Search

This special issue of Anthropology in Action presents a collection of articles that reflect on and analyse the role of social science in epidemic response. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed deep social and economic inequalities within and across countries which produce unequal COVID-19 outcomes. Researchers have long noted the connections between socioeconomic inequalities and infections, and there is growing recognition that epidemics are also social and political events (Bardosh et al. 2020). Anthropological and other social science research has contributed to epidemic response, through attention to cultural and politico-economic context, reframing community ‘resistance’, bolstering community engagement in preparedness and response, and informing response activities, including risk communication (Abramowitz 2017; Bardosh et al. 2020). Despite this, much of the work has been ad hoc and not systematically integrated into the systems of epidemic response, with the exception of the Centres d’Analyses des Sciences Sociales (CASS) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This special issue is timely, in that it builds on foundational work in social science and epidemic response, draws on tensions and experience from recent epidemics including COVID-19 and Ebola, and charts a way forward at both a theoretical and a practical level.

In epidemic preparedness and response, it is now commonly accepted that insights from social science disciplines are important in shaping action. Unfortunately, the role of social science is often confined to risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) efforts. In this article, we propose an analytical framework that would allow researchers and practitioners from different disciplines to employ social science insights to enrich their understanding of epidemics and formulate more effective and sustainable responses. The framework goes beyond simply unpacking social, political, economic and cultural dimensions of context; it situates disease itself – as it is shaped by the contexts in which it circulates – and views it in dynamic relation to response. It also explores how different individuals, social groups and institutions shift their knowledge and practices during an epidemic through power-laden processes of dialogue and learning, or even through silencing and side-lining. It is our hope that this framework will enable responders to engage more deeply and systematically with the contexts of emergencies, so as to ensure activities are more adaptive to local dynamics.

The cost of the Covid-19 pandemic remains unknown. Lives directly lost to the disease continue to mount, while related health, livelihood and wellbeing impacts are still being felt, and the wider ramifications across society, politics and the economy are yet to fully materialise. What is known about these costs though, is that they have been unequally distributed both within and between countries. Preparedness plans proved inadequate in many settings – especially when it came to protecting those most vulnerable, including those marginalised by geography, poverty, or exclusion along the lines of religion, ethnicity or gender. The top-down, surge-style, biomedically dominated and technologically driven preparedness approach that has dominated global health thinking and which was propelled into action with Covid-19 was found wanting not only on the grounds of effectiveness, but also of social justice. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for a convergence of the preparedness and development agendas. Drawing on a growing body of social science evidence, this report contends that securing health in the face of today’s uncertain disease threats in often unpredictable settings means making social, economic and political priorities as core to the preparedness agenda as biological and technological ones. We present here a framework for a vision of pandemic preparedness for the real world – one that accepts that context is paramount, embraces inclusivity and justice, shifts power centres and rejects simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions.

