Social policy in the face of a global pandemic: Policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis.

How 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.

The COVID-19 crisis and policy responses by continental European welfare states.

Social protection in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands share Bismarckian roots. Over time, these welfare states were however in constant flux and incorporated to a greater or lesser extend elements of both the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic models. While the Netherlands has from the beginning deviated from the Bismarckian model, in recent years this welfare state has undergone important reforms that have made it increasingly evolve into a "Bismarck cum Beveridge" model. Germany and Belgium also witnessed a dual transformation, with retrenched earnings-related benefits for long-term unemployed and an increasing number of atypically employed people on the one hand and expanded social security to the so-called "new social risks" on the other. It is against this changing institutional background that we can understand the similarities and differences in the extent to which these three continental welfare states used traditional social insurance systems to buffer the social and economic consequences of confinement. First, all three countries strengthened to varying degrees social protection systems for the active age population. So conceived, the policy responses were a response to the dual transformation of social protection that took place in recent decades without, however, changing its course. Second, the extent to which continental welfare states made use of existing social insurance schemes seems to be related to the extent to which these welfare states have moved in the Anglo-Saxon direction.