Zagel, Hannah; S u olino, Emanuela
A icle — Published Ve sion
C isis-p oo households? How social policy esponses
o he COVID-19 pandemic imagined wo k and ca e in
Ge many
Jou nal o Social Policy
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Zagel, Hannah; S u olino, Emanuela (2024) : C isis-p oo households? How
social policy esponses o he COVID-19 pandemic imagined wo k and ca e in Ge many, Jou nal o
Social Policy, ISSN 1469-7823, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, Iss. Fi s View, pp. 1-22,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/308953
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
ARTICLE
C isis-p oo households? How social policy
esponses o he COVID-19 pandemic imagined
wo k and ca e in Ge many
Hannah Zagel1and Emanuela S u olino2
1Wissenscha szen um Be lin u Sozial o schung gGmbH, Be lin, Ge many and 2Depa men o Social and
Poli ical Sciences, Uni e si y o Milan, Milano, I aly
Co esponding au ho : Hannah Zagel; Email: [email protected]
(Recei ed 3 Ap il 2023; e ised 30 July 2024; accep ed 13 Augus 2024)
Abs ac
Social policies con ey no ma i e assump ions abou how households should make ends
mee and o ganise ca e, bu how do hese ideals wi hs and c ises such as he co ona i us
disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? P e ious esea ch shows con inui y o wel a e s a e
models in he c isis, bu mos ly looked a single policy ields and p oduced mixed indings
ega ding he ole o p e-c isis e o m ajec o ies. This pape con ibu es a de ailed
analysis o assump ions abou he ‘s anda d p oduc i e household’in e ms o h ee
dimensions: labou ma ke pa icipa ion, co e age o economic needs and co e age o ca e
needs. D awing on o iginal policy documen s enac ed in 2020 in Ge many –which had
disman led many o i s ins i u ional s ongholds o he male-b eadwinne model be o e
he c isis –we p o ide wo no el insigh s. Fi s , social policy esponses o he pandemic
we e ela i ely cohe en ega ding assump ions abou labou ma ke pa icipa ion, bu
expec a ions owa ds households’abili ies o make ends mee and pa en s’ca e
in ol emen we e less cohe en . In addi ion o elaxing condi ions on s able employmen
and income, policy esponses no malised pa chwo k incomes and elied on pa en s o
comp ess paid and unpaid wo k. Second, we p opose ha c ises may slow down e o m
p ocesses ha a e al eady unde way by e e ing o ideas ha we e dominan in he pas .
Keywo ds: COVID-19 pandemic; social policy esponses; ideal- ype household; Ge many
In oduc ion
The economic consequences o he co ona i us disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic spa ked s ong social policy eac ions in coun ies ac oss he wo ld.
These eac ions appea o ha e been mos ly in line wi h gene al app oaches o
p o iding wel a e (Bö ne and Seeleib-Kaise , 2023), bu he no ma i e expec a ions
abou wel a e p oduc ion ha we e insc ibed in social policies du ing he c isis ha e
ecei ed less a en ion. How we e households assumed o make ends mee ? Who
was held esponsible o economic main enance and unpaid ca e? And wha we e
© The Au ho (s), 2024. Published by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. This is an Open Access a icle, dis ibu ed unde he
e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion licence (h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s
un es ic ed e-use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
Jou nal o Social Policy (2024), page 1 o 22
doi:10.1017/S0047279424000278
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
he images o p oduc i e and ep oduc i e ci izens insc ibed in policy esponses?
These a e impo an ques ions because policies con ibu e o ideas o wha is
possible and wha is ‘no mal’; hey cons i u e ca ego ies o people o whom speci ic
beha iou s a e expec ed, such as di e en ypes o wo ke s o pa en s (Bacchi,
2017). Illumina ing he ca ego ies o people and expec a ions insc ibed in c isis
policies is c ucial o add essing and po en ially econside ing such ca ego ies in he
u u e.
The COVID-19 pandemic a ec ed all li e domains. I c ea ed s ess o he
wel a e s a e –ini ially o i s heal hca e sys ems bu hen also mo e b oadly –and
shi ed he logics o social p o ec ion o c isis mode (Bö ne and Seeleib-Kaise ,
2023). Go e nmen con ainmen measu es es ic ed social li e and wo k, wi h
di ec consequences o people whose jobs could no be shi ed o elewo k (because
hey en ailed con ac wi h cos ume s) o whose jobs s opped because cus ome
a ic was cons ained. In con as , some occupa ions we e deemed ‘essen ial’
because hey we e equi ed o keep in as uc u es unning, wi h li le ega d o
isks o in ec ion. Meanwhile, due o he closu e o schools and childca e acili ies,
many wo king pa en s ei he combined elewo k and childca e o le hei jobs,
pe manen ly o empo a ily. Go e nmen s a uned hei social policy measu es o
bu e social and economic e ec s o households and ul ima ely p e en a majo
ecession.
In his s udy, we look a Ge many as an exempla y case. In Ge many, he
disman ling o he ins i u ionalised male-b eadwinne model has long been
p oclaimed (Mä zke and Os ne , 2010), bu c isis esponse policies we e publicly
c i icised o insu icien ly coun e ing he e- adi ionalisa ion o gende oles
in oked by he c isis.1Unde s anding he no ma i e ame unde pinning c isis
policies in ela ion o p e-c isis ins i u ional e o m ajec o ies can in o m
heo ising abou he pe sis ence o ideas in wel a e s a e models.
We make wo main con ibu ions o he li e a u e on social policy esponses o
c ises. Fi s , we conside social policy esponses as packages a he han single policy
ields. Compa a i e esea ch has shown ha o e all, s uc u al esponses o he
COVID pandemic we e consis en wi h he wel a e s a e model in social secu i y
(Béland e al., 2023; Seemann e al., 2021) and in ca e- ela ed policies (Daly and Ryu,
2023; Dob o i´c and Blum, 2023). In ou s udy, we conside hese policies join ly,
enabling a comp ehensi e analysis o assump ions o how indi iduals and
households we e supposed o deal wi h ma e ial and ca e needs. Analysing a se
o policies helps in unde s anding hei join con ibu ion o no malise a pa icula
o m o household p oduc ion. Second, ou s udy builds owa ds a e ining o
expec a ions ega ding he ela ionships be ween c isis esponses, p io e o m
ajec o ies and gende ed ideas abou wo k and ca e. While some s udies ha e
sugges ed ha social policy esponses o c ises a e aligned wi h he p og ession o
ins i u ional e o m ajec o ies (Can illon e al., 2021), o he s poin o he eliance
on ‘old’ideas in momen s o eme gency (Egge s e al., 2023). We use he his o ical
ins ance o Ge many’s social policy esponse package o he COVID-19 pandemic o
ake a mo e in-dep h look a hese links, and gene a e a hypo hesis ega ding he
s ickiness o no ms in ins i u ional e o m ajec o ies.