Si l’on s’en tient aux chiffres de la vaccination contre la COVID-19 dans les pays du G7, la campagne apparaît comme un véritable succès tant au niveau global qu’au niveau national. En effet, à ce jour, 79,4 % de la population totale des pays du G7 a reçu une première dose, 72,9 % une seconde, et 45,4 % une dose de rappel (données du 28 avril 2022) 1 En France, c’est 80,6 % de la population totale qui a reçu une première dose, 78,2 % qui a reçu deux doses, et 55,4 % qui a reçu un rappel (données du 28 avril 2022).2 Au Royaume-Uni, 79,3 % de la population totale a reçu une première dose, 74,1 % une seconde, et 58,5 % un rappel.1 Enfin, en Italie, 85,2 % de la population totale a reçu une première dose, 80,4 % a reçu deux doses et 66,5 % a reçu leurs rappels (données du 28 avril 2022). Ces taux de vaccination élevés masquent pourtant des disparités importantes à l’intérieur de chaque pays. Ainsi, à Marseille, deuxième ville de France, moins de 50 % des habitants des quartiers nord de la ville étaient vaccinés à la fin de l’année 2021, alors que plus de 70 % des habitants des quartiers sud l’étaient au même moment.3 Dans le quartier populaire de Ealing, situé au nord-ouest de Londres, 70 % de la population admissible avait reçu une première dose, soit près de 10 % de moins que la moyenne nationale. 4 (Données du 4 avril 2022). Des disparités similaires ont été observées dans d’autres métropoles urbaines des pays du G7. Ce document examine ces disparités au prisme de la notion d’« (in)égalité vaccinale ». En s’appuyant sur des recherches qualitatives menées pendant la campagne de vaccination de la COVID-19 dans les quartiers nord de Marseille, le quartier de Ealing à Londres (Nord-ouest) et dans la région de l'Émilie-Romagne et à Rome, en Italie, il montre comment les autorités locales peuvent agir pour atténuer ces inégalités. Mieux comprendre les inégalités en matière de vaccins fut primordial lors de la pandémie de la COVID-19 en ce sens que les populations sous-vaccinées étaient la plupart du temps des minorités ethniques ou culturelles, vivant dans des zones défavorisées, ou sans-papiers, donc plus susceptibles de contracter la COVID-19, et d’en subir les conséquences les plus dramatiques. 5 6 7 8 Ainsi, à Ealing, quatre mois après la campagne de vaccination, seulement 57,6% des personnes dans le décile de pauvreté le plus bas avaient reçu une dose, contre 81% des personnes dans le décile le plus aisé. 9 En outre, 89,2 % des résidents britanniques blancs de Ealing étaient vaccinés, contre 64 % des Pakistanais et 49,3 % des habitants issus des Caraïbes.9 À Rome, comme c’est le cas dans d’autres métropoles urbaines des pays du G7, nos données révèlent des disparités particulières importantes entre le recours aux vaccins des populations sans papiers et celui des citoyens établis. Les facteurs d’inégalité vaccinale dans ces environnements urbains sont complexes et liés à l’interaction de nombreux phénomènes tels que les inégalités économiques, le racisme structurel, l'inégalité d'accès aux soins de santé, la méfiance envers les professionnels de santé, les représentants de l'État, et plus encore. Les collectivités locales tout comme les professionnels de la santé, les groupes communautaires et les résidents jouent un rôle clé dans la manière dont s’exprime l’(in)égalité vaccinale. Pour autant, peu de leçons ont été systématiquement tirées des efforts menés en matière d’ «engagement vaccinal » au niveau local. Dans ce document, nous proposons d’expliquer comment l’expérience des inégalités structurelles se recoupe avec celle des habitants, et comment ces expériences ont été prises en compte ou au contraire ignorées dans la promotion et l’administration des vaccins contre la COVID-19 par les collectivités locales. Nous adressons également un ensemble de recommandations qui s’appliquent aux programmes de « vaccination de rattrapage » contre la COVID-19 (visant à atteindre les personnes qui n’ont pas encore reçu leur schéma vaccinal complet), mais elles concernent également les programmes de vaccination d'urgence à venir. Ce document repose sur des recherches menées entre octobre et décembre 2021 à Marseille et sur des échanges réguliers avec les autorités du Borough de Ealing initiés dès mai 2021. Il identifie comment les gouvernements locaux, les acteurs de la santé, les groupes communautaires et les résidents jouent un rôle clé dans la production d’(in)égalités vaccinales. Ce document a été élaboré pour la SSHAP par Santiago Ripoll (IDS), Tavitha Hrynick (IDS), Ashley Ouvrier (LaSSA), Megan Schmidt-Sane (IDS), Federico Federici (UCL) et Elizabeth Storer (LSE). Il a été revu par Eloisa Franchi (Université de Pavie) et Ellen Schwartz (Conseil de santé publique de Hackney). La recherche a été financée par la British Academy COVID-19 Recovery : Fonds G7 (COVG7210038). Les recherches ont été menées à l’Institut d’études du développement (IDS), à l’Université de Sussex et au Laboratoire des sciences sociales appliquées (LaSSA). La SSHAP en assume la responsabilité.

This paper argues for a rethinking of disease preparedness that puts incertitude and the politics of knowledge at the centre. Through examining the experiences of Ebola, Nipah, cholera and COVID-19 across multiple settings, the limitations of current approaches are highlighted. Conventional approaches assume a controllable, predictable future, which is responded to by a range of standard interventions. Such emergency preparedness planning approaches assume risk - where future outcomes can be predicted - and fail to address uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance - where outcomes or their probabilities are unknown. Through examining the experiences of outbreak planning and response across the four cases, the paper argues for an approach that highlights the politics of knowledge, the constructions of time and space, the requirements for institutions and administrations and the challenges of ethics and justice. Embracing incertitude in disease preparedness responses therefore means making contextual social, political and cultural dimensions central.

