Soziale Sicherung im Krisenmodus (SoSiKri)

How the Future Impacts the Present in Social Policy

Published on the 29th of September 2024

We live in turbulent times. Policymakers and bureaucrats are thus seemingly in crisis mode, aiming to manage immediate crisis effects. But this affects not only the economy in general. A number of institutions that have been built to provide safety and security for the population are also feeling the heat of increasing pressures from a number of crises – crises that have multiple dimensions, are frequently global in scope, and are increasingly interrelated. These pressures also affect the welfare state and the institutions of social security that it operates. In other words, the future sustainability and functioning of these institutions seems endangered as well. It is an open question whether social security institutions will perform well in a crisis-ridden future or if (and, if so, how) they should be reformed.

Answers to these questions, which policymakers are eager to address, are complex and thus require a wide range of expertise. Various actors contribute scenarios, outline potential courses of action and their effects, or otherwise engage in the making of “futures” to satisfy the need of the state to know about possible and probable developments on the horizon and prepare accordingly. But how does this anticipation of futures influence policymaking? How can we understand the role of anticipations in times of crisis in general – (how) does it affect decisions and the welfare state at large? The project “Social security in crisis mode” aims to find this out. This blog post delves deeper into the question of how the future enters the present of social policymaking.

Here, I argue that anticipating futures of crisis has indeed more far-ranging consequences than just helping policymakers to orient themselves in light of a complex world and the challenges to come. In fact, anticipation can potentially shape both the policymaking process at large and what (reform) alternatives to consider as a response.

First, crisis anticipation puts new options on the table, but it also makes others seem less appropriate in light of risks or threats on the horizon. As a particular imagination of the future becomes more credible, policymakers may find themselves constrained to at least engage with the possibility of its realisation. Therefore, crisis anticipation – even where it just presents potential developments or options – can shape what problems policymakers care about, what issues to address, and what policies to consider.

Second, crisis anticipation changes the general character of policymaking. There is a range of scholarship that delves into how crises are threatening situations that are characterised by enormous uncertainty, while at the same time demanding for urgent responses. The anticipation of future crises can equally lead to changes in the time horizons of policymaking, meaning that actors feel a heightened sense of the need for timely action. This can affect how decisions are reached, how quickly policies are implemented, and who is included (and excluded) in policymaking processes.

Third, crisis anticipation influences what has been called ‘rationales’ of policymaking. Traditionally, social security is engaged in offering compensation and providing services when it comes to particular contingencies, such as the loss of jobs, ill health, or an accident at the workplace. What we can observe when actors are influenced by futures charactersied by challenges or even threats is that there is much more emphasis on preventive or precautionary action. In other words, policymakers aim to prepare for the anticipated development, or even pre-empt it from happening altogether.

Fourth, crisis anticipation already results in policymakers discussing and implementing reforms to social security institutions that make them more resilient. Resilience is a booming concept in current crisis-ridden times, because it promises strengthened resistance to adverse effects, to not become affected by them, but rather quickly return to “normal”. At the same time, in its application to social security, the concept of resilience can be criticised, because it may make the individual or household affected by crises responsible for their own situation – just aiming to help them reduce risks – instead of tackling the often engrained structural problems that are at the root of their vulnerability. Resilience, here, is just one example for a number of reform concepts that can be elevated by a discourse shaped by crisis anticipations.

To date, the role of these and other effects of crisis anticipation on social security reforms in particular and social policymaking in general has not entered academic debates – and even less so public discussions. The project “Social Security in Crisis Mode” aims to produce answers to how we can understand and conceptualise crisis anticipation in its political effects, but also how, ultimately, crisis anticipation can productively be used to make better decisions in social security policymaking.

Climate Change and Inequality

Published on the 20th of January 2025

As climate change accelerates more and more, its effects are felt globally, but not uniformly. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, resource scarcity, and biodiversity loss strain societies, the eco-system and economies, exacerbating inequalities in the process. Climate change is increasingly recognized as a ‘threat multiplier’, amplifying existing social, economic and ecological vulnerabilities.

A growing crisis and the role of eco-social security

Inequality is a multidimensional concept. In economic terms, for example, it could refer to disparities in income or the distribution of wealth; in social terms, to differences in opportunities to participate in society; and in political terms, to differences in electoral rights between citizens and non-citizens. This blog post focuses on wealth inequality, as wealth or income has arguably the biggest impact on dealing with the effects of climate change at a societal and individual level. This includes all action taken to counteract the direct and indirect effects of climate change, ranging from compensation, preventive measures to preemptive actions or adaptive measures. At the societal level, economic capacities (and normative goals) determine how elaborate these actions can be, at the individual level, economic capacities determine the range of individual risk management practices.

From a social policy perspective, climate-related crises call for a rethink of how social security systems tackle inequality, since neither the effects of the crises nor the resources to deal with them are uniformly distributed. Classically, social security is broadly defined as the institutional and societal responses to certain pre-defined risks (or contingencies), which have historically evolved and manifested in a society. However, not all risks can be anticipated equally. For example, unemployment, health and work accidents can be unforeseen, yet are still deemed worthy of protection. Thus, by definition, the range of what social security covers can be adjusted or expanded. If ecological risks, which almost always influence the social sphere, are included in social security systems, social security can be advanced to facilitate a more equal society in adaption to modern risks.

The concept of eco-social policy, which combines environmental and social goals, constitutes an emerging approach to addressing these interconnected crises of ecology and inequality by creating resilient and protective systems across all socio-economic levels. Since social security systems are currently designed to protect against life course risks, new reforms are needed to shift their focus to environmental risks and their societal consequences. These dramatic changes can be addressed through eco-social security.

Climate change as a perpetuator of inequality for vulnerable groups

In many ways, the effects of climate change exacerbate social divides along the lines of wealth and well-being among many other categories.

First, disparities in vulnerability and exposure vary between regions and individuals. Wealthier populations often have the means to cope with the worst effects of climate change. For example, while rising sea levels and flooding displace low-income families in coastal regions or leave them with nothing, affluent communities may have resources to relocate to less impacted regions and retrofit or protect their properties. In contrast, marginalized communities, particularly those living in high-risk areas with inadequate infrastructure, bear the brunt of climate impacts without the buffer of financial security and therefore the ability to protect themselves and their possessions. Climate-induced migration and displacement influence inequality heavily. Climate-induced migration affects millions, particularly those from low-wealth or low-income regions that lack adaptive and preventive capacity. Migration pressures can strain social services and infrastructure in receiving areas, sometimes fostering social tensions and further marginalizing displaced communities. Wealthier people, though, are more likely to avoid displacement and, when they do relocate, often have the resources to reintegrate successfully.

Second, climate change can heavily influence health. Extreme heat, poor air quality, and increased disease prevalence disproportionately affect lower-wealth populations. Wealthier individuals may have access to air-conditioned environments, medical care, and other resources to alleviate health stressors, while vulnerable groups experience a worsening health crisis, leading to a vicious cycle of poverty and illness without the ability to access critical health services.

Third, economic instability and job loss is one of the main drivers of (wealth) inequality as these provide a foundation for all households. Climate disruptions affect sectors differently, often hitting low-wage jobs the hardest. For instance, agriculture, fishing, and tourism — industries with significant low-income employment — are highly sensitive to environmental changes. Job losses in these fields leave workers who are already vulnerable with limited options for alternative livelihoods, worsening economic disparities. Wealthier individuals, by contrast, are less dependent on these sectors and have access to more stable or diversified income sources.

The role of eco-social security in battling inequality

Given the interconnected nature of environmental and social vulnerabilities, eco-social security can play a critical role in fostering resilience, equality, and sustainability. Eco-social policies seek to integrate social and environmental objectives, aiming to build an equitable response to climate change and its impact. Eco-social security can thus be seen as the implementation of eco-social policies in social security systems.

Eco-social security influences different spheres of the climate change nexus. Advanced welfare states can provide climate-responsive eco-social security, while aiming at reducing potential inequalities through social redistribution. In some cases, inequalities occur because of the direct effects of climate change. In other cases, inequalities are due to the indirect effects of climate change, including the mitigation, compensation and adaptation measures implemented to combat climate change. Eco-social policy reforms can introduce new targeting mechanisms, new ways of selecting beneficiaries based on the identification of new needs, and institutional changes such as potentially new social security institutions.

To further cushion the blows of an increasing number of ecological crises, these new institutions could be introduced in addition to a wider range of eco-social policies. Eco-social policies that invest in green policies offer a way to protect societies and address economic inequalities. By investing in or securing future generations through institutionalised means, eco-social policies can actively shape a more equal and just society. For example, policies for a "just transition" ensure that, as economies move toward zero transition, low-income workers in high-emission industries receive retraining and job placement support in growing green sectors, such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and conservation. This transition not only reduces emissions but also builds economic resilience for vulnerable communities through our social security institutions – killing two birds with one stone.