F om he 1990s up o he momen he pandemic hi Eu ope, wel a e s a es
(including in Ge many) had inc easingly ended o add ess ci izens in hei own
2 Hannah Zagel and Emanuela S u olino
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
igh , and less as membe s o amily-household uni s wi h mu ual obliga ions, as
hey had p e iously (Os ne , 2004). In he 2010–2020s, suppo o he ‘adul -
wo ke model’was a guably p o ided ega dless o gende o pa en al s a us,
con ibu ing o wha has been conside ed ‘ o mal’gende equali y (Chan eau,
2022). In his model, social policies no malise he ideal o ull- ime employed
wo ke s, whose social p o ec ion is condi ional on hei labou ma ke pa icipa ion.
The pandemic adically changed he condi ions unde which he adul wo ke
model had ound suppo . The possibili y o p ac icing and main aining ull- ime
employmen became much mo e selec i e (B ugia ini e al., 2021); his was among
he key d i e s o social policy esponses. Howe e , policymake s always op o
speci ic no ma i e ames among a ange o al e na i es, and hei choices in c ises
can e eal unde pinning ideas abou gende and wo k (Daly, 2021; Egge s
e al., 2023).
In his pape , we look a policies in he ini ial phase o he COVID-19 pandemic
be ween Ma ch and Decembe 2020 in Ge many. This was when c isis poli ics
played ou clea es , while la e policies we e o en amendmen s o ini ial policies
(Daly, 2022). D awing on o iginal policy documen s and go e nmen epo s, we
conside policies ha di ec ly in e ened in people’s household main enance in
e ms o paid and unpaid wo k: sho - ime wo k schemes, social secu i y ans e s,
pa en al lea e igh s and paymen s, amily allowances and school se ices. We
compa e hese c isis policies agains assump ions abou ‘p oduc i e households’
insc ibed in p e-c isis policies, also conside ing wha al e na i e esponses he e
migh ha e been. The analysis gi es a nuanced pic u e o a social policy esponse
package, leading us o hypo hesise ega ding policymake s’ eluc ance o pu sue
gende -equali y-o ien ed c isis policies –which u u e esea ch should in es iga e.
Social policy in he pandemic
In he COVID-19 pandemic, he condi ions unde which p oduc i e households
ope a ed changed d ama ically o mos people. Go e nmen s issued con ainmen
measu es es ic ing social li e and wo k in he labou ma ke . This had immedia e
consequences o employees in businesses ha ely on cus ome con ac ; hese jobs
could no be shi ed o elewo k, and many businesses had o close (a leas
empo a ily). In his con ex , some o he main logics o employmen -cen ed
wel a e s a es, such as he p inciple o ac i a ion, we e no longe iable. The heal h
c isis and i s con ainmen measu es mean ha , o keep in as uc u es unning,
some occupa ions we e deemed ‘essen ial’. Employees in hese occupa ions, such as
heal hca e, public anspo and elec ici y, we e expec ed o keep wo king; hese
jobs we e ela i ely secu e. The possibili y o p ac icing and main aining ull- ime
employmen and a s able income du ing his pe iod o he pandemic became much
mo e selec i e han be o e (B ugia ini e al., 2021).
A he same ime, con ainmen measu es a ec ed he way households elied on
amily ela ionships o esou ces and suppo (Daly and Ryu, 2023). Closu es o
schools and childca e acili ies mean ha , in households wi h child en, adul s’ca e
esponsibili ies in ensi ied, and child en we e la gely elian on he esou ces o hei
amilies (ibid.). Employed pa en s who did no quali y o he eme gency childca e
Jou nal o Social Policy 3
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
measu es ese ed o ‘essen ial wo ke s’ei he shi ed o elewo k o ca e o
dependen child en a home when possible, o we e o ced o ake lea e o qui hei
jobs (Egge s e al., 2023). This en i onmen adically changed he con ex o
household p oduc ion, al e ing he playing ield o he wel a e s a e.
Wel a e s a e logics o social p o ec ion shi ed o a c isis mode, and eme gency
measu es add essing acu e needs we e o e whelmingly empo a y in na u e. Social
policy esponses aimed o bu e social and economic e ec s o households, no
leas o p e en a majo ecession (Bö ne and Seeleib-Kaise , 2023). Go e nmen s’
in e en ions we e ex ensi e, and included he expansion o p og ammes ha we e
al eady in place as well as he ins almen o new measu es. In Eu ope, abou 40 pe
cen o all policy esponses we e amendmen s o exis ing policies, while he
emainde we e new measu es (Webe e al., 2020). O e 30 pe cen o policy
esponses ac oss Eu opean coun ies in 2020 ocused on keeping businesses a loa ;
income p o ec ion measu es (19 pe cen ) and employmen p o ec ion measu es (13
pe cen ) we e he o he main domains (ibid.).
The e we e no able di e ences in c isis esponses ac oss coun ies, which
compa a i e esea ch has a emp ed o explain. A numbe o s udies ha e shown
ha coun y-speci ic social policy esponses o he pandemic mos ly e lec ed
exis ing policy legacies (Béland e al., 2021; Béland e al., 2023; Egge s e al., 2023).
The se up o a ge ed and uni e sal bene i s was main ained in wel a e s a es’c isis
esponses, and he e was s abili y in he ins umen s used, such as ega ding wage
subsidies e sus empo a y unemploymen bene i s. Compa a i e esea ch has also
sugges ed, howe e , ha he links be ween wel a e s a e sys ems and policy
esponses o c ises a e no de e minis ic. Can illon e al. (2021) examined social
secu i y measu es and showed ha , among Bisma ckian wel a e s a es, he na u e o
he policy esponse a ied depending on he coun y’s p og ess in dualism in social
p o ec ion when he pandemic hi . Egge s e al. (2023) examined childca e policies
and ound ha , whe e he ins i u ional s uc u es would ha e allowed o a ocus on
ei he amily ca e o ex a amilial ca e, cul u al ideas shaped wel a e s a es’c isis
esponse pa hways. Resea ch shows ha c isis esponses we e unde pinned by
gende ed ideas o who would ake on he eme ging ca e esponsibili ies (Daly 2021)
and who would be expec ed o do he b eadwinning.
Ou s udy coun y, Ge many, is a good case o examine such no ma i e
expec a ions. The ins i u ional e o m ajec o y om he male-b eadwinne
owa ds a Sweden- ype adul -wo ke model had been going on o o e a decade
when he c isis hi . Howe e , p e ious s udies ha e p o ided mixed e idence o
wha he main no ma i e ame in he c isis was. E alua ing di e ences in policy
esponses be ween coun ies, Ba iola and Collins (2021) poin o longe school
closu es in Ge many compa ed wi h o he coun ies o conclude ha he male-
b eadwinne legacy mus s ill ha e had a s ong in luence in he c isis. Egge s e al.