Nicaraguan campesinos partially resist the commoditisation of labour through different ways of valuing, pricing and prioritising their work. Resistance is enabled by everyday practices, moral ideol...

Despite progress in COVID-19 vaccination rates overall in the US and UK, vaccine inequity persists as young people from minoritised and/or deprived communities are often less likely to be vaccinated. COVID-19 ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is not just an issue of misinformation or lack of information. ‘Vaccine hesitancy’ among young people is reflective of wider issues such as mistrust in the state or the medical establishment and negative experiences during the pandemic. This report is based on case study research conducted among young people (ages 12-18) in Cleveland, Ohio, US and the London borough of Ealing, UK. Whilst public discourse may label young people as ‘vaccine hesitant,’ we found that there were differences based on social location and place and this labelling may portray young people as ‘ignorant.’ We found the greatest vaccine hesitancy among older youth (15+ years old), particularly those from minoritised and deprived communities. Unvaccinated youth were also more likely to be from families and friend groups that were unvaccinated. While some expressed distrust of the vaccines, others reported that COVID-19 prevention was not a priority in their lives, but instead concerns over food security, livelihood, and education take precedence. Minoritised youth were more likely to report negative experiences with authorities, including teachers at their schools and police in their communities. Our findings demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is embedded in a context that drives relationships of mistrust between minoritised and deprived communities and the state, with implications for COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Young people’s attitudes toward vaccines are further patterned by experiences within their community, school, family, and friend groups.

Despite overall progress in COVID-19 vaccination rates in Cleveland, vaccine inequity persists as young people from minority communities are often less likely to be vaccinated. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is not just an issue of misinformation or lack of information. Vaccine hesitancy among young people is reflective of wider issues such as mistrust in the state or the medical establishment and negative experiences during the pandemic. This report is based on case study research conducted among minority youth (ages 12-18) in Cleveland, Ohio. While public discourse may label young people as “vaccine hesitant,” we found that there were hesitation differences based on social location and place. We found the greatest vaccine hesitancy among older youth (15+ years old), particularly those from minoritized communities. Unvaccinated youth were also more likely to be from families and friend groups that were unvaccinated. While some expressed distrust of the vaccines, others reported that COVID-19 prevention was not a priority in their lives. Instead, concerns over food security, livelihood, and education take precedence. Minority youth were more likely to report negative experiences with authorities, including teachers at their schools and police in their communities. Our findings demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is embedded in a context that drives relationships of mistrust between minority communities and authorities, with implications for COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Young people’s attitudes toward vaccines are further patterned by experiences within their community, school, family, and friend groups.

This brief explains youth perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination and outlines key considerations for engaging with and building trust among young people living in Ealing, London. Within the category of ‘young people,’ there are differences in vaccination based on age and ethnicity. This brief is based on research, including a review of the literature and in-depth interviews and focus groups with 62 youth across Ealing to contextualise youth perspectives of COVID-19 vaccination and highlight themes of trust/distrust. We contribute ethnographic and participatory evidence to quantitative evaluations of vaccine roll-out. Key considerations for addressing youth distrust regarding the COVID-19 vaccine are presented, followed by additional regional context. This work builds on a previous SSHAP brief on vaccine equity in Ealing. This brief was produced by SSHAP in collaboration with partners in Ealing. It was authored by Megan Schmidt-Sane (IDS), Tabitha Hrynick (IDS), Jillian Schulte (Case Western Reserve University), Charlie Forgacz-Cooper (Youth Advisory Board), and Santiago Ripoll (IDS), in collaboration with Steve Curtis (Ealing Council), Hena Gooroochurn (Ealing Council), Bollo Brook Youth Centre, and Janpal Basran (Southall Community Alliance), and reviews by Helen Castledine (Ealing Public Health), Elizabeth Storer (LSE) and Annie Wilkinson (IDS). The research was funded through the British Academy COVID-19 Recovery: USA and UK fund (CRUSA210022). Research was based at the Institute of Development Studies. This brief is the responsibility of SSHAP.

