Solidarity in Times of Pandemics

in Democratic Theory
View More View Less
  • 1 University of Vienna, Austria, and King's College London, UK barbara.prainsack@univie.ac.at

Abstract

This short article discusses how the COVID-19 crisis has affected solidarity. It starts by defining solidarity in such a way that it can be distinguished from other types of support and pro-social practice, and by arguing that solidarity can manifest itself at three different levels: at the inter-personal level, the group level, or at the level of legal and contractual norms. Drawing upon findings from two ongoing studies on personal and societal effects of the COVID-19 crisis, I then go on to argue that, while forms of inter-personal solidarity have been shifting even during the first weeks and months of the crisis, the importance of institutionalized solidarity is becoming increasingly apparent. The most resilient societies in times of COVID-19 have not been those with the best medical technology or the strictest pandemic containment measures, but those with good public infrastructures and other solidaristic institutions.

In mid-January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. At that time, few people in other parts of the world felt that it could concern them directly; many thought they would be safe as long as they did not travel to China.1 A few weeks later, a large part of the world had gone into a collective lockdown: Most countries had adopted pandemic containment measures, and many were restricting the movement of its citizens, closing businesses, childcare facilities, and schools.

Amid these difficult times, politicians and public and social media highlighted a note of hope: People really look out for each other, we heard. We saw signs posted in virtual and physical spaces by people offering their help to strangers. Even representatives of the United Nations remarked on the “spreading” of solidarity “among people everywhere” (UN 2020). But is what we have been seeing really solidarity? And how does the supposed surge in solidarity sit with the closure of national borders, people's reluctance to pool protective equipment or crisis funds with other countries, or politicians pitching the plight of refugees against the suffering of people affected by COVID-19?

What is Solidarity?

Let me first turn to what solidarity is. In scholarship and public discourse alike, the concept is used with different meanings, to support various—and sometimes even diametrically opposed—goals. Solidarity has been used to justify universal health coverage as well as the opposite, namely the exclusion of people from coverage because they had “chosen” unhealthy lifestyles (see Trappenburg 2008). It has been used to describe the ideational essence of the European Monetary Union (Schelkle 2017) and as an argument against debt mutualization (Varoufakis 2020). What virtually all conceptualizations of solidarity have in common, however, is that they signify pro-social phenomena that make groups or societies more cohesive. Most conceptualizations of solidarity have three things in common: First, they refer to some kind of support, to people standing up with, besides, or for each other (e.g., Dawson and Jennings 2012; Brunkhorst 2005). Second, the people who provide support have something in common with those who receive the support: a shared goal, a common characteristic, or a common threat. Despite the many ways in which actors may be different, within solidarity, it is the similarities, and not the differences, that give rise to action (Prainsack and Buyx 2011, 2017). Third, solidarity is not an isolated, one-off, interaction, but it is part of a social or political fabric, of social and political institutions. As such, it requires some level of (indirect) reciprocity (e.g., Sternø 2005; Molm et al. 2007); it is stronger when the people who contribute to solidaristic arrangements in the present know that someone will have their back when they need support sometime in the future. Jürgen Habermas’ famous description of solidarity as “the other side of justice” captures the nature of solidarity as the “glue” between the bricks that make the architecture of our political and social institutions (Habermas 1984, 1986; see also Scholz 2008). Within this architecture, solidarity is that which cannot be prescribed, but what people do on their own initiative and will.

We believe that solidarity is best defined as a practice that expresses the willingness to support others with whom we recognize similarity in a relevant respect (Prainsack and Buyx 2011, 2017). The “relevant respect” is determined by the specific situations within which solidarity takes place. In a context of discrimination at the workplace, for example, I may recognize similarity with someone who experiences such discrimination if I—or somebody close to me—have had similar experiences myself. If I donate a kidney to someone then this may be because someone in my family or among my friends has kidney disease or has needed an organ. Thus, the recognition of similarity in a relevant respect is an active process of seeing in others what I know of myself. It is not the mere recognition of essentialist, or even nativist, characteristics such as gender or race (see also Appiah 1993), but it pertains to situations where commonalities that people have learned to recognize give rise to action in a specific context. If I had learned to see people with a different religion, gender, or political values as “the other,” then it would be harder for me to see myself in these others than if I had been socialized to focus on what people have in common. In sum, solidarity is characterized by symmetry between people in the moment of enacting mutual support. This symmetry is not an ontological statement about the configuration of our societies that neglects differences and structural inequalities. Rather than eliminating differences between people, the similarities just weigh more heavily than the differences in that moment.