(2023) make a simila a gumen based on analyses o childca e- ela ed policies in
he c isis. Looking a sho - ime wo k schemes du ing he beginning o he
pandemic, Cook and G imshaw (2021) show ha , in Ge many, he scheme
dis ega ded he di e en posi ions o men and women in he labou ma ke by
paying he same eplacemen a e o all wo ke s and excluding mini-jobs.By
con as , he scheme was conside ed sensi i e o women’s employmen pa e ns in
4 Hannah Zagel and Emanuela S u olino
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
ha i allowed o a educ ion in wo k hou s and p o ided mo e gene ous sho -
ime wo k bene i s o households wi h child en (Cook and G imshaw 2020).
In summa y, he li e a u e p o ides agmen ed e idence ega ding ou esea ch
ques ion on who is held esponsible o he economic main enance and unpaid ca e
in c isis- acing households. To examine he expec a ions owa ds p oduc i e
households in he c isis, we ha e o conside a mo e comp ehensi e policy package.
Digging deepe in o he case o Ge many will also g an insigh s in o he esilience
o a p e-c isis e o m ajec o y ha had been desc ibed as ‘subs an i e ins i u ional
change’(Palie , 2010) in imes o c isis.
Concep ual amewo k
How social policies cons i u e p oduc i e households
This pape builds on he assump ion ha policies con ibu e o shaping ideas o
wha is conside ed ‘no mal’, and his ex ends o si ua ions o eme gency. Policies
con ey assump ions and p esc ip ions abou indi idual beha iou s beyond se ing
(economic) incen i es, and in addi ion o hei ma e ial consequences. Mo e
b oadly, policies anspo con ex -speci ic pe cep ions o need and o malise ideas
abou wo k and ca e (Daly 2022). This iew is widely sha ed in he social policy
li e a u e (e.g. an Oo scho e al., 2008), and is in line wi h a sociological neo-
ins i u ionalis unde s anding o policies o ope a e bo h on a egula i e as well as a
cul u al-cogni i e dimension ha p o ides ames o meaning o beha iou (Hall
and Taylo , 1996). The links be ween policies and no ma i e ideas a e complex; in
his pape we ocus on he pe spec i e ha policies ins i u ionalise ideas o how
households should a ange hei main enance.
Concep s such as he ‘male-b eadwinne model’(Lewis, 1992) and he ‘adul -
wo ke model’(Lewis, 2001) desc ibe how s a es s uc u e household p oduc ion.
The male-b eadwinne model implies wel a e s a es’suppo o a gende ed di ision
o paid and unpaid labou , wi h women assumed o do mos o he ca e and
domes ic wo k. By con as , he adul -wo ke (also ‘dual-ea ne ’) model implies ha
bo h women and men a e assumed o be ac i e in he labou ma ke , al hough i is
concep ually unclea how he load o unpaid wo k is edis ibu ed be ween women
and men (Daly 2011). Ou s udy coun y, Ge many, has been desc ibed as a ypical
case o a male-b eadwinne model ha has g adually adap ed owa ds a dual-wo ke
model since he la e 1990s (Mä zke and Os ne , 2010). The b eadwinne concep s
a e mos ly used o desc ibe he egula i e dimension o he ins i u ional se ing
(P au-E inge , 1998) and how social policies s uc u e ma e ial condi ions.
Al hough he b eadwinne concep s also assume ha policies ha e an ideological
ounda ion, his emains mo e implici (Daly, 2011).
We build on he app oach in oduced by Bacchi (2017) and applied by
Chan eau (2022) in his jou nal o conside how policies hemsel es, a he han
hei ma e ial consequences, cons i u e hei subjec s. Roo ed in a Foucauldian
concep ion o policy as discou se, Bacchi’s app oach iews policy ou pu as
knowledge, and he e o e as ma ke s o wha is accep ed as u h. By de ining
claiman g oups, eligibili y c i e ia and h esholds, policies c ea e ca ego ies o
people, se ing he bounda ies o wha is possible o say and o be. Bacchi (2017)
Jou nal o Social Policy 5
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
sugges s ha , besides hei e ec on people and on people’s li es, policies ough o be
unde s ood as con ibu ing o who people a e. Bacchi’s ocus is on policies as
‘gende ing p ac ices’: how policies encou age gende ed beha iou in paid and
unpaid wo k. We conside his gende ing oo, bu looking a he case o social policy
esponses o he pandemic, we in es iga e assump ions on he na u e o households’
economic main enance and unpaid ca e in a mo e gene al way.
We assume ha social policies, including hose in oduced as a esponse o he
COVID-19 pandemic, cons i u e wha is a ‘s anda d p oduc i e household’. This is
de ined as he a angemen o household membe s’labou ma ke pa icipa ion,
co e age o economic needs and ca e in ol emen . We conside he s anda d
p oduc i e household o be cons i u ed by assump ions insc ibed in social policies
abou who is employed, on wha e ms hey a e employed, on wha le el o income
hey will be able o main ain hei household and how ca e esponsibili ies will be
ul illed. Fo example, by es ic ing eligibili y o sho - ime wo k o pe manen ly
employed wo ke s, he policy de ines such wo k con ac s as he no m; h esholds
o income eplacemen paymen s e lec assump ions abou capaci ies o
economic main enance, and empo al limi s o paid ca e lea e no malise wha is
accep ed in e ms o labou ma ke b eaks. Conside ing ha e en o mally gende -
neu al policies can main ain exis ing inequali ies, i is also impo an o pay
a en ion o wha policies do no say (Chan eau, 2022). Fo example, p o iding
p o ec ion o speci ic ca ego ies o wo ke s employed in ypically male-domina ed
labou ma ke segmen s o assigning ‘gende neu al’pa en al lea e igh s o
‘pa en s’in a con ex whe e paid and unpaid wo k a e sha ed unequally among
mo he s and a he s likely pe pe ua es inequali ies.
The ‘s anda d p oduc i e household’ ame
To analyse how social-policy esponses o he pandemic cons i u ed he p oduc i e
household in he c isis, we i s se ou wha was he no ma i e ame o he
‘s anda d p oduc i e household’be o e he c isis as an analy ical g id o compa e
policy ou pu du ing he c isis. As de ined abo e, he no ma i e ame e e s o
assump ions on h ee dimensions: (a) labou ma ke pa icipa ion, (b) he abili y o
cope wi h household’s economic needs and (c) he abili y o ul il ca e
esponsibili ies. Table 1de ines assump ions insc ibed in social policy (in
Ge many be o e he pandemic) on he h ee dimensions. Wi hin his no ma i e
ame, he s a e expec s adul s o wo king age o pa icipa e in he labou ma ke and
hold a posi ion ha gua an ees no jus s able dependen employmen on a
pe manen con ac bu also employmen wi h an employe ha is able o
coun e balance nega i e economic cycles (e.g. s a -ups in he sho un, see G ies
and Naudé, 2021). In he case o unemploymen , he no ma i e ame implies ha
adul household membe s will no become pe manen ly inac i e; hey will e u n o
he labou ma ke wi hin a limi ed pe iod o ime.