This brief explains youth perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination and outlines key considerations for engaging with and building trust among young people living in Ealing, London. Within the category of ‘young people,’ there are differences in vaccination based on age and ethnicity. This brief is based on research, including a review of the literature and in-depth interviews and focus groups with 62 youth across Ealing to contextualise youth perspectives of COVID-19 vaccination and highlight themes of trust/distrust. We contribute ethnographic and participatory evidence to quantitative evaluations of vaccine roll-out. Key considerations for addressing youth distrust regarding the COVID-19 vaccine are presented, followed by additional regional context. This work builds on a previous SSHAP brief on vaccine equity in Ealing. This brief was produced by SSHAP in collaboration with partners in Ealing. It was authored by Megan Schmidt-Sane (IDS), Tabitha Hrynick (IDS), Jillian Schulte (Case Western Reserve University), Charlie Forgacz-Cooper (Youth Advisory Board), and Santiago Ripoll (IDS), in collaboration with Steve Curtis (Ealing Council), Hena Gooroochurn (Ealing Council), Bollo Brook Youth Centre, and Janpal Basran (Southall Community Alliance), and reviews by Helen Castledine (Ealing Public Health), Elizabeth Storer (LSE) and Annie Wilkinson (IDS). The research was funded through the British Academy COVID-19 Recovery: USA and UK fund (CRUSA210022). Research was based at the Institute of Development Studies. This brief is the responsibility of SSHAP.

Despite progress in COVID-19 vaccination rates overall in Cleveland, vaccine inequity persists as young people from minoritised communities are often less likely to be vaccinated. Despite being over-represented in COVID-19 case counts and fatalities, Black residents were under-represented in COVID-19 vaccination during the first year and half of the pandemic. In Ohio, while roughly 60% of Cuyahoga County residents are fully vaccinated, just 45% of Cleveland residents are fully vaccinated. Lower-income, majority Black, east side neighbourhoods have markedly lower vaccination rates compared to higher-income, mostly white neighbourhoods. Young people ages 16-40 became eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine on March 29th, 2021, and individuals aged 12 and above were able to get vaccinated from May 2021 onward. However, large disparities exist based age, race, and zip code. This brief illustrates underlying reasons shaping COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among minority (especially Black and Latinx) youth (ages 12-18) and offers key considerations for how young people can be better engaged within Cleveland, Ohio. This brief is based on research, including in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 61 young people across 16 neighbourhoods through a Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) approach in Cleveland to contextualise youth perspectives of COVID-19 vaccination and highlight areas of hesitancy and confidence. In this brief, we share findings from the study and key considerations for addressing youth ‘vaccine hesitancy’ around the COVID-19 vaccine are presented. This brief was authored by Jillian Schulte (Case Western Reserve University), Megan Schmidt-Sane (IDS), Elizabeth Benninger (Cleveland State University), Tabitha Hrynick (IDS), and Santiago Ripoll (IDS), and includes contributions from Elizabeth Davies (Cleveland State University), Diane Mastnardo, Brenda Pryor (MyCom), Brinda Athreya (Case Western Reserve University), Ivis Maldonado (MyCom) and reviews from Elizabeth Storer (LSE) and Annie Wilkinson (IDS). The research was funded through the British Academy COVID-19 Recovery: USA and UK fund (CRUSA210022). Research was based at the Institute of Development Studies. This brief is the responsibility of SSHAP.

