Based on empirical findings from a comparative study on welfare state responses to the four major economic shocks (the 1970s oil shocks, the early 1990s recession, the 2008 financial crisis) in four OECD countries, this article demonstrates that, in contrast to conventional wisdom, policy responses to global economic crises vary significantly across countries. What explains the cross-national and within-case variation in responses to crises? We discuss several potential causes of this pattern and argue that political parties and the party composition of governments can play a key role in shaping crisis responses, albeit in ways that go beyond traditional partisan theory. We show that the partisan conflict and the impact of parties are conditioned by existing welfare state configurations. In less generous welfare states, the party composition of governments plays a decisive role in shaping the direction of social policy change. By contrast, in more generous welfare states, i.e., those with highly developed automatic stabilisers, the overall direction of policy change is regularly not subject to debate. Political conflict in these welfare states rather concerns the extent to which expansion or retrenchment is necessary. Therefore, a clear-cut partisan impact can often not be shown.

This article discusses the conceptualization of global social policy in its dimension of prescriptions on national social policy. By studying the global health systems discourse and comparing it to the discourse on pensions, the applicability and validity of common notions of contestation and struggle between global social policy actors and their ideas are discussed. On the basis of conceptual considerations on global social policy ideas and discourses, the reasons for the differences between the two discourses are elaborated on. The article offers conclusions as to the conceptualization of global social policy prescriptions with regard to notions of the ‘war of positions’ and the promises of the ASID (agency, structure, institution, discourse) framework.

Comment e248www.thelancet.com/public-health Vol 5 2020 disease prevention and better social protection across the EU can only be achieved by the re-allocation of competences across different policy levels, and by implementing global solutions (including the International Labour Organization's global Social Protection Floors recommendation, the Sustainable Development Goals, and rights-based approaches on migrants and refugees) that are already on the table.We declare no competing interests.

No abstract

The idea that moments of crisis form opportunities for fundamental policy change is widespread in political science and public policy. It is usually associated with historical institutionalism and the notion of 'critical junctures'. On the basis of an in-depth analysis of social policy responses in Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden over the course of four global economic shocks, we ask whether the notion of critical junctures is useful in understanding the nature of change triggered by crisis. The main empirical finding is that fundamental change in the aftermath of an exogenous shock is the exception rather than the rule. Instead, incremental 'crisis routines' based on existing policy instruments are overwhelmingly used to deal with economic hardship. We discuss these findings in the light of the psychological 'threat-rigidity' effect and reflect on their consequences for theories of comparative policy analysis and institutional change.