Ha ing labou ma ke pa icipa ion as he p ima y sou ce o co e ing
households’economic needs builds on se e al assump ions ha a e impo an
o ou la e ocus on c ises. Fi s , pa o he labou ma ke income should be sa ed
o cope wi h possible u u e income losses. Second, in he case o unemploymen ,
wo ke s should ac i ely seek o e-en e employmen as soon as possible (wi hin
6 Hannah Zagel and Emanuela S u olino
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Table 1. No ma i e ame o ‘s anda d p oduc i e households’in Ge many be o e he pandemic
Dimension Assump ions abou ‘s anda d p oduc i e households’
(a) Pa icipa ing in he labou ma ke Adul s in wo king age ideally: (i) hold a pe manen con ac , (ii) wo k in a sec o /company ha is able o dis ibu e
economic isks ac oss economic cycles and (iii) do no lea e he labou ma ke wi hou looking o a job.
(b) Abili y o cope wi h household’s
economic needs
Wo ke s a e able o cope wi h empo a y income losses hanks o p e ious sa ings.
I wo ke s expe ience pe iods o unemploymen , hey will ac i ely seek wo k and e u n o he labou ma ke wi hin a
yea o main ain hei income le els.
Wo ke s in longe pe iods o unemploymen a e equi ed o ac i ely seek o e u n o employmen o secu e su icien
income le els.
Coping wi h income loss is mo e challenging o low-income households, which a e likely o hos low-wage wo ke s –
especially i he e a e dependen child en in he household.
Nons anda d employmen may be used o b idge di icul pe iods o a limi ed ime.
Pensione s can op up hei income wi h a es ic ed amoun pe yea .
In gene al, child en a e a cos ac o in he household o which he s a e pa ially compensa es wi h, e.g., child
bene i s.
(c) Abili y o manage childca e Wo king pa en s o en empo a ily lea e hei dependen pe manen employmen o ca e o hei child en; o longe
pe iods o wo k hey a e supposed o be able o co e hei income loss o o egone ea nings.
Wo king pa en s supe ise hei young child en ou side o school imes and childca e hou s.
Jou nal o Social Policy 7
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
wel e mon hs) wi h a sala y ha secu es an adequa e income le el o hei
household. Thi d, ma ginal employmen is no conside ed a long- e m solu ion o
unemploymen o empo a y income losses, so con ac s such as so-called mini-
jobs2a e limi ed o a sho pe iod o ime du ing he yea ; he expec a ion is ha
adul membe s o he ‘s anda d p oduc i e household’will ind mo e s able and
be e -paid employmen . Fou h, pensione s in unde - esou ced households can op
up hei low pension wi h (ma ginal) employmen . Finally, he s a e pa ially
compensa es o he cos s o child en wi h di ec ans e s and se ices.
Fo households wi h child en, he ‘s anda d p oduc i e household’ ame expec s
adul s o manage childca e esponsibili ies nex o hei labou ma ke pa icipa ion.
On he one hand, a e he bi h o a child, pa en s a e expec ed o in e up hei
employmen o ca e o hei child o a limi ed pe iod o ime, and i hey decide o
p olong hei ime ou o wo k, be able o co e he (po en ial) income loss
hemsel es. On he o he hand, pa en s a e expec ed o supe ise hei young
child en ou o school hou s and beyond he ime co e ed by o mal ou -o -school
ca e. These policies accoun o gende inequali ies in employmen and ca e o a
limi ed deg ee in ese ing wo ex a mon hs o lea e o he second pa en aking
lea e (usually he a he ). Blanke measu es o amily ca e wi hou explici a ge ing
o mo he s/ a he s end o assume a adi ional gende di ision o labou (Daly
2022), and so he weakened male-b eadwinne model was e ec i ely a one-and-a-
hal -b eadwinne model.
Using his classi ica ion as an analy ical g id, we o ganised he da a collec ed o
his esea ch (see nex sec ion) o iden i y: (1) he ‘p e-c isis ame’(which
ca ego ies did he Ge man wel a e s a e de ine as wo hy o p o ec ion along hese
dimensions be o e he onse o he pandemic?) (2) he ‘c isis ame’(how did he
Ge man wel a e s a e change o ex end he ca ego ies o he p e-c isis ame in he
pandemic?). This compa a i e app oach allowed us o ease ou he main ocus o
c isis policies, hei ‘gende ing’p ac ices and how consis en he assump ions
unde lying he policy package we e. To make he no ma i e ame ollowed in he
c isis mo e angible, we also conside ed wha al e na i e esponses could ha e been
made in each dimension o he c isis ame ( ollowing he app oach o Daly, 2022).
Analy ical design
Case desc ip ion
In he 2000–2010s, Ge many’s wel a e s a e unde wen changes commonly
e alua ed as a depa u e om he conse a i e wel a e s a e model (Fleckens ein,
2008) and a end owa ds indi idualisa ion o social p o ision (Os ne , 2004). The
p e iously s ong o ien a ion owa ds s a us p ese a ion h ough social-insu ance-
based en i lemen s and a male-b eadwinne model was weakened in se e al espec s
in he ea ly 2000s. In he domain o minimum income and unemploymen policy,
he ‘Ha z IV e o ms’ins alled a s ong wo k- i s agenda. They we e aimed a
educing unemploymen by inc easing wo king-hou lexibili y, job ma ching and
wo k incen i es. The in eg a ion o long- e m unemploymen bene i s
(A bei slosenhil e) and social assis ance (Sozialhil e) schemes s eng hened wo ke s’
indi idual esponsibili y by inc easing he condi ionali y o social assis ance bene i s
8 Hannah Zagel and Emanuela S u olino
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
o supe ise hei child en h oughou he day. Al e na i e esponses mo e in line
wi h he adul -wo ke ame would ha e le schools and childca e acili ies open
( o all wo king pa en s).
Conclusions
Wel a e s a e esponses o he COVID-19 pandemic we e s ong ac oss Eu ope,
wi h he aim o mi iga ing nega i e economic consequences o businesses and
households. The ypes o esponse policies a ied. Al hough a majo i y ocused on
p o ec ing employmen and cushioning he loss o income, coun ies di e ed in
emphasising pa icula policies. P e ious s udies ha e shown ha social policy
esponses o he pandemic we e mos ly in line wi h coun ies’ espec i e wel a e
s a e models (Béland e al., 2023). Howe e , wo ac o s ha e been conside ed in less
dep h. Fi s , by ocusing on single ields o social policy, compa a i e s udies ha e
p o ided limi ed insigh s in o he ange o ins umen s ha join ly add essed
households in he pandemic. Second, coun ies’p og ession o p e-pandemic
e o m ajec o ies o policy esponses o he c isis ha e been p ima ily conside ed
in ela ion o labou ma ke dualism, while he s ong ins i u ional changes o he
suppo o a gende ed di ision o household labou ha e been la gely omi ed. In
his pape , we add essed bo h issues by employing a wi hin-case analysis o he
no ma i e ame unde pinning social policy esponses o he pandemic in Ge many.