At national and aggregate levels, COVID-19 vaccination across G7 countries appears successful. To date, 79.4% of the total population of G7 countries have received a first dose, 72.9% a second, and 45.4% a booster shot (28th April 2022 data). In France, 80.6% of the total population has had a first dose, 78.2 % have had two doses, and 55.4% have had their booster jabs (28th of April 2022 data). In the UK, 79.3% of the total population has received one dose, 74.1% a second one, and 58.5% have received a booster. In Italy, 85.2% of the total population has had a first dose, 80.4% have had two doses, and 66.5% have had their booster jabs (28th of April 2022 data). These figures indicate enthusiasm across G7 countries for COVID-19 vaccines. Yet high overall vaccination rates at the national level, disguise significant in-country disparities. For example, by the end of 2021, less than 50% of residents of the Northern Districts of Marseille were vaccinated, compared with over 70% in wealthier neighbourhoods. In the Ealing borough of Northwest London, 70% of the eligible population has had a first dose – which is almost 10% percent below the national average (4th of April 2022 data). Disparities are also seen in other urban metropolises across the G7. This brief investigates these disparities through the lens of “vaccine (in)equity”, focusing on the role of local actors. It builds on ethnographic and qualitative research carried out in the Northern Districts of Marseille and ongoing research engagement around vaccine equity in Ealing (Northwest London), as well as qualitative research carried out in Italy among networks of healthcare providers, intercultural mediators, and civil society organizations that collaborated during the COVID-19 campaign in the Emilia Romagna region and in Rome. This brief is based on research conducted between October and December 2021 in Marseille and ongoing engagement in Ealing which started in May 2021. It identified how local governments, health actors, community groups and residents play key roles in shaping vaccine (in)equity. This brief was developed for SSHAP by Santiago Ripoll (IDS), Tabitha Hrynick (IDS), Ashley Ouvrier (LaSSA), Megan Schmidt-Sane (IDS), Federico Federici (UCL) and Elizabeth Storer (LSE). It was reviewed by Eloisa Franchi (Università degli Studi di Pavia) and Ellen Schwartz (Hackney Council Public Health). The research was funded through the British Academy COVID-19 Recovery: G7 Fund (COVG7210038). Research was based at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Susssex, and the Laboratoire de Sciences Sociales Appliquées (LaSSA). The brief is the responsibility of SSHAP.

COVID-19 has caused unprecedented health, economic and societal impacts across the world, including many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The pandemic and its fallout have laid bare deep-seated social and economic inequalities with marginalised groups being at greater risk of infection and being disproportionately affected by containment measures and their socioeconomic consequences. Stigma is a central element to such inequalities but remains largely overlooked in the debate on the response to COVID-19, including in LMICs. Yet we know from experiences with other infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and Ebola that disease-related stigma is detrimental to halting and controlling pandemics and achieving equitable development. Emerging evidence suggests that stigma associated with COVID-19 is already taking hold. This paper assesses potential driving factors of COVID-19-related stigma, and how this intersects with existing stigma fault lines and explores mechanisms through which COVID-19-related stigma may be counteracted, with a focus on LMICs.La COVID-19 a eu un impact sanitaire, économique et sociétal sans précédent à travers le monde, y compris dans de nombreux pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire (PRFI). La pandémie et ses retombées ont mis à nu de profondes inégalités sociales et économiques, les groupes marginalisés étant plus exposés au risque d’infection et étant touchés de façon disproportionnée par les mesures de confinement et par leurs conséquences socioéconomiques. La stigmatisation est au centre de ces inégalités mais reste largement négligée dans les débats sur la réponse à la COVID-19, y compris dans les PRFI. Grâce à l’expérience que nous avons sur d'autres maladies infectieuses telles que le VIH/SIDA et la maladie à virus Ebola, nous savons pourtant que la stigmatisation liée à une maladie empêche de contrôler et de stopper les pandémies et ne permet pas un développement équitable. De nouvelles preuves suggèrent que la stigmatisation associée à la COVID-19 gagne déjà du terrain. Cet article évalue les facteurs potentiels de stigmatisation liée à la COVID-19, analyse comment cela se recoupe avec les failles existantes de la stigmatisation et explore les mécanismes par lesquels on peut lutter contre la stigmatisation liée à la COVID-19, en mettant l'accent sur les PRFI.

Agroecology is increasingly recognized within mainstream development. Yet, this is controversial, due to disagreement over what it does and should mean. This article takes a ‘knowledge politics’ approach to show how different understandings of agroecology create contexts where contrasting agricultural development narratives thrive, albeit often unintentionally. It draws on literature and media review and 37 elite interviews with agricultural researchers and decision makers around the world. Four agricultural development narratives or ‘regimes’ are identified, each presented by different actor groups as part of their vision of what agricultural development should look like. Simultaneously, five different understandings of agroecology are described. A political understanding of agroecology is promoted to support the regime of agroecological agriculture. Simultaneously, an understanding of agroecology as a descriptive science is conducive to the African Green Revolution narrative. Actor groups tend to emphasize the differences between these understandings and regimes. They pay less attention to unpacking the divergent ways agroecological science has been framed since the early 20th century. This has the effect of concealing the way different understandings of agroecology support different development paradigms, and thus the political nature of the construction of science.