Incorporating marginalized voices in policy-making and societal planning is crucial to ensure that climate adaptation is inclusive. Participatory eco-social policies guarantee that low-wealth, low-income and vulnerable communities are considered in decision-making processes around social security – but are also included in preventive measures. For instance, designing social security institutions that not only compensate for the negative effects of climate change-induced flooding, but also invest in prevention measures would support both climate adaptation and social equity. 

While there is a broad spectrum of opportunities for eco-social policy and eco-social security, the resulting effects need to diffuse to all levels of society. Potential policies or institutions could aim at various eco-social risks, many of which have significantly grown in their magnitude or distribution because of climate change. For example, regarding healthcare, universal access to climate-resilient health services could be provided. Climate change magnifies health risks, and equitable access to health services is essential to mitigate this impact. Eco-social security should prioritize universal healthcare access with specific programs focused on climate-vulnerable populations. This could include funding community health centers in at-risk areas, supporting mental health services for climate-affected individuals, and developing public health interventions to address emerging health risks associated with climate change through future-oriented policies. Another example of establishing climate-responsive eco-social security could include cash benefits during extreme weather events, or health interventions targeting climate-related diseases. By integrating climate resilience into social security, governments can buffer vulnerable populations from climate shocks, promoting economic stability and reducing inequality.

To summarise, eco-social security represents a shift from traditional welfare models to adaptive frameworks that account for the interconnectedness of social well-being and ecological stability. Key features address risk protection against ecological hazards that could connect benefits to eco-friendly practices, support a just transition, and show the political and societal will of a future-oriented fight against eco-social risks. By protecting vulnerable populations, promoting equity, and fostering sustainability, eco-social security offers a comprehensive response to 21st century challenges.

Current research shows that eco-social security is not implemented sufficiently, which leads to increasing inequalities through the inaction of politics. This may lead to a vicious circle in which inequality grows dynamically – possibly resulting in an eco-social crisis. A paper on exactly this topic – inequality through inaction – is currently in the making!

Moving forward: A call for integrated policy solutions and more action

The crises wrought by climate change require an integrative, eco-social approach to social security that addresses both immediate vulnerabilities and long-term resilience. Governments, policymakers, and stakeholders must view environmental and social issues not as isolated challenges but as intertwined. The expansion of social security through eco-social policies, eco-social institutions, and a new awareness of future-oriented concepts, such as intergenerational inequalities, can mitigate the cascading effects of climate change on inequality.

How futures are perceived play a major role in designing these eco-social policies. Dr. John Berten wrote a blogpost on ‘How the future impacts the present in social policy’ which dives into the implications of future-oriented concepts for policy making. You can learn more about that here. 

In conclusion, addressing these complex challenges demands proactive engagement from all stakeholders — not just waiting for political solutions. Now is the time to move forward with innovative proposals, develop future-oriented solutions, and introduce fresh ideas that tackle issues of climate change and inequality head-on. By steering the discourse with a commitment to equality, we can shape a more inclusive future and ensure that emerging eco-social solutions are integrated into our (eco-)social security system.

Ökosoziale Politik nur im Nebensatz? Deutschlands Wahlprogramme unter der Lupe

Veröffentlicht am 17. März 2025 von Dr. John Berten, Olivia Whelan und Nicolas Barden

Ökosozialpolitik: Ein wachsender Trend?

Während Deutschland sich auf die vorgezogene Bundestagswahl vorbereitete, rückte die ökologische Krise in den aktuellen Debatten, verglichen mit Themen wie Migration oder Sicherheit, in den Hintergrund. Das bedeutet nicht, dass Parteien über das gesamte politische Spektrum hinweg ökologische Fragen, wie Klimawandel, Biodiversitätsverlust, Umweltverschmutzung und andere ökologische Probleme, grundsätzlich ignorieren. Doch während sich die Parteien auf grüne Investitionen, Energiewende und nachhaltige Infrastruktur konzentrieren, wird weitaus weniger diskutiert, welche sozialen Folgen diese Veränderungen haben werden. Insofern wird ökosozialer Politik, und darin besonders dem Themenkomplex sozialer Sicherheit, eine geringere Aufmerksamkeit zuteil. Es wird kaum diskutiert, wie die nachhaltige Transformation die sozialen Sicherungssysteme beeinflussen wird und welche Rolle soziale Sicherung wiederum spielen kann, um eine solche nachhaltige Transformation zu unterstützen. Die ökosoziale Dimension von Arbeitsplatzsicherheit, Sozialversicherung und Sozialhilfe bleibt im Hintergrund der Debatte, was Fragen hinsichtlich der Inklusivität dieser Politiken angesichts eskalierender ökologischer Krisen aufwirft.

