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.

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.

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.

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.

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.