Embedded within the COVID-19 pandemic is the spread of a new pandemic of information – some accurate, some not – that can challenge the public health response. This has been termed an ‘infodemic’ and infodemic management is now a major feature of the World Health Organization’s work on health emergencies. This commentary highlights political, social, and economic aspects of infodemics and posits social science as critical to mitigating the current infodemic and preventing future ones. Infodemic managers should address the wider context of infodemics if we are to understand narratives, help to craft positive ones, and confront the root causes of misinformation rather than just the symptoms.

La présente note stratégique examine les dynamiques comportementales et communautaires liées aux flambées épidémiques de peste à Madagascar. L’objectif est d’aider les acteurs impliqués dans la riposte contre la peste à mieux comprendre les pratiques comportementales et culturelles ainsi que les inégalités structurelles susceptibles d’exacerber la transmission de la peste. Elle fournit également des suggestions relatives à la manière d’améliorer les communications et l’engagement communautaire dans le cadre d’une riposte contre la peste adaptée au contexte. Elle a été rédigée par Santiago Ripoll (IDS) et Eva Niederberger (Anthrologica) et éditée par Leslie Jones (Anthrologica). Des collègues de l’Institut Pasteur de Madagascar, de l’Institute of Development Studies, de la Rutgers University, de la FICR et de l’UNICEF ont apporté leur contribution.

This brief explores behavioural and community dynamics related to plague outbreaks in Madagascar. The aim is to support actors involved in plague response to acquire a deeper understanding of behavioural and cultural practices and structural inequities that may exacerbate plague transmission. It also provides suggestions on how to improve communications and community engagement as part of a context-adapted plague response. It is authored by Santiago Ripoll (IDS) and Eva Niederberger (Anthrologica) and edited by Leslie Jones (Anthrologica). Contributions were made by colleagues at Institut Pasteur Madagascar, the Institute of Development Studies, Rutgers University, the IFRC and UNICEF.

This brief illustrates how COVID-19 vaccine (in)equity has played out on the ground and offers key considerations for how it can be improved in the North West London (NWL) borough of Ealing. We conducted a review of literature and several informal consultations with local actors involved in COVID-19 vaccination efforts in statutory bodies (local authorities and the NHS) and the community in order to build a picture of and contextualise COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Ealing. Key considerations and lessons for achieving greater vaccine and health equity are presented, followed by additional context of interest to responders within statutory authorities and the community. This brief was produced by SSHAP in collaboration with partners in Ealing Council. It was authored by Tabitha Hrynick and Santiago Ripoll and is the responsibility of SSHAP.

This review sets out key considerations for improving vaccine equity – as well as broader health equity – in the North West London (NWL) borough of Ealing. It foregrounds the political, economic and social dynamics which have perpetuated health inequalities during and prior to COVID-19, and how they have manifested to shape COVID-19 vaccine accessibility and uptake among different social groups. It also highlights how local actors have sought to address these inequalities. By bringing together data and insights from existing social science research and consultations with people involved in local COVID-19 vaccination efforts (in local authorities, the NHS and community groups), we point to ways local authorities and healthcare providers, in collaboration with local people and organisations, can support vaccine equity – and health equity more broadly – now, and into the future. Critical to this are further efforts to integrate sensitivity to context, sustain collaborative working, build trust and meaningfully engage citizens (especially vulnerable groups), and support a robust civil society. The review begins with summary key considerations for operational actors. This review was produced by SSHAP in collaboration with Ealing Council. It was authored by Tabitha Hrynick and Santiago Ripoll, and reviewed by Maddy Gupta-Wright, Ellen Schwartz, and Nikita Simpson. It is the responsibility of SSHAP

This report is the first output in a body of work undertaken to identify operationally feasible suggestions to improve risk communication and community engagement efforts (RCCE) with displaced Rohingya people in Cox’s Bazar. Specifically, these should seek to improve healthcare seeking behaviour and acceptance of essential health services in the camps where the Rohingya reside. It was developed by the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP) at the request of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office in Bangladesh. As a first step in this process, this review paper synthesises and assesses the quality of evidence landscape available in Cox’s Bazar and how the Rohingya seek and access healthcare services in Cox’s Bazar and presents the findings from key informant interviews on the topic. Findings are structured in five discussion sections: (1) evidence quality; (2) major themes and variations in the evidence; (3) learnings drawn and recommendations commonly made; (4) persistent bottlenecks; and (5) areas for further research. This synthesis will inform a roundtable discussion with key actors working for the Rohingya refugees to identify next steps for RCCE and research efforts in Cox’s Bazar to improve health outcomes among the Rohingya.

