The Covid-19 pandemic profoundly impacted Latin America during a period marked by heightened vulnerability. The economic expansion spurred by the commodity boom in the early 2000s was followed in the 2010s by a series of economic downturns that exacerbated existing inequalities. The region's high levels of labour informality rendered it particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of lockdowns, resulting in significant income loss for many households almost overnight. Nonetheless, the expansion of social policies in the 2000s also positioned Latin America more favourably to confront crises, particularly in comparison to the aftermath of the economic crisis known as the Lost Decade of the 1980s.
In the face of the Covid-19 crisis, Latin American policymakers swiftly recognised that cash transfer policies targeting citizens outside formal welfare systems were a natural and necessary response. Most Latin American countries implemented new cash transfer programmes and increased the coverage and benefit levels of existing programmes. However, these strategies varied markedly across the region, with some governments demonstrating a greater capacity to meet the challenges posed by the pandemic than others. Notably, countries such as Brazil and Chile implemented new cash transfer programmes that achieved high levels of coverage and provided generous benefits. In contrast, the responses in Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador were considerably weaker.
Understanding the reasons for this variation is a central focus of the work by Merike Blofield, Jennifer Pribble and Cecilia Giambruno, entitled The Politics of Social Protection during Times of Crisis. This book provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of how different Latin American governments responded to the Covid-19 pandemic concerning social protection. It incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data from ten countries, sourced from publicly available government documents, to illuminate the striking differences in social protection responses. A significant contribution of the book lies in the development of new metrics for assessing benefit breadth and adequacy, which may serve as valuable tools for policymakers. The authors categorise Brazil and Chile as strong responders, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru and Uruguay as moderate responders, while Colombia and Ecuador are characterised as having restricted responses, and Mexico is noted for its lack of a substantial response.
Some pre-existing political economy explanations, such as levels of economic development, state capacity, social movement strength and electoral competition, do a notoriously poor job of explaining the effectiveness of the transfer programmes set up in response to Covid-19. In addition, both right- and left-leaning governments implemented strong, moderate and weak responses, demonstrating that ideology alone does not account for this variation.
The authors’ central argument identifies the interplay of three critical factors: policy legacies, fiscal space and the nature of government (whether unified or divided). Drawing on a rich body of welfare state literature, the authors effectively illustrate that pre-existing social protection programmes significantly shaped the scale and scope of pandemic responses. Countries with established and expansive cash transfer systems – such as Brazil and Chile – generally exhibited a more robust response than those with limited or fragmented systems, such as Peru, Ecuador and Mexico. However, policy legacies serve merely as scope conditions for the expansion of cash transfers and do not entirely explain the specific trajectories of different countries. Countries with strong social policy legacies, such as Uruguay, Costa Rica and Argentina, opted for more conservative approaches than their historical contexts might suggest.
The authors’ most original contribution is their emphasis on the impact of divided government, which interacts with the availability of fiscal space for financing emergency transfers. In scenarios of divided government – where the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different political parties – competition for credit-claiming and blame avoidance is heightened. Conversely, under unified government, such competitive incentives are either diminished or absent. In Brazil and Chile, the impetus for a more expansive social protection response originated from legislative pressures. In Brazil, the opposition-controlled legislature, bolstered by public demand and available fiscal space, enacted a substantial cash transfer programme (Auxílio Emergencial) that the hesitant Bolsonaro administration found difficult to veto. Similarly, in Chile, President Piñera's inadequate initial response elicited a strong counterproposal from the opposition that ultimately gained traction. This dynamic also motivated social protection expansions in other countries, such as Bolivia and Peru, where pre-existing policy legacies were weaker.
Notably, the presence of fiscal space mitigated the influence of those legacies. The absence of fiscal space elucidates the limitations on the coverage and size of transfers in certain contexts, such as Costa Rica and Argentina, where fiscal constraints hampered sustained policy responses despite the presence of divided government and robust policy legacies. In Uruguay, Colombia and Mexico, unified government impeded social protection expansion in various ways, even when fiscal resources were available.
This analysis holds significant value for both policymakers and scholars, offering a framework for the development of effective anti-crisis response strategies. The theory presented provides considerable insights into governmental responses to crises, extending beyond the realm of social protection, a context particularly relevant for understanding the periodic crises that afflict Latin America. Despite these strengths, the book presents some limitations that suggest avenues for future research.
First, while the focus on cash transfer policies is well justified, it ultimately leads to an incomplete representation of the overall social protection responses to the Covid-19 crisis. A more comprehensive examination of other social policies – such as unemployment benefits – would yield a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of government responses to crises like the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, further investigations should consider the roles of macroeconomic stimulus policies and central banks in shaping responses to the pandemic.
Furthermore, the conclusions drawn regarding the relevance of key variables are somewhat contingent upon the ten countries included in the analysis. Although the authors establish democratic governance as a baseline condition – accounting for data availability in their case selection – the inclusion of countries such as Paraguay and those in Central America could potentially alter their arguments in significant ways. An exploration of autocratic regimes, such as Nicaragua and Venezuela, would provide further insights into how electoral dynamics and state capacity influence crisis responses.