Für diesen Blogbeitrag haben wir die Wahlprogramme (und Programmentwürfe) der demokratischen Parteien untersucht, die die größte Chance hatten, die 5-Prozent-Hürde zu überwinden: CDU/CSU, SPD, Die Grünen, FDP, Die Linke und das BSW – obwohl BSW und FDP es im Nachhinein nicht in das Parlament schafften. Die AfD, die die Realität des menschengemachten Klimawandels leugnet und keine ökosozialen Politikvorschläge bietet, wird in unserer Analyse nicht berücksichtigt. Aufgrund des Befunds, dass „ökosoziale Sicherheit“ weitgehend in der politischen Debatte fehlte, liegt unser Fokus dabei darauf, wie Fragen der ökosozialen Sicherheit in stärkerem Maße Teil politischer Agenden werden könnten.

Die soziale Dimension der Klimaanpassung

Ein erster Ansatz, um ökosoziale Sicherheit zu einem politischen Anliegen zu machen, könnte darin bestehen, bestehende Diskussionen zur ökosozialen Politik, und verwandte Debatten, zu erweitern.

Über das gesamte politische Spektrum hinweg betonen die Parteien die Rolle von ökonomischen Faktoren in Bezug auf die Klimaanpassung. Allerdings gibt es Unterschiede zwischen den Ansätzen. CDU/CSU und FDP priorisieren die Wirtschaft und setzen auf marktbasierte Instrumente. CDU/CSU schlagen beispielsweise eine Ausweitung erneuerbarer Energien vor, während sie Wettbewerb und Technologieoffenheit als wichtige Prinzipien betonen, und setzen auf den Emissionshandel, sowie Investitionen der Wirtschaft. Sie schlagen zudem die Vergütung von Umweltleistungen, insbesondere in der Landwirtschaft, Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei und Jagd, vor. Die FDP plädiert für eine Klimadividende als universelle Pauschalleistung. Fragen der sozialen Gerechtigkeit sind in diesen Themenfeldern nicht unsichtbar, doch dominiert eine Trickle-Down-Logik: Eine gut funktionierende Wirtschaft wird als bester Garant für steigende Lebensstandards angesehen.

Die SPD und die Grünen betonen ebenfalls die Bedeutung wirtschaftlichen Wachstums im Hinblick auf Klimaanpassungen. Die SPD legt den Fokus auf Chancengleichheit; so sollen auch einkommensschwachen Haushalten der Zugang zu klimafreundlichen Technologien ermöglicht werden, etwa durch staatliche Unterstützung, sowie der ÖPNV bezahlbar gemacht werden. Das Wahlprogramm der Grünen identifiziert Klimaschutz eindeutig als Kernthema. Sie betonen die Notwendigkeit einer engen Verzahnung von Klimaschutzabkommen mit sozialen Standards. Die Grünen schlagen unter anderem ein Klimageld als eine gerechte Umverteilungsmaßnahme für Haushalte mit niedrigen und mittleren Einkommen vor.

Die Linke hebt den sozial gerechten Charakter von Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen besonders hervor, da Menschen mit niedrigerem sozioökonomischem Status am stärksten von der Klimakrise betroffen sind. Sie fordern verschiedene Maßnahmen mit Umverteilungseffekten, darunter mehr finanzielle Verantwortung der Wohlhabenden, niedrigere Energiepreise, die Einführung eines Klimageldes, einen erschwinglichen ÖPNV, und eine nachhaltige Lebensmittel- und Agrarpolitik.

Gesellschaften zukunftsfest machen

Ein zweiter Ansatz zur Stärkung der ökosozialen Sicherheit in politischen Debatten ist die Betonung der Rolle sozialer Sicherungssysteme, um Gesellschaften zukunftsfest zu machen.

In einigen Wahlprogrammen spielt der demografische Wandel eine zentrale Rolle bei der Problematisierung sozialer Sicherungsfragen. Die FDP, etwa, fordert eine stärkere Berücksichtigung kapitalgedeckter Elemente in Rente und Pflege, um die sozialen Sicherungssysteme zukunftsfest zu machen. Obwohl diese Forderungen hauptsächlich demografisch begründet werden, könnte eine ähnliche Argumentationsweise auch auf ökosoziale Sicherung angewendet werden.

Ein wiederkehrender Vorschlag in allen betrachteten Parteien ist die Stärkung des Katastrophenschutzes angesichts ökologischer Herausforderungen, aber auch in Bezug auf Terrorismus, Konflikte oder Epidemien. Soziale Sicherungssysteme werden in diesem Zusammenhang jedoch selten explizit diskutiert, außer von Seiten der SPD, die die Rolle sozialer Sicherung in Krisen besonders betont.

Ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt in den meisten Wahlprogrammen ist die Modernisierung und Investition in die Zukunft als Reaktion auf ökologische Herausforderungen. Die SPD, beispielsweise, betont Bildung, Innovation, Digitalisierung und Klimaschutz, und will bürokratische Hürden für Investitionen abbauen. Die Grünen nennen zahlreiche Themen der Klimamodernisierung und der Unterstützung der Industrie auf dem Weg zur nachhaltigen Transformation. Explizite Krisenreaktionen sind ebenfalls Bestandteil einiger Wahlprogramme. Als Beispiel könnte hier etwa der Hinweis der SPD genannt werden, dass der Staat, als temporäre Lösung um Jobs zu sichern, Anteile gefährdeter Unternehmen kaufen könnte, sowie ihr Vorschlag zur Einführung einer EU-weiten Arbeitslosenrückversicherung. Mit zukunftsgerichteten Vorschlägen dieser Art könnten auch Maßnahmen der ökosozialen Sicherheit legitimiert werden.

Was fehlt, um ökosoziale Sicherheitsmaßnahmen mehr in den Vordergrund zu rücken?

Unsere Untersuchung der Wahlprogramme zur Bundestagswahl 2025 zeigt, dass eine eigenständige ökosoziale Sicherung als Klimaanpassungsmaßnahme keine wichtige Rolle in den Parteiprogrammen spielt.

Es gibt jedoch einige Ausnahmen. Am ehesten mit ökosozialer Sicherung verwandt sind die diversen Vorschläge für eine nachhaltige und gerechte Transformation („just transition“), etwa Umschulungs- und Kompensationsmaßnahmen für all jene, die ihren Job durch den Klimawandel verloren haben. Die SPD, beispielsweise, möchte dahingehend Umschulungszeiten nicht mehr als Zeiten der Arbeitslosigkeit werten. Die Linke schlägt eine Job- und Einkommensgarantie, sowie einen Qualifikationsfonds, vor, welcher den Lebensstandard der Umzuschulenden sichern und dabei teilweise auch von der Privatwirtschaft finanziert werden soll. Darüber hinaus wird von mehreren Parteien ein Klimageld oder eine Klimadividende ins Spiel gebracht. CDU/CSU nennen eine verpflichtende Versicherung gegen Elementarschäden, die allerdings kein klar definiertes soziales Ziel verfolgt. Ein weiteres Beispiel ist der Bürger*innenfonds der Grünen, der darauf abzielt, das Rentensystem durch ein kapitalgedecktes Element zu stärken, und in seinen Investitionen Nachhaltigkeitskriterien beachtet.

Wir haben zwei Trends identifiziert, an die Argumente für eine stärkere Rolle ökosozialer Sicherung anknüpfen könnten: Zum einen erkennen alle Parteien des demokratischen Spektrums die soziale Dimension der Klimaanpassungspolitik an; zum anderen rücken sie Krisenprävention und Katastrophenmanagement – neben anderen zukunftsrelevanten Herausforderungen – als zentrale Faktoren einer resilienten Gesellschaft in den Mittelpunkt. Was aber bislang fehlt, ist die Einbindung sozialer Sicherung in beide dieser Debatten. Soziale Sicherungssysteme sind von den Auswirkungen des Klimawandels betroffen und könnten unter Reformdruck geraten, um ihre Resilienz sicherzustellen. Gleichzeitig bieten sie die Möglichkeit, Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen selbst zu stärken, indem sie Haushalten die notwendige Sicherheit geben, um zukünftige Herausforderungen zu bewältigen.

Wir haben zwei potenzielle Einfallstore für die Verankerung ökosozialer Sicherung in politischen Agenden identifiziert. Doch während die Koalitionsverhandlungen voranschreiten, bleibt abzuwarten, ob die angekündigten Maßnahmen der Parteien tatsächlich umgesetzt werden – und, in einem zweiten Schritt, ob sich der aufkommende ökosoziale Trend zu einem umfassenden Konzept entwickelt, das auch soziale Sicherung mit einbezieht.

Referenzen

BSW (2025) Unser Land verdient mehr! Wahlprogramm für die Bundestagswahl 2025.

Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen (2025) Zusammen Wachsen. Regierungsprogramm 2025. Entwurf des Bundesvorstands.

CDU/CSU (2025) Politikwechsel für Deutschland. Wahlprogramm von CDU und CSU.

Die Linke (2025) Alle wollen regieren. Wir wollen verändern. Reichtum teilen. Preise senken. Füreinander. Antrag L.1: Wahlprogramm zur Bundestagswahl 2025.

FDP (2025) Alles lässt sich ändern. Das Wahlprogramm der FDP zur Bundestagswahl 2025.

SPD (2025) Mehr für dich. Besser für Deutschland. Regierungsprogramm der SPD für die Bundestagswahl 2025.

Ökosoziale Politik (Podcast-Folge)

Veröffentlicht am 30. September 2025

Willkommen zur ersten Folge des SoSiKri-Podcasts!

In dieser Folge stellen die Mitglieder des SoSiKri-Teams ihre Teilprojekte vor und tauchen gemeinsam mit den Gästen Prof. Dr. Alexandra Kaasch, Professorin für Deutsche und Transnationale Sozialpolitik an der Universität Bielefeld und Chefredakteurin der Zeitschrift Global Social Policy, sowie Dr. Robin Schulze Waltrup, Postdoktorand für Deutsche und Transnationale Sozialpolitik an der Universität Bielefeld mit umfangreicher Erfahrung in der Forschung zu ökosozialer Politik.

Hier anhören: SoSiKri-Podcast-Folge über Ökosoziale Politik

Das Transkript finden Sie hier: Transkript

Der Zusammenhang zwischen Ökosozialer Politik und Ungleichheit (Podcast-Folge)

Veröffentlicht am 30. September 2025

Wie hängt Ökosoziale Politik mit Ungleichheit zusammen? Und was können wir aus den SoSiKri-Teilprojekten lernen? In unserer neuesten Folge gehen wir genau diesen Fragen nach – gemeinsam mit Prof. Dr. Alexandra Kaasch und Dr. Robin Schulze Waltrup, die erneut ihre frischen Erkenntnisse und ihr Fachwissen mit uns teilen.

Hier anhören: SoSiKri-Podcast-Folge über der Zusammenhang zwischen Ökosozialer Politik und Ungleichheit

Bitte beachten Sie, dass diese Folge auf Englisch aufgenommen wurde.

Das Transkript finden Sie hier (bitte beachten Sie jedoch, dass es ebenfalls auf Englisch ist): Transkript

Reflections on Constructing an Eco-Social Security Dataset: Practical Research Challenges

Published on the 14th of April 2026

The Pillar B of the Social Security in Crisis Mode (Soziale Sicherung in Krisenmodus - SoSiKri) project, which focuses on international quantitative comparison, officially began in June 2024. It runs alongside two other pillars that use qualitative methods to examine eco-social security at the German national level (Pillar A) and at the level of global discourse (Pillar C). Over the first 1.5 years of my PhD, I’ve been exploring the complexities of quantitative comparative research and the challenges of constructing an international dataset. In this blog post, I will share the process of developing this dataset and reflect on some key methodological and practical challenges that my team and I have encountered.

What is the Research about

The core aim of SoSiKri Pillar B is to construct an international dataset of national social security programmes that respond to ecological crises. We refer to these as “eco-social security” programmes—a concept that is still underdeveloped in current research (read our previous blogpost and listen to our podcast on eco-social security for more information). Our goal is to collect and analyse empirical material, particularly from the Global South, to better understand how national social security systems adapt or are reformed in the face of ecological crises—a global challenge affecting societies across the world.

How do We Build an International Dataset

Constructing such a dataset requires careful planning and constant reflection. To make sure that the whole process is systematic—as the first guarantee of the reliability of research results—our work has been informed by the following guidelines:

Firstly, we have developed criteria for identifying relevant programmes by combining theoretical and empirical approaches. This involved a literature review and preliminary data collection in selected African and Latin American countries, where ecological crises and climate change are increasingly integrated into social protection policy design, often in less established social security systems with stronger external influence compared to other regions in the world. These contexts provide more informative and representative cases for the dataset. Building on this, the SoSiKri project co-authored a conceptual paper. This working paper clarifies the concept of “eco-social security”, which builds a theoretical groundwork for the dataset construction and the following empirical research. Based on the newly established conceptual work and early empirical examples, three criteria are developed for identifying eco-social security, focusing on the integration of ecological concerns into policy purposes, target groups and policy mechanisms. These criteria help to ensure that only relevant programmes are included in the dataset.

Secondly, a comprehensive and flexible dataset framework, which covers diverse national contexts and allows for quantitative comparison, is needed. Drawing on existing international social security datasets (e.g., CWEP, SAMIP, FlOORCASH) and building on our conceptual framework, with the data we have collected, I developed a structure for the dataset, which includes seven modules: basic information, domestic financing, external influence, ecological crises, social security benefits, implementation, and additional information. Each module contains specific variables—numerical, categorical or textual—to enable further quantitative analysis.