‘Vertical’ responses focused primarily on preventing and containing COVID-19 have been implemented in countries around the world with negative consequences for other health services, people’s access to and use of them, and associated health outcomes, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). ‘Lockdowns’ and restrictive measures, especially, have complicated service provision and access, and disrupted key supply chains. Such interventions, alongside more traditional public health measures, interact with baseline health, health system, and social and economic vulnerabilities in LMICs to compound negative impacts. This analysis, based on a rapid evidence assessment by the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform in mid-2020, highlights the drivers and evidence of these impacts, emphasises the additional vulnerabilities experienced by marginalised social groups, and provides insight for governments, agencies, organisations and communities to implement more proportionate, appropriate, comprehensive and socially just responses that address COVID-19 in the context of and alongside other disease burdens. In the short term, there is an urgent need to monitor and mitigate impacts of pandemic responses on health service provision, access and use, including through embedding COVID-19 response within integrated health systems approaches. These efforts should also feed into longer-term strategies to strengthen health systems, expand universal healthcare coverage and attend to the social determinants of health—commitments, both existing and new—which governments, donors and international agencies must make and be held accountable to. Crucially, affected communities must be empowered to play a central role in identifying health priorities, allocating resources, and designing and delivering services.

This working paper explores the challenges that emerge when public health measures to mitigate the risk of infection during an epidemic infringe on the rights of religious communities to say a final farewell to their loved ones according to their custom. The paper aims to answer these questions: how does epidemic response in the context of death and burials frame and impact religious minority rights? And in turn, how do sectarian dynamics reposition themselves in the context of epidemic response?

The heterogeneous epidemiological picture for COVID-19 in Africa continues to generate debate. Modelling projections raise speculation about the phases and trends of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks across the continent and how these differ from outbreaks elsewhere.[1–4][1] Continental efforts drew praise in

In recent years, fears about infectious diseases with pandemic potential have led to global initiatives to predict, prepare and respond to outbreaks. Practices that are focused on prediction and control centre on turning uncertainties into ‘risk’, through surveillance, modelling and scenario planning. We argue that, alongside scientific uncertainties, a further source of uncertainty has come into view for science-policy communities: the behaviour of affected populations and the social and political dynamics of disease ‘hotspots’. We contend that this has catalysed an increased recognition of social science perspectives, with new practices emerging, detected in approaches that aim to standardise risk communication and community engagement, or to synthesise social knowledge to make ‘context’ more discretely legible. We suggest that such initiatives can also be viewed as part of a broader suite of technologies to transform uncertainties into calculable risks. In this chapter, we seek to open up a richer dialogue about the different understandings of uncertainty, illustrating the potential contestation between the official response efforts of agencies, and alternative ways of knowing and responding to outbreaks in ‘communities’, grounded in local-level practice. In conclusion, we reflect on the limits in comprehending the ontological dimensions of uncertainty: for people living in these settings, it is not ‘context’ that is salient, but the ongoing flow – or text – of social and ecological life, where everyday uncertainties are constantly faced. We ask if alternative processes might be possible for formulating international planning frameworks, more attentive to views ‘from below’ that could reveal alternative priorities and ways of being-in-the-world.

This paper highlights the major challenges and considerations for addressing COVID-19 in informal settlements. It discusses what is known about vulnerabilities and how to support local protective action. There is heightened concern about informal urban settlements because of the combination of population density and inadequate access to water and sanitation, which makes standard advice about social distancing and washing hands implausible. There are further challenges to do with the lack of reliable data and the social, political and economic contexts in each setting that will influence vulnerability and possibilities for action. The potential health impacts of COVID-19 are immense in informal settlements, but if control measures are poorly executed these could also have severe negative impacts. Public health interventions must be balanced with social and economic interventions, especially in relation to the informal economy upon which many poor urban residents depend. Local residents, leaders and community-based groups must be engaged and resourced to develop locally appropriate control strategies, in partnership with local governments and authorities.Historically, informal settlements and their residents have been stigmatized, blamed, and subjected to rules and regulations that are unaffordable or unfeasible to adhere to. Responses to COVID-19 should not repeat these mistakes. Priorities for enabling effective control measures include: collaborating with local residents who have unsurpassed knowledge of relevant spatial and social infrastructures, strengthening coordination with local governments, and investing in improved data for monitoring the response in informal settlements.