We con ibu e o he li e a u e on no ma i e assump ions con eyed by social
policies abou how households should make ends mee and o ganise ca e (wha we
de ined as he ‘s anda d p oduc i e household’) and analyse he no ma i e ame
unde pinning c isis policies in ela ion o p e-c isis ins i u ional e o m ajec o ies.
Ou s udy builds on ea lie wo k showing ha wel a e s a e suppo o he ‘male-
b eadwinne model’has declined, as well as on ecen heo ising o policies as
‘gende ing p ac ices’(Bacchi, 2017). We look a Ge many as a case whe e he p e-
c isis wel a e s a e e o m ajec o y depa ed om upholding a s ongly gende ed
model o wo k and ca e, hough c isis esponses we e publicly c i icised o ailing o
p e en e- adi ionalisa ion (endno e i). In con as o p e ious esea ch ha
compa ed coun ies in single policy ields, ou case-s udy app oach allows o a
mo e in-dep h conside a ion o policy packages and how hey join ly shaped
assump ions o p oduc i e households.
To analyse he no ma i e ame o c isis policies, we compa ed c isis esponses o
p e-c isis social policy in Ge many ocusing on h ee dimensions: labou ma ke
pa icipa ion, income main enance and ca e. Ou ocus was on no ma i e ames o
ini ial c isis esponses, so ou da a co e ed he ea ly phase o he pandemic, Ma ch–
Decembe 2020; his means ha we do no accoun o possible s abili y o he
measu es o e ime o beyond he c isis. In line wi h p e ious li e a u e, we show
how he o e whelmingly empo a y measu es we e a uned o he se e e c isis, bu
kep wi h many o he p e iously held social p o ec ion logics (Béland e al., 2023).
In ui i ely, assump ions abou ac i e labou ma ke pa icipa ion we e consis en ly
elaxed, and access o s a e con ibu ions o household incomes was ex ended. Social
policies e lec ed a ecogni ion ha he c isis subs an i ely al e ed he condi ions o
s able employmen and o wo ke s o main ain hei income le els. The inc eased
Jou nal o Social Policy 15
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
gene osi y in du a ion and le els o bene i s illus a e his poin . Howe e , especially
low-income households we e assumed o ely on pa chwo k incomes, including
ma ginal employmen . Social policies also ac o ed in ha , owing o con ainmen
measu es, households we e mo e cen al as he si e o p oduc ion, o example, in
g an ing low-income households suppo wi h hei ac ual expenses o hea ing and
housing.
As be o e, assump ions abou he ca e a angemen s o ‘s anda d p oduc i e
households’in esponse policies we e s ongly ied o pa en s’employmen s a us –
wi h he excep ion o he child bonus. The endency was o allow some mo e
lexibili y o he leng h and sequencing o ca e in e up ions (e.g., Lohn o zahlung,
El e ngeld), bu wi h a clea emphasis on ca e being done a home. Ca e- ela ed
policies seemed o ien ed owa ds educing he po en ial nega i e u u e e ec s o
mo e discon inuous employmen ca ee s, a he han owa ds immedia e elie in a
si ua ion whe e pa en s and child en we e ied o he household. School closu es,
which wen beyond social policy esponses, s ongly condi ioned he (im)
possibili ies o pa en s o p io i ising employmen and ma ke income, leading
o a comp essed a angemen o paid and unpaid wo k in hese households. Looking
ac oss he h ee dimensions, gende ing was pa icula ly no iceable whe e ca ego ies
o wo ke s and pa en s we e de ined.
Ou indings can in o m hinking abou he ole o c isis in wel a e s a e e o m
ajec o ies. The analysis o he Ge man case suppo s he hypo hesis ha wel a e
s a es do no use c ises o push o wa d on p e-c isis e o m ajec o ies. Ra he , we
ound indica ions o c isis esponses o suppo a model ha was belie ed o belong
o he pas . Policymake s in Ge many missed he oppo uni y o use he c isis o
implemen he no ma i e ame o he adul -wo ke model ha hey had been
pu suing in se e al e o ms h oughou he 2000s–2010s. Despi e he a e occasion
c ea ed by he lockdown measu es o ha monising many o he condi ions unde
which men and women wo k in segmen ed labou ma ke s (by ying hem o he
home), policymake s in oduced blanke measu es o pa en al lea e and ans e s o
amilies a he han add essing gende ed ca e p ac ices. These ca e- ela ed measu es
we e lanked by social secu i y policies ha cons i u ed women as seconda y
ea ne s. Adding o e idence showing ha c ises a ely unleash a po en ial o
ins i u ional change, we sugges ha c ises may ins ead con ibu e o slowing down
e o m p ocesses al eady unde way.
Supplemen a y ma e ial. To iew supplemen a y ma e ial o his a icle, please isi h ps://doi.o g/10.
1017/S0047279424000278.
Acknowledgmen s. This esea ch was unded by he Suppo Ne wo k o In e disciplina y Social Policy
Resea ch (FIS) by he Ge man Fede al Minis y o Social and Labou A ai s (BMAS) as pa o he esea ch
p ojec ‘Household s uc u es and economic isks du ing he COVID-19 pandemic in Eas and Wes
Ge many: Compensa ion o accumula ion? (KOMPAKK)’(2020–2021) a Humbold Uni e si y o Be lin;
PIs: Ane e Fasang, Emanuela S u olino and Hannah Zagel. We hank Ma in Gädecke and Jonas B aun
o excellen esea ch assis ance, and he edi o as well as wo anonymous e iewe s o hei help ul
commen s.
Compe ing in e es s. The au ho s decla e none.
16 Hannah Zagel and Emanuela S u olino
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
No e
1Allmendinge , J. (2020). Familie in de Co ona-K ise: Die F auen e lie en ih e Wü de. Die Zei .
Re ie ed om h ps://www.zei .de/gesellscha /zei geschehen/2020-05/ amilie-co ona-k ise- auen- olle
n e eilung- uecken wicklung.
Mülle , A.-K., & Hassenkamp, M. (2020). Co onak ise als Ve s ä ke : Das Jah de Ungleichs ellung. De
Spiegel. Re ie ed om h ps://www.spiegel.de/poli ik/deu schland/ anziska-gi ey-und-gleichbe ech igu
ng-in-deu schland-das-jah -de -ungleichs ellung-a-38 1704a-7975-45cc-9643-2a1857729 05.
Vo same , B. (2020). Co ona und Familien –Mu i mach das schon. Süddeu sche.de. Re ie ed om
h ps://www.sueddeu sche.de/poli ik/co ona i us- amilien-mue e -kinde be euung-1.4895182.