In the first year of the project, I focused on conceptual development and framework design. The project has now moved into the data collection phase, with the help of three student research assistants. We began with Africa and Latin America at the first stage, followed by Asia at a second stage. So far, we have identified around 70 eco-social security programmes in 37 African countries, 21 programmes in 12 Latin American countries, and 12 programmes in 7 Asian countries. The student research assistants have been locating and reviewing official documents from government ministries, international organisations, and, in some cases, grey literature. However, transforming this rich but diverse material into a standardised, quantitative dataset remains a complex task, and a lot of work is needed. During the last months, we have encountered several difficulties along the process of dataset construction.

Main Challenges

Quantitatively collecting national programmes from the Global South is challenging, mainly due to limited and uneven data availability. As eco-social security programmes have only emerged in recent years, there are no consistent formats for documentation. Many programmes are run or funded by multiple actors, therefore data is scattered across institutions. Information often overlaps across different programmes of a country, or different policy components exist within one overarching project, making it difficult to extract the exact data. The implementation across various levels involving multiple government agencies and international organisations adds further complexity. To address these issues, we rely primarily on official sources, such as government documents and reports from international organisations, to ensure the validity of data. But we also acknowledge that even these sources have limitations. Therefore, such cautiousness should be kept in mind throughout the entire process of data collection. Potential validity problems should be considered when conducting research based on the dataset as well, which means that critical reflection and cross-verification with theoretical insights and additional sources are still essential.

Another major challenge is data accessibility. In some countries, documents are not publicly available, and some ministries do not even have functioning websites. In other cases, materials are only available in local languages. To mitigate these issues, we use translation tools, and team members with relevant language skills support data collection, particularly for some Latin American and Asian countries. In certain cases, we complement our data sources by drawing on reports from international organisations, research institutes, and where necessary, media sources. All the sources are documented carefully to allow for verification and cross-checking.

What Comes Next

In this year, I will continue the dataset construction with patience and critical, reflective awareness toward the whole process. Although it is a challenging task with a lot of work, we hope that this dataset will lay the groundwork for significant research to deepen our understanding of global responses to ecological crises. Ecological crises as a global issue affect almost all the countries in the world, yet traditional social security systems in many countries still have gaps in covering people who are vulnerable to ecological risks. Governments need to reconsider policy making in conditions of ecological crises. What is more, including countries from the Global South in our analysis is not only necessary but also urgent. These regions are often among the most vulnerable to ecological crises, yet they are underrepresented in welfare state and social policy research. By analysing national eco-social security programmes, we can gain new insights into welfare state development, governance, and policy changes. This international dataset can hopefully provide a comparative perspective to identify common patterns, differences, and emerging trends across countries and regions.

Eco-Social Policy and Our Understanding of Crises

Published on the 14th of April 2026

Crises are key moments in social, political, and economic life, often serving as catalysts for change. Scholars have long grappled with the nature of crises, seeking to define their contours, causes, and consequences. At its core, crisis can be understood as a disruptive event or process that challenges the stability of different systems, such as the social or ecological system, exposing structural vulnerabilities and forcing collective responses. Scholars also distinguish between different types of crises, for example, economic, political, ecological, and social crises, each with distinct triggers and dynamics. Economic crises, such as the 2008 financial crisis, are often rooted in systemic failures of markets and institutions. Political crises, for example the erosion of democratic norms or the rise of authoritarianism, reflect struggles over power and legitimacy. Ecological crises, however, such as climate change or biodiversity loss, arise from the unsustainable interaction between human societies and natural systems (IPCC 2023). Unlike routine disruptions, crises are characterised by their intensity, unpredictability and the potential for irreversible change, while their perception relies on different crisis elements, like urgency, temporality, or impact.

Analyses of crises show that these phenomena are not static, but dynamic. Crises unfold over time, with different phases like emergence, escalation, and resolution, and their impact varies by the specific nature of the crisis and the perceived urgency (Skade et al. 2025). For example, the temporal dimension (such as understanding climate change as a future problem) shapes how societies perceive and respond to crises, influencing resource allocation, public mobilisation, and windows of opportunity. Another critical aspect of crises is their impact. While the impact can be distinguished in different spheres as well (social, ecological, economic,…), it can be grasped by the degree to which a crisis disrupts existing institutions and norms of these respective spheres. Some crises are absorbed within existing frameworks, while others demand radical change.

