Search

• Childcare policy responses towards Covid-19 differed in European welfare states. • Policy responses cause informalization of childcare to different degrees. • Informalization of childcare is mainly connected with social risks for women. • Cultural and institutional differences help to understand varying policy responses. The closure of extra-familial childcare facilities by European governments in 2020 was an important part of interventions against the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. One consequence was that childcare was provided by parents at home, mainly by women. As a result, women mainly experienced financial and employment risks related to this "informalization" of childcare. The childcare policies of European welfare states differ in the extent to which they include measures to reduce the social risks related to informalization. Against this backdrop, this paper asks: How should one understand cross-national differences in childcare policies during the pandemic? We are also particularly interested in the effects of childcare policies on the social risks connected with the informalization of childcare and what these mean for the gendered division of paid work and care. Differences in childcare policies during the pandemic are commonly explained in terms of the path dependence of such policies. Using the theoretical approach of "care arrangement," this article introduces a broader theoretical framework that considers the role of cultural and institutional factors for understanding the cross-national differences in childcare policies during the pandemic. We introduce the findings of a comparative empirical study of childcare policies in three European welfare states—Denmark, Germany and England—that represent different types of care arrangements. This paper uses policy and media documents, quantitative data on childcare and women's employment, cultural ideas and secondary analysis of empirical studies. We find that governments did not per se respond to the pandemic based on institutional path dependence regarding childcare policies, while the integration of culture into the theoretical framework allows for a more comprehensive understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An endemic challenge facing healthcare systems around the world is how to spread innovation more widely and sustainably. A common response to this challenge involves conducting pilot implementation studies to generate evidence of the innovation's benefits. However, despite the key role that such studies play in the local adoption of innovation, their contribution to the wider spread and sustainability of innovation is relatively under-researched and under-theorized. In this paper we examine this contribution through an empirical examination of the experiences of an innovation intermediary organization in the English NHS (National Health Service). We find that their work in mobilizing pilot-based evidence involves three main strands; configuring to context; transitioning evidence; and managing the transition. Through this analysis we contribute to theory by showing how the agency afforded by intermediary roles can support the effective transitioning of pilot-based evidence across different phases in the innovation journey, and across different occupational groups, and can thus help to create a positive feedback loop from localized early implementers of an innovation to later more widespread adoption and sustainability. Based on these findings, we develop insights on the reasons for the unnecessary repetition of pilots – so-called 'pilotitis'- and offer policy recommendations on how to enhance the role of pilots in the wider spread and sustainability of innovation. • Innovation intermediaries mobilize evidence from pilot studies to spread innovation. • Pilot-based evidence can link early adoption to wider spread and sustainability. • Mobilizing involves co-creating multiple forms of evidence with different groups. • Intermediary roles allow transitioning of pilot-based evidence into wider adoption. • Pilotitis involves a failure to transition evidence along the innovation journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]