Re e ences
Au h, D. and Ma inek, H. (2017) ‘Social In es men o Gende Equali y? Aims, Ins umen s, and
Ou comes o Pa en al Lea e Regula ions in Ge many and Sweden’. In Au h, D., He genhan, J., and
Holland-Cunz, B. (eds) Gende and Family in Eu opean Economic Policy: De elopmen s in he New
Millennium, Cham: Sp inge In e na ional Publishing, pp. 153–176.
Bacchi, C. (2017) ‘Policies as gende ing p ac ices: Re- iewing ca ego ical dis inc ions’,Jou nal o Women,
Poli ics & Policy,38,20–41.
Ba iola, N. and Collins, C. (2021) ‘The gende ed poli ics o pandemic elie : Labo and amily policies in
Denma k, Ge many, and he Uni ed S a es du ing COVID-19’,Ame ican Beha io al Scien is ,65,
1671–1697.
Béland, D., Can illon, B., Hick, R., G e e, B. and Mo ei a, A. (2023) ‘Policy Legacies, Wel a e Regimes,
and Social Policy Responses o COVID-19 in Eu ope’. In Bö ne , S. and Seeleib-Kaise , M. (eds)
Eu opean Social Policy and he COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges o Na ional Wel a e and EU Policy,
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess (pp. 3–27).
Béland, D., Can illon, B., Hick, R. and Mo ei a, A. (2021) ‘Social policy in he ace o a global pandemic:
Policy esponses o he COVID-19 c isis’,Social Policy & Adminis a ion,55, 249–260.
Be zel , S. (2007) ‘Ha z IV aus Gende -Sich : Einige Be unde und iele o ene F agen’,WSI-Mi eilungen,
60, 298–304.
BMFSFJ (2006) Sieb e Familienbe ich . Familie Zwischen Flexibili ä Und Ve lässlichkei –Pe spek i en Fü
Eine Lebenslau bezogene Familienpoli ik, Be lin.
Bö ne , S. and Seeleib-Kaise , M. (2023) Eu opean Social Policy and he COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges
o Na ional Wel a e and EU Policy, Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
B ugia ini, A., Buia, R. E. and Simone i, I. (2021) ‘Occupa ion and wo king ou comes du ing he
co ona i us pandemic’,Eu opean Jou nal o Ageing.19, 863–88.
Can illon, B., Seeleib-Kaise , M. and an de Veen, R. (2021) ‘The COVID-19 c isis and policy esponses
by con inen al eu opean wel a e s a es’,Social Policy & Adminis a ion,55, 326–338.
Capano, G., Howle , M., Ja is, D. S. L., Ramesh, M. and Goyal, N. (2020) ‘Mobilizing policy (in)capaci y
o igh COVID-19: Unde s anding a ia ions in s a e esponses’,Policy and Socie y,39, 285–308.
Chan eau, J. (2022) ‘The pe sis ence in gende ing: Wo k- amily policy in B i ain since be e idge’,Jou nal
o Social Policy,52, 981–998.
Cook, R. and G imshaw, D. (2020) A gende ed lens on COVID-19 employmen and social policies in
Eu ope. Eu opean Socie ies,23, 215–227.
Daly, M. (2011) ‘Wha adul wo ke model? A c i ical look a ecen social policy e o m in eu ope om a
gende and amily pe spec i e’,Social Poli ics: In e na ional S udies in Gende , S a e & Socie y,18,1–23.
Daly, M. (2021) ‘The concep o ca e: Insigh s, challenges and esea ch a enues in COVID-19 imes’,
Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy,31, 108–118.
Daly, M. (2022) ‘COVID-19, social policy and ca e: A complex se o p ocesses and ou comes’,F on ie s in
Sociology,6, 808239.
Daly, M., B. Ebbinghaus, L. Lehne , M. Naczyk and T. Vlandas, (2020) ‘Ox o d Supe acke : The Global
Di ec o y o COVID Policy T acke s and Su eys’, Depa men o Social Policy and In e en ion.
Daly, M. and Ryu, S. (2023) ‘Child- ela ed social policies in Eu ope du ing he COVID-19 pandemic’,
Jou nal o Social Policy,1–18.
Jou nal o Social Policy 17
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Dob o i´c, I. and Blum, S. (2023) ‘“So y, We’Re Closed”: A uzzy-se ideal- ype analysis o pandemic
childca e-policy esponses in 28 Eu opean coun ies’,Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ics and Gende ,6,
258–294.
Egge s, T., G ages, C. and P au-E inge B. (2023) ‘Policy, Cul u e, and COVID-19. Eu opean Childca e
Policies du ing he Pandemic’. In Du y, M., A menia, A., and P ince-Glynn, K. (eds) F om C isis o
Ca as ophe: Ca e, COVID, and Pa hways o Change, (pp. 151–158). Ru ge s Uni e si y P ess.
Eichho s , W., G ienbe ge -Zinge le, M. and Konle-Seidl, R. (2010) ‘Ac i a ing labo ma ke and social
policies in Ge many: F om s a us p o ec ion o basic income suppo ’,Ge man Policy S udies,6, 65.
Eu o und EU PolicyWa ch (2023) ‘Eu o ound EU PolicyWa ch’, accessed a h ps://s a ic.eu o ound.eu o
pa.eu/co id19db/index.h ml on Oc obe 30, 2023.
Fasang, A. E., S u olino, E. and Zagel, H. (2023) ‘Household-le el p e alence and po e y penal ies o
wo king in non- elewo kable and non-essen ial occupa ions: E idence om eas and wes Ge many in
2019’,Zei sch i ü Sozial e o m,69,85–117.
Fleckens ein, T. (2008) ‘Res uc u ing wel a e o he unemployed: The ha z legisla ion in Ge many’,
Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy,18, 177–188.
Fleckens ein, T., Saunde s, A. M. and Seeleib-Kaise , M. (2011) ‘The dual ans o ma ion o social
p o ec ion and human capi al: Compa ing B i ain and Ge many’,Compa a i e Poli ical S udies,44,
1622–1650.
Gädecke, M., Zagel, H., S u olino, E. and Fasang, A. (2021) ‘KOMPAKK Index o Economic Sec o s
Closu e du ing he Fi s Wa e o COVID-19’.
G ewenig, E., Le ge po e , P., We ne , K., Woessmann, L. and Zie ow, L. (2021) ‘COVID-19 and
educa ional inequali y: How school closu es a ec low- and high-achie ing s uden s’,Eu opean Economic
Re iew,140, 103920.
G ies, T. and Naudé, W. (2021) ‘Ex eme e en s, en ep eneu ial s a -ups, and inno a ion: Theo e ical
conjec u es’,Economics o Disas e s and Clima e Change,5, 329–353.
Hall, P. A. and Taylo , R. C. R. (1996) ‘Poli ical science and he h ee new ins i u ionalisms’,Poli ical
S udies,44, 936–957.
Kohl ausch, B. and Zucco, A. (2020) ‘Die Co ona-K ise T i F auen Doppel . Wenige
E we bseinkommen Und Meh So gea bei ’,Policy B ie WSI,40.
Lei ne , S., Os ne , I. and Schmi , C. (2008) ‘Family policies in Ge many’. In Os ne , I. and Schmi , C.
(eds) Family Policies in he Con ex o Family Change, Wiesbaden, VS Ve lag ü Sozialwissenscha en,
pp. 175–202.
Lewis, J. (1992) ‘Gende and he de elopmen o wel a e egimes’,Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy,2,
159–173.
Lewis, J. (2001) ‘The decline o he male b eadwinne model: Implica ions o wo k and ca e’,Social Poli ics,
8, 152–169.
Mä zke, M. and Os ne , I. (2010) ‘The ole o old ideas in he new Ge man amily policy agenda’,Ge man
Policy S udies,6, 119–162.
Os ne , I. (2004) ‘“Indi idualisa ion”–The o igins o he concep and i s impac on Ge man social policies’,
Social Policy and Socie y,3,47–56.
Palie B. (2010) A Long Goodbye o Bisma ck? The Poli ics o Wel a e Re o m in Con inen al Eu ope,
Ams e dam Uni e si y P ess.
P ahl, S., Un au, E. and Wi man, M. (2023a) Minijobs als einzige E we bs ä igkei 2004–2021, Düsseldo :
WSI Ins i u , h ps://www.wsi.de/da a/wsi_gdp_ea- e hael nis-03.pd
P ahl, S., Un au, E. and Wi man, M. (2023b) Selbs s ändige F auen und Männe - mi und ohne
Beschä ig e (1991–2021), Düsseldo : WSI Ins i u , h ps://www.wsi.de/da a/wsi_gdp_ea- e hael ni
s01.pd
P au-E inge , B. (1998) ‘Gende cul u es and he gende a angemen –A heo e ical amewo k o c oss-
na ional gende esea ch’,Inno a ion: The Eu opean Jou nal o Social Science Resea ch,11, 147–166.
Sa aceno, C. and Keck, W. (2010) ‘Can we iden i y in e gene a ional policy egimes in Eu ope?’,Eu opean
Socie ies,12, 675–696.
Seemann, A., Becke , U., He, L., Ma ia Hohne lein, E. and Wilman, N. (2021) ‘P o ec ing li elihoods in
he COVID-19 c isis: A compa a i e analysis o Eu opean labou ma ke and social policies’,Global
Social Policy,21, 550–568.
18 Hannah Zagel and Emanuela S u olino
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
an Oo scho , W., Opielka, M. and P au-E inge , B. (2008) Cul u e and Wel a e S a e: Values and Social
Policy in Compa a i e Pe spec i e, Edwa d Elga Publishing.
Webe , T., Hu ley, J., Bisello, M., Aumay -Pin a , C., Cab i a, J., Deme iades, S., Pa ini, V., Riso, S.
and Lla e, O. V. (2020) COVID-19: Policy Responses ac oss Eu ope,Eu o ound Resea ch Repo ,
Luxembou g, Publica ions O ice o he Eu opean Union.
Zagel, H., S u olino, E. and Gädecke, M. (2021) Sec o s in Lockdown in he Fi s Wa e o he COVID-19
Pandemic ac oss Fede al S a es in Ge many, In e im Repo , Be lin, Humbold -Uni e si ä zu Be lin.
Appendix
Table A1: De ailed policy measu es implemen ed in esponse o he Co id-19 Pandemic
Policy Change unde Co id-19 Sou ce
Sho - ime wo k
Ta ge popula ion (wo ke s) Ex ended o empo a y and agency wo ke s
included
A/B
Ta ge popula ion
(companies)
* 10% o company’s wo k o ce nega i ely a ec ed
by economic shock
A/B
* all emaining hou s on wo ke s’wo king- ime
accoun s ha e o be deple ed
Du a ion o he allowance The maximum du a ion o he allowance
ex ended om 12 o 24 mon hs o businesses
ha applied o i p io o 31 Decembe 2020.
C
Gene osi y o he allowance * Un il 4 mon hs o sho - ime wo k A/B/D
(o) 60% o ne income o all hou s no wo ked
(o) 67% o ne income o all hou s no wo ked
i ha ing child en
* A e 4 mon hs o sho - ime wo k
(o) 70% o ne income o all hou s no wo ked
(o) 77% o ne income o all hou s no wo ked
i ha ing child en
* A e 7 mon hs o sho - ime wo k
(o) 80% o ne income o all hou s no wo ked
(o) 87% o ne income o all hou s no wo ked
i ha ing child en
Possibili y o accumula e
addi ional ea nings nex
o sho - ime wo k
G an ed A/B
Social secu i y bene i s
Basic income suppo
(A bei slosengeld II-ALGII,
SGB II)
* Inclusion o solo sel -employed wo ke s A/B
* Tempo a y suspension o weal h conside a ion
* Tempo a y ecogni ion o ac ual expendi u es
o shel e and hea ing
* P o isional app o al and la e means- es ing o
basic income suppo applica ion
(Con inued)
Jou nal o Social Policy 19
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Table A1: (Con inued )
Policy Change unde Co id-19 Sou ce
Social assis ance bene i
(Sozialhil e, SGB XII)
* Inclusion o solo sel -employed wo ke s A/B
* Tempo a y suspension o weal h conside a ion
* Tempo a y ecogni ion o ac ual expendi u es
o shel e and hea ing
* P o isional app o al and la e means- es ing o
basic income suppo applica ion
Du a ion o unemploymen
bene i (A bei slosengeld
I-ALGI, SGB III)
Ex ension o 3 mon hs o unemployed indi iduals
whose claim o ALG I expi es be ween 01.05 -
31.12 o he s anda d 12 mon hs
A
Ta ge popula ion o
unemploymen bene i
(A bei slosengeld I-ALGI,
SGB III)
Sel -employed pe sons and eelance s:
compensa ion o loss o ea nings based on
p o i s es ablished in he ax decla a ion o he
p e ious calenda yea
A
Obliga ion o job sea ch/
ac i a ion p inciples
Eased o con ibu ion-based unemploymen
insu ance bene i s and he ax-based basic
income suppo
A
Ta ge popula ion o paid
sick lea e
Ex ended o sel -employed in qua an ine and
employees who a e in ec ed and in isola ion o
ca ing o a sick amily membe
A/B
Pa en al lea e
Access o paid pa en al
lea e (El e ngeld)
* Numbe o hou s wo ked is i ele an E
* COVID- ela ed income compensa ions do no
a ec amoun o pa en al allowances
* Pa en s who canno s ay a home du ing COVID
can pos pone hei pa en al allowance mon hs
un il he child’s 14 h mon h
Access o ex a mon hs o
paid pa en al lea e
(El e ngeldPlus)
Wo king pa en s a e en i led o ex a mon hs o
paid pa en al lea e e en i he ag eed pa allel
pa - ime (max. 32 hou s/week) a angemen is
al e ed
E
Paid amily lea e
(Kinde k ankengeld)
* The egula en i lemen o child sickness bene i
inc eases om 10 o 15 wo king days pe child
( om 20 o 30 o single pa en s) o pa en s
wi h child en a home due o school o
childca e closu es
F
* Fo mo e han 1 child unde he age o wel e,
he o al en i lemen inc eases om 25 o 35
wo king days in 2020, and o single-pa en
om 50 o 70 wo king days
T ans e s o amilies
Compensa ion o income
losses (Lohn o zahlung ü
El e n) o pa en s
a ec ed by lockdown o
schools
* 67% o ne income up o max. 2,016 Eu os o
all hou s doing childca e o 10 weeks pe
pa en
A/B
* 67% o ne income o all hou s doing childca e
o 20 weeks o single pa en
(Con inued)
20 Hannah Zagel and Emanuela S u olino
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Table A1: (Con inued )
Policy Change unde Co id-19 Sou ce
Access o eme gency child
supplemen (No al
Kinde zuschlag)
Eases: assessmen on he basis o pa en al
income o e he las 1 mon h (ins ead o 6),
300 Eu os pe child (600 o single pa en s)
A/B
Child bonus (Kinde bonus) 300 Eu os G
School se ices
Access o schools and
childca e se ices
Du ing lockdowns, (some) schools and childca e
acili ies emained open o child en o pa en s
wo king in essen ial occupa ions
H
Job con ac egula ions
Du a ion o con ac o
ma ginally employed
wo ke s (mini-jobs)
Ex ended o 5 mon hs/115 wo k days o ma ginal
employmen (ins ead o 3 mon hs/70 days o
con ac o mini-jobs)
A
Allowed wages om
employmen o
pensione s
Addi ional ea ning o 44,590 Eu os allowed
(ins ead o 6,300 Eu os)
A
No es: ull e e ences o he o iginal policy documen s – he sou ces (las column) –a e epo ed in Table A2
Table A2: O iginal policy documen s
ID
sou ce Re e ence
AGese z ü den e leich e en Zugang zu soziale Siche ung und zum Einsa z und zu
Absiche ung soziale Diens leis e au g und des Co ona i us SARS-CoV-2
(Sozialschu z-Pake ). Bundesgese zbla Jah gang 2020 Teil I N . 14
BGese z zu sozialen Maßnahmen zu Bekämp ung de Co ona-Pandemie (Sozialschu z-
Pake II) G. . 20.05.2020 BGBl. I S. 1055 (N . 24)
CEn wu eines Gese zes zu Beschä igungssiche ung in olge de COVID-19-Pandemie
(Beschä igungssiche ungsgese z –BeschSiG), D ucksache 19/23480
DBundesgese zbla Jah gang Teil I 2020 Ausgegeben zu Bonn am 14. Mä z 2020 N . 12,
Gese z zu be is e en k isenbeding en Ve besse ung de Regelungen ü das
Ku za bei e geld
EBundesgese zbla Jah gang 2020 Teil I N . 24, ausgegeben zu Bonn am 28. Mai 2020,
Gese z ü Maßnahme im El e ngeld aus Anlass de Co id-19-Pandemie
FAbsa z 2a in den Pa ag a en 45 des SGB V Ҥ 45 K ankengeld bei E k ankung
des Kindes”
GBundesgese zbla Jah gang 2020 Teil I N . 31, ausgegeben zu Bonn am 30. Juni 2020,
Zwei es Gese z zu Umse zung s eue liche Hil smaßnahmen zu Bewäl igung de
Co ona-K ise (Zwei es Co ona-S eue hil egese z
H Each ede al s a e in Ge many p omulga ed a sepa a e law indica ing di e en iming
and leng h o school closu es (because educa ion is a ede al ma e ), and a s a e-
speci ic lis o essen ial occupa ions. Fo he ew di e ences in he de ini ion o
essen ial occupa ions ac oss ede al s a es, see: Gädecke M., S u olino E., Zagel H.,
Fasang A.F. (2021), KOMPAKK - Essen ial occupa ions in Ge many du ing he COVID-
19 pandemic. Ve sion 1.0.0. SowiDa aNe |da o ium. Da ase - h ps://doi.o g/10.7802/
2283. Fo he iming and he du a ion o school closu e ac oss ede al s a es see
h ps://en.unesco.o g/ ile/unesco-da a-school-closu es- eb ua y-2020-june-2022cs -zip
Jou nal o Social Policy 21
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Table A3: Ma e ial o c oss-checking policy documen s
Da a Sou ce Re e ence
COVID Analysis and Mapping o Policies
(AMP) - Enabling and Relie Measu es
AMP. 2022a. “COVID Analysis and Mapping o
Policies (AMP) - Enabling and Relie Measu es.”
COVID Analysis and Mapping o Policies
(AMP) - Social Dis ancing
2022b. “COVID Analysis and Mapping o Policies
(AMP) - Social Dis ancing.”
Ox o d Supe acke - The Global Di ec o y
o COVID Policy T acke s and Su eys
Daly, Ma y, B. Ebbinghaus, L. Lehne , M. Naczyk,
and T. Vlandas. 2020. “Ox o d Supe acke : The
Global Di ec o y o COVID Policy T acke s and
Su eys.”Depa men o Social Policy and
In e en ion. h ps://supe acke .spi.ox.ac.uk/.
IZA COVID-19 C isis Response Moni o ing –
Ge many
Eichho s , We ne , and Ul Rinne. 2020. “IZA COVID-
19 C isis Response Moni o ing - Ge many.”
Job Re en ion Schemes du ing he COVID-
19 Lockdown and Beyond
OECD. 2020a. “Job Re en ion Schemes du ing he
COVID-19 Lockdown and Beyond.”
Paid Sick Lea e o P o ec Income, Heal h
and Jobs h ough he COVID-19 C isis
2020b. “Paid Sick Lea e o P o ec Income, Heal h
and Jobs h ough he COVID-19 C isis.”
G een Reco e y Da abase 2022. “G een Reco e y Da abase.”OECD. h ps://
www.oecd.o g/co ona i us/en/ hemes/g een- eco
e y#G een- eco e y-da abase%20da abase.
Ci e his a icle: Zagel, H. and S u olino, E. (2024) C isis-p oo households? How social policy esponses
o he COVID-19 pandemic imagined wo k and ca e in Ge many. Jou nal o Social Policy.h ps://doi.o g/
10.1017/S0047279424000278
22 Hannah Zagel and Emanuela S u olino
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0047279424000278 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