This paper explores the contested notion of what constitutes a fair price in the context of grain exchanges in a subsistence farming village in the highlands of Matagalpa. Using ethnographic data, I show how Nicaraguan campesinos’ economic behavior plays out within a local moral universe of fairness: how much to produce and how much to sell in the market (or to give away); how prices and obligations vary depending on the social relation that binds the seller and the buyer (kinship, friendship, community, and so on); in what ways these notions of fair price are articulated and contested by different classes within a rural community; and lastly, what is expected of the State in terms of regulating food prices. Price emerges as the dialectic between the market in its abstract form and the specific social relationships and everyday politics that shape exchanges. What constitutes help (ayuda) and what constitutes exploitation in market exchanges and the determination of price is constantly contested, the moral economy is a discursive battlefield.

Young people are increasingly linked to targeted agriculture and food security interventions. In Africa, the argument is that the combination of agricultural value chains, technology and entrepreneurship will unlock a sweet spot for youth employment. This article examines this argument from a rural transformations perspective. A framework is proposed with which to analyse young people’s economic room to manoeuvre in different rural contexts and the differential abilities of young people to exploit associated opportunities. Using cereal agri-food systems as an example, the article identifies two new research areas that address important knowledge gaps: how young rural people in Africa engage with these systems and what pathways they use to become engaged. To address these questions, we propose an analytical framework built around key contextual factors that constrain or enable young people’s economic activity. By pursuing the proposed research agenda, international agricultural research could make important contributions to both agricultural policy debates and development-oriented interventions.

Sumario: Introducción: los valores de la Unión Europea. I. La cláusula del Estado de Derecho en el tratado de Ámsterdam. A) Las negociaciones para un nuevo gobierno en Austria. B) El informe del Comité de Sabios. II. La cláusula del estado de derecho en el Tratado de Niza. A) La crisis de los campamentos gitanos en Francia. B) Los problemas de respeto del Estado de Derecho en Hungría. III. Mecanismos para fortalecer el Estado de Derecho en la Unión Europea. A) Entre la solución judicial y las medidas políticas. B) El nuevo marco de la UE para fortalecer el estado de derecho. IV. La defensa del Estado de Derecho por la Unión Europea ante las políticas de «democracia iliberal». 1. De nuevo, Hungría. A) El rechazo a las medidas para afrontar la crisis migratoria. B) Nuevos procedimientos de infracción y solicitud de aplicación del mecanismo de Estado de Derecho. V. La defensa del Estado de Derecho por la Unión Europea ante las políticas de «democracia iliberal». 1. Y también Polonia. A) Las reformas para «catalizar el cambio bueno». B) La aplicación del Marco para fortalecer el Estado de Derecho. C) La aplicación de la cláusula del Estado de Derecho. CONSIDERACIONES FINALES

Transitional justice deals with the question of how States, a war or dictatorship ended, confront a situation of past-large-scale human rights violation in a period of transition to peace and democracy. Although the situations differ widely from one case to another, International Law has contributed to define the core elements of transitional justice. From this viewpoint the Spanish case is considered.Key WordsTransitional justice, human rights, United Nations, Spain, memory, Spanish Civil War, TransitionResumenLa justicia de transición se refiere al modo en que los Estados, finalizada una guerra o concluida una dictadura, afrontan las graves violaciones de los derechos humanos vividas en el pasado. Aunque las respuestas varían de una situación a otra, el Derecho internacional, con fundamento en sus normas de protección de los derechos humanos, ha contribuido a definir los elementos básicos de la justicia de transición. Desde esta perspectiva, se examina la práctica española.Palabras claveJusticia de transición, derecho internacional, derechos humanos, Naciones Unidas, España, memoria, guerra civil española, Transición.