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.

中文翻译：

---

COVID-19 危机和欧洲大陆福利国家的政策应对


德国、比利时和荷兰的社会保护有着俾斯麦的根源。然而，随着时间的推移，这些福利国家不断变化，并或多或少地融入了盎格鲁撒克逊和北欧模式的元素。尽管荷兰从一开始就偏离了俾斯麦模式，但近年来，这个福利国家经历了重要的改革，使其日益演变为“俾斯麦加贝弗里奇”模式。德国和比利时也经历了双重转型，一方面对长期失业者和非典型就业者数量增加的收入相关福利进行紧缩，另一方面将社会保障扩大到所谓的“新社会风险”。正是在这种不断变化的制度背景下，我们才能理解这三个大陆福利国家在多大程度上利用传统社会保险制度来缓冲禁闭带来的社会和经济后果的异同。首先，三个国家都不同程度地加强了对活跃年龄人口的社会保障体系。从这个角度来看，这些政策反应是对近几十年来社会保护双重转型的回应，但并没有改变其进程。其次，大陆福利国家利用现有社会保险计划的程度似乎与这些福利国家向盎格鲁-撒克逊方向发展的程度有关。