilizing policy (in)capacity
to fight COVID-19: Understanding variations in state responses. Policy and Society, 39(3), 285–308.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1787628.
Capano, G., Howlett, M., Jarvis, D. S. L., & Ramesh, M. (2022). Long-term policy impacts of the coron-
avirus: Normalization, adaptation, and acceleration in the post-COVID state. Policy and Society, 41(1),
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab018.
Carcillo, S., Fernández, R., Königs, S., & Minea, A. (2015). NEET youth in the aftermath of the crisis: Chal-
lenges and policies (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 164). OECD Publish-
ing, Paris. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/neet-youth-in-the-aftermath-
of-the-crisis_5js6363503f6-en.
Chakraborty, J., Grineski, S. E., & Collins, T. W. (2019). Hurricane Harvey and people with disabili-
ties: Disproportionate exposure to flooding in Houston, Texas. Social Science & Medicine, 226, 176–181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.039.
Choi, Y. J., Kühner, S., & Shi, S. J. (2022). From “new social risks” to “COVID social risks”: the challenges for
inclusive society in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan amid the pandemic. Policy and Society, 41(2),
260–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac001.
Ciminelli, G., & Garcia-Mandicó, S. (2020). COVID-19 in Italy: An analysis of death registry data. Journal of
Public Health, 42(4), 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa165.
Cook, S., & Ulriksen, M. S. (2021). Social policy responses to COVID-19: New issues, old solutions? Global
Social Policy, 21(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211055645.
Deng, H., Aldrich, D. P., Danziger, M. M., Gao, J., Phillips, N. E., Cornelius, S. P., & Wang, Q. R. (2021).
High-resolution human mobility data reveal race and wealth disparities in disaster evacuation patterns.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00824-8.
Donner, W., & Rodríguez, H. (2008). Population composition, migration, and inequality: The influ-
ence of demographic changes on disaster risk and vulnerability. Social Forces, 87(2), 1089–1114.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0141.
Dugarova, E. (2020). Unpaid care work in times of the COVID-19 crisis: Gendered impacts, emerging
evidence and promising policy responses. In UN Expert Group Meeting ‘Families in develop-
ment: Assessing progress, challenges and emerging issues, Focus on modalities for IYF+30’.
United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/family/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2020/
09/Duragova.Paper_.pdf.
Elliott, J. R., & Pais, J. (2006). Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses to
disaster. Social Science Research, 35(2), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.02.003.
Ellison, N., Blomqvist, P., & Fleckstein, T. (2022). Covid (in)equalities: labor market protection,
health, and residential care in Germany, Sweden, and the UK. Policy and Society, 41(2), 247–259.
https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac004.
Emrich, C. T., Tate, E., Larson, S. E., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Measuring social equity in flood recovery funding.
Environmental Hazards, 19(3), 228–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Polity Press.
Foli, R. K., & Ohemeng, F. K. (2022). “Provide our basic needs or we go out”: the COVID-19
pandemic lockdown, inequality, and social policy in Ghana. Policy and Society, 41(2), 217–230.
Fothergill, A., Maestas, E. G., & Darlington, J. D. (1999). Race, ethnicity and disasters in the United States: A
review of the literature. Disasters, 23(2), 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00111.
Gender in Humanitarian Action (GiHA) Asia and the Pacific. (2020, March). The COVID-19 out-
break and gender: Key advocacy points from Asia and the Pacific. GiHA. https://www2.unwomen.org/
media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2020/03/ap-giha-wg-advocacy.pdf?la=en&vs=2145.
Greer, S. L., King, E. J., da Fonseca, E. M., & Peralta-Santos, A. (2021). Coronavirus politics: The comparative
politics and policy of COVID-19. University of Michigan Press.
He, A. J., Zhang, C., & Qian, J. (2022). COVID-19 and social inequality in China: the local-migrant
divide and the limits of social protections in a pandemic. Policy and Society, 41(2), 275–290.
Heggebø, K., Tøge, A. G., Dahl, E. & Berg, J. E. (2019). Socioeconomic inequalities in health during the Great
Recession: A scoping review of the research literature. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 47(6), 635–654.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494818801637.
Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2018). Routledge handbook of policy design. Routledge.
Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) GBV Sub-Sector Nigeria. (2017). Briefing note: Integrat-
ing gender in cholera prevention and control interventions in North East Nigeria. https://interagency
standingcommittee.org/system/files/briefing_note-gender_in_cholera_response.pdf.
International Rescue Committee. (2021). Gender implications of COVID-19 outbreaks in development and humani-
tarian settings. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Gender%20implications%20of%20
COVID-19%20outbreaks%20in%20development%20and%20humanitarian%20settings.pdf.
Jesus, T. S., Bhattacharjya, S., Papadimitriou, C., Bogdanova, Y., Bentley, J., Arango-Lasprilla, J. C., &
Kamalakannan, S. (2021). Lockdown-related disparities experienced by people with disabilities during
the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Scoping review with thematic analysis. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6178. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126178.
Knowles, J., Pernia, E., & Racelis, M. (1999). Social consequences of the financial crisis in Asia. Asian Development
Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/11540/2484.
Lee, G. O. M., & Warner, M. (2005). Epidemics, labour markets and unemployment: the impact of SARS on
human resource management in the Hong Kong service sector. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16(5), 752–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500083202.
Lee, G. O. M., & Warner, M. (2006). Human resources, labour markets and unemployment: the impact
of the SARS epidemic on the service sector in Singapore. Asia Pacific Business Review, 12(4), 507–527.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602380600571443.
Liu, Z., & Geva-May, I. (2021). Comparative public policy analysis of COVID-19 as a
naturally occurring experiment. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 23(2), 131–142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2021.1894074.
Lowe, J. S. (2012). Policy versus politics: Post-Hurricane Katrina lower-income housing restoration in
Mississippi. Housing Policy Debate, 22(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2011.624529.
Lynch, J. (2020). Health equity, social policy, and promoting recovery from COVID-19. Journal of Health Politics,
Policy and Law, 45(6), 983–995. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-8641518.
McLoughlin, G. M., McCarthy, J. A., McGuirt, J. T., Singleton, C. R., Dunn, C. G., & Gadhoke, P. (2020). Address-
ing food insecurity through a health equity lens: A case study of large urban school districts during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Urban Health, 97(6), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00476-0.
Michener, J. (2022). Race, power, and policy: understanding state anti-eviction policies during COVID-19.
Policy and Society, 41(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac012.
Mittal, S., & Singh, T. (2020). Gender-based violence during COVID-19 pandemic: A mini-review. Frontiers in
Global Women’s Health, 1:4, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2020.00004.
Moon, M. J., & Wu, X. (2022). Sustaining Asia’s development amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: capac-
ity development and governance innovation. Journal of Asian Public Policy. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2021.2015850.
Nieves, C. D. P., Gaddis, I., & Muller, M. (2020). Gender and COVID-19: What have we learnt, one year later. World
Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/446.
Nieves, C. P., Gaddis, I., & Muller, M. (2021). Gender and COVID-19: What have we learnt, one year later. World
Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/446791624368460544/pdf/Gender-and-COVID-19-
What-have-we-learnt-one-year-later.pdf.
OECD. (2010). OECD employment outlook 2010: Moving beyond the jobs crisis.
OECD. (2014). Society at a glance 2014: OECD social indicators.
OECD. (2021a). OECD employment outlook 2021: Navigating the COVID-19 crisis and recovery.
OECD. (2021b). Keep calm and carry on feeding: Agriculture and food policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, OECD
policy responses to coronavirus (COVID-19).
OECD. (2021c). Health at a glance 2021: OECD indicators.
OECD. (2021d). Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines for developing countries: An equal shot at recovery, OECD policy
responses to coronavirus (COVID-19).
OECD. (2021e). Revenue statistics 2021: The initial impact of COVID-19 on OECD tax revenues.
https://doi.org/10.1787/6e87f932-en.
OECD. (2021f). Caregiving in crisis: Gender inequality in paid and unpaid work during COVID-19, OECD policy
responses to coronavirus (COVID-19).
OECD. (2021g). International migration outlook 2021.
