PurposeThe purpose of this study is to analyze year-end spending practices in the European Economic Area (EEA) to baseline the pervasiveness of year-end spending spikes across countries in Europe.Design/methodology/approachThe Tenders Electronic Daily dataset is used to descriptively analyze above-threshold procurement contracts by country, year and contract type from 2009 to 2018. Proportional distributions are employed to compare percentages of spend across quarters. Analyses are run within each country on the number of years displaying a fourth quarter spike, as well as within each country and contract type.FindingsThe results show that while spending spikes for above-threshold contracts in the final fiscal quarter are not consistent across all countries, patterns emerge when the data are disaggregated by country. The most populous nations in the EEA are more likely to have years with the highest proportion of fiscal spend occurring in the fourth quarter. Further, the type of contract makes a difference – services and supplies contracts are more likely to display fourth quarter spikes than works contracts.Originality/valueThis article provides the first analysis of the year-end spending spike across countries in Europe using procurement data, as well as the first to disaggregate by year and contract type. Findings support the literature on the presence of year-end spikes; such spikes exist even for above-threshold public procurement contracts.

Safe injection sites are spaces where people who inject drugs can do so under the supervision of staff at the sites who attempt to revive them if they overdose. Public officials in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have proposed the sites as a means to reduce opioid overdose deaths in the city, a policy proposal that has been politically and legally contested. This article uses the Narrative Politics model to elucidate the concerns, values, and aspirations of the competing narratives in the public discourse over safe injection sites in Philadelphia. Despite the aspirations expressed within the Harm Reduction narrative to open such a site, opposition from the Nimby (not in my backyard) narrative has, at the time of this research, successfully precluded such a step. Other narratives in the discourse include the Abstinence narrative opposing safe injection sites and the Social Justice narrative opposed to incarceration but also hesitant to wholeheartedly endorse the Harm Reduction narrative for its delayed advocacy of compassionate treatment of people who use drugs now that the face of the person who uses opioids is a white one. In addition to juxtaposing competing narratives against one another and considering their alignments, disagreements, and interactions, the authors consider absences and shared presuppositions. The social construction of the purported drug addict varies in some ways between and among the prevailing narratives; in other ways, all the narratives problematize “addiction” as an affliction that justifies techniques of discipline aimed at caring for and controlling the population.

Prisons and jails throughout the United States have reduced their populations to prevent the spread of COVID-19. It is posited herein that as a result of the pandemic, criminals have been subcategorized and given preferential treatment based on their degree of deviance. Applying the salient target populations concept, it is argued that public officials have been able to "cherry pick" criminals with a more positive construction-e.g., the nonviolent, the elderly, or those otherwise at risk of death from the virus-while further perpetuating a negative view of those deemed too deviant for benefits-e.g., those accused of violent or sex crimes. This practice has perpetuated social injustices in the criminal justice system by defining individuals by their crimes and withholding protections from the virus as a result. The Los Angeles County jail system is used as an illustrative case study throughout. Implications and avenues for future research are explored.

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to analyze the common vaccine equity practices expressed by United States (US) governors in their COVID-19 press conferences—with a specific focus on equitable vaccine distribution and overcoming vaccine hesitancy—in order to provide an understanding of gubernatorial cultural competency during the vaccine administration phase of the pandemic.Design/methodology/approachThis article employs a qualitative content analysis of the COVID-19 press conferences held by US governors from November 1, 2020, to August 14, 2021, to inductively identify themes in socially equitable and culturally competent vaccine administration strategies and rhetoric.FindingsThe article finds that common strategies aimed at providing equitable access to vaccines and combating vaccine hesitancy in communities of color include utilizing data to target communities where vaccines are needed, meeting people where they are at by working with community leaders and organizations, addressing language concerns, educating skeptics and appealing to communitarian and familial values. The findings also show that US governors tended to embrace a general prioritization lens rather than focusing on the unique needs of communities of color, with scant attention paid to the historical instances of public health discrimination that have influenced vaccine hesitancy within such communities.Originality/valueThis article provides an understanding of the equitable and culturally competent messages and strategies conveyed by sub-national leaders during the vaccination phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract