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.

Between reforms and birth rates: Germany, Japan, and family policy discourse.

This paper examines the development of employment-oriented family policy in Germany and Japan, two countries united by conservative welfare legacies and very low birthrates, through a close analysis of discourse. Why have recent reforms in Germany moved well beyond those in Japan despite remarkably similar "human capital" discourses? The relative strength of interpretative patterns­in this case, discursive patterns that successfully frame family policy reform as an economic imperative­and the role of employers are identified as critical explanatory factors. Further comparative attention is called to the role of the state as a guarantor of new family policy entitlements.