Crises as Drivers of Eco-Social Policy

Eco-social policy, an emerging field at the intersection of environmental sustainability and social justice, is profoundly shaped by crises, because these public policies aim at the direct and indirect effects of ecological crises and emerging eco-social risks. In this context, crises can act as opportunities for eco-social policymaking. Crises expose the limitations of existing institutional structures, while creating openings for innovative, transformative policies. For example, as social implications of climate change become more and more severe, social security systems struggle to battle the effects of ecological crises (International Labour Organization 2024). Their institutional framework thus has to adapt to new eco-social risks in order to fulfil their legal purpose and maintain legitimacy, which results in the gradual incorporation of eco-social policy, such as heat mitigation or redistributive policies. As a result, the understanding of crises is inherently contested, as different actors, such as political parties, corporations, labour unions, or social movements, compete to define their causes and solutions.

Three elements characterise the relationship between crises and eco-social policy, driving their implementation: problem definition, policy windows, and change processes. First, crises redefine what is perceived as a problem. For example, increasing natural hazards open up debates on not only their environmental effects, but also the social effects of crises. Second, crises open windows of opportunity. These moments occur when political attention and resources are mobilised in the face of crises, enabling reforms. The European Green Deal, accelerated by the climate crisis and the economic fallout of COVID-19, exemplifies this dynamic. Third, crises can trigger change processes as existing systems prove inadequate. For example, the concept of a ‘Just Transition’, which seeks to combine environmental protection with social equity in the labour market, is often used as an ideal type of change process in response to climate change.

However, the impact of crises on eco-social policy is not automatic or uniform. The direction and scope of policy responses depends on the balance of power among different actors and the framing of crises. For instance, while the climate crisis has spurred some progressive policies, like the aforementioned European Green Deal, it has also been used to justify austerity measures and market-based solutions that exacerbate inequalities stemming from ecological crises. Thus, eco-social policy must navigate the tensions between crisis-driven urgency and the need for environmental and social sustainability.

Key Crisis Elements and Implications for Eco-Social Policy

Looking at a broader picture of crises, not all crises are equal. Comparing different types of crisis, like economic, ecological, and social, reveals recurring elements in their characteristics. While these elements may diverge between these different types of crisis, their interpretation is of utmost importance in the understanding of crises and policy responses. As such, the perception of urgency, temporality or impact, for example, distinctly shapes crises and policymaking (Capano et al. 2026). Thus, these elements have profound implications for eco-social policy in response to ecological crises.

The perception of urgency can mobilise political will, resources and public support, therefore enabling or restricting policymaking. While urgency relates to quick responses, eco-social policy must also ensure social and environmental equity, thus not only focusing on short-term solutions, but also on long-term sustainability. When urgency intensifies, like for example through repeated climate disasters, these crises can open windows of opportunity which not only allow for policy, but systemic change, making the perception of urgency an important element in shaping eco-social policy.

Perceiving temporality can relate to the pace and duration of a crisis, but also to the time of crisis effects and connected policymaking (Strassheim 2016). Economic crises, such as recessions, often unfold rapidly and demand immediate intervention, while ecological crises, like climate change, are comparatively slow but irreversible. This temporal mismatch complicates policy responses, as short-term economic objectives may conflict with long-term environmental goals.

As famously advocated by the IPCC (2023), the impact and perception of ecological crises is unevenly distributed. Ecological crises disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, exacerbate social inequalities, and pose new risks for societies. While some countries in the Global North may be less affected, the impact of climate change in the Global South is more often devastating. Eco-social policy should therefore not just span national, but also international contexts.

Building on this understanding of crises, eco-social policy must account for the unique urgency, temporalities and impacts of different crises, address their uneven impacts, and foster sustainable goals. The challenge lies in designing policies that are just, sustainable and at the same time responsive to immediate needs while laying the groundwork for a long-term transformation towards sustainable welfare.

References

Capano, Giliberto; Zittoun, Philippe; Profeti, Stefania (2026): The politics of governing crises: three types of policymaking under uncertainty, urgency, and threat. In: Policy and Society 45 (1), pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.1093/polsoc/puaf044.

International Labour Organization. (2024). World social protection report 2024–26: Universal social protection for climate action and a just transition. International Labour Organization.

IPCC (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 184 pp., DOI: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.

Skade, Lorenzo; Lehrer, Elisa; Hamdali, Yanis; Koch, Jochen (2025): The Temporality of Crisis and the Crisis of Temporality: On the Construction and Modulation of Urgency During Prolonged Crises. In: J Management Studies 62 (3), pp. 1087–1120. DOI: 10.1111/joms.13124.

Strassheim, Holger (2016): Knowing the Future: Theories of Time in Policy Analysis. In: European Policy Analysis 2 (1), pp. 150–167. DOI: 10.18278/epa.2.1.9.