Placzek, H., & Madoff, L. (2014). Effect of race/ethnicity and socio-economic status on pan-
demic H1N1-related outcomes in Massachusetts. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), e31–e38.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301626.
Ponnambalam, L., Samavedham, L., Lee, H. R., & Ho, C. S. (2012). Understanding the socio-
economic heterogeneity in healthcare in US counties: The effect of population density, edu-
cation and poverty on H1N1 pandemic mortality. Epidemiology and Infection, 140(5), 803–813.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268811001464.
Ruckert, A., & Labonté, R. (2014). The global financial crisis and health equity: Early experiences from
Canada. Globalization and Health, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-10-2.
Scheidel, W. (2018). The Greater Leveler. Princeton University Press.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and
policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044.
Segatto, C. I., Dos Santos, F. B. P., Birchir, R. M., & Morandi, E. L. (2022). Inequalities and the COVID-19
pandemic in Brazil: analysing un-coordinated responses in social assistance and education. Policy and
Society, 41(2), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac005.
Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2013). Theorizing crisis communication. Wiley-Blackwell.
Shantz, J. (2010). Capitalism is making us sick: poverty, illness and the SARS crisis in Toronto. Under-
standing Emerging Epidemics: Social and Political Approaches, 11, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1057-
6290(2010)0000011005.
Shaver, S. (2018). Handbook on gender and social policy. Edward Elgar.
Stivers, C. (2007). “So poor and so black”: Hurricane Katrina, public administration, and the issue of race.
Public Administration Review, 67(S1), 48–56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4624681.
Sumner, A., Hoy, C., & Ortiz-Juarez, E. (2020, April). Estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global
poverty (United Nations University WIDER Working Paper 2020/43). https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/
default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2020-43.pdf.
Tavares, F. F., & Betti, G. (2021). The pandemic of poverty, vulnerability, and COVID-19: Evi-
dence from a fuzzy multidimensional analysis of deprivations in Brazil. World Development, 139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105307.
Tierney, K. J. (1993) Socio-economic aspects of hazard mitigation. Preliminary Paper No. 190, Disaster
Research Center, University of Delaware, Newark.
UN Food and Agriculture Organization (2020). Addressing inequality in times of COVID-19.
https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca8843en.
UN World Food Program (WFP). (2020). Women are hungrier. https://wfpusa.org/women-arehungrier-
infographic/.
Voltolini, B., Natorski, M., & Hay, C. (2020). Introduction: The politicization of permanent crisis in Europe.
Journal of European Integration, 42(5), 609–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1792460.
Wolbring, G. (2009). A culture of neglect: Climate discourse and disabled people. M/C Journal, 12(4).
https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.173.
Wong, S. D., Broader, J. C., & Shaheen, S. A. (2020). Can sharing economy platforms increase
social equity for vulnerable populations in disaster response and relief? A case study of the
2017 and 2018 California wildfires. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 5, 100131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100131.
Wright, J. E., & Merritt, C. C. (2020). Social equity and COVID-19: the case of African Americans. Public
Administration Review, 80(5), 820–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13251.
Zaki, B. L., Nicoli, F., Wayenberg, E., & Verschuere, B. (2022). Contagious inequality: Economic dis-
parities and excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy and Society, 41(2), 199–216.
Zuberi, D. (2006). Differences that matter: Social policy and the working poor in the United States and Canada. Cornell
University Press/ILR Press.

COvid and Policies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COvid and Policies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Policy and Society, 2022, 41(2), 187–198

COVID-19, crisis responses, and public

Keywords: crisis; inequality; comparative public policy; COVID-19; policy design

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.

Dimensions of social inequalities during large-scale crises

Unequal degrees of safety

Patterns of social inequality during large-scale crises

Education and income

COVID-19, Social Inequalities, and the Importance of Policy Design

This special issue

You might also like