This definition makes it possible to distinguish solidarity from other types of support or pro-social practice, such as empathy, charity, or love. Solidarity is different from empathy because it requires some outer expression; merely feeling a connection—or sympathy with—someone else is not sufficient for solidarity to exist. Solidarity is different from charity in that it expresses itself as a fellowship of people who have something important in common: that they all share a joined human vulnerability in the face of crisis, or in that they fight for the same cause. Whereas charity could emerge from a moral or religious duty on the side of those who are rich to give to the poor because they are different, within solidarity, support emerges across all societal and economic differences due to the things people have in common. Finally, solidarity is different from support between lovers, friends, or within families, because what binds them together are much thicker bonds than the recognition of similarities in a relevant respect. Solidarity is subsidiary to these thicker bonds: it is particularly pertinent to situations where no other ties exist to bind people together.

Solidarity can manifest itself at various levels, at the inter-personal level, group-level, and at the level of formal institutions and norms. When solidarity is enacted at the individual level, from person-to-person, we can speak of “tier 1 solidarity.” When actions of mutual support become so common that they turn into “normal,” expected behavior in some groups, we see an instance of “tier 2 solidarity.” When solidarity express itself in legal, administrative, and bureaucratic norms, regulations and designs, we call it “tier 3 solidarity.” Tier 3 solidarity typically happens when individual and group-level practices have solidified into “harder,” more structural, forms of solidarity (Prainsack and Buyx 2017).

In what follows, I will reflect on the effects that the COVID-19 crisis has on solidarity. These reflections draw upon two collaborative empirical studies that I have been involved in: The first is the Austrian Corona Panel Project, an online panel survey representative of the population living in Austira that we have carried out weekly since the beginning of the crisis (Austrian Corona Panel Project 2020). The second is a qualitative, interview-based study of how the COVID-19 crisis affects people in nine European countries (SolPan 2020). Our findings to date show that, while some forms of inter-personal solidarity are shifting as the crisis continues, the importance of institutional solidarity is receiving more prominence.

Solidarity in Light of Pandemics

There is only very little conceptual work on solidarity during pandemics. This is despite the fact that pandemics raise questions about solidarity at several levels: at the level of people providing support to others; at the level of relationships between people and state actors, as the latter may intrude into spheres of individual freedom and decision making for the sake of avoiding or mitigating societal harm; and at the level of relationships between countries (and between other global actors). The global dimension has been discussed in the context of debates on global public health, and global bioethics (e.g., Pang 2016; De Grandis and Littmann 2011).

Almost a decade before the COVID-19 pandemic, in a report for Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Alena Buyx and I argued that the relationship between solidarity and pandemics is more complicated than often thought: we cannot and should not presume, we posited, that pandemics automatically foster solidarity (Prainsack and Buyx 2011). The general assumption is that once people recognize others as similar to themselves in a relevant respect, say in the context of healthcare, solidarity emerges. You and I, for example, have in common that we will have been, or will be, ill at some points in our lives, and that we have needed and likely will need healthcare. In a pandemic, it is more difficult to see such commonalities across the entire population. There are many reasons for this. One obvious reason is the timespan, which is condensed during a pandemic—even a long one such as COVID-19. This makes it difficult for people to assume that if they support others now, these others will support them later. Moreover, even if a pandemic lasts for a few years, the immediate (high or low) risk group that people consider themselves as belonging to is much more prominent and tangible in their lives than a generalized, life-long human vulnerability that may become manifest in 5, 15, or 30 years. In other words, it is much more difficult to recognize similarities with others, and make them the basis of our actions, within the relatively short time span of a pandemic than is the case in the long duration of a life. The dominant political discourse that emphasizes differences between people further contributes to the difficulty of seeing similarities: it hinders the prospects of solidarity with others by suggesting that it is these others—the obese, the jobless, the foreigners—who are to blame for my trouble.

Back in 2011, in our report for the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (Prainsack and Buyx 2011), we argued that because the costs of containing pandemics are carried not only by a sub-group but by the entire population, and because pandemics come about in a relatively short period of time where people have very different risks and stakes, the possibilities of mobilizing solidarity to support public health measures are limited. In particular, we argued that state-enforced measures of public health—as legitimate and useful as they may be—should not, a priori, be justified with reference to solidarity. Such measures need a different kind of justification, for example the duty of the state to protect vulnerable groups in a stewardship state model (e.g., Saltman and Ferroussier-Davis 2000). If governments and public authorities call upon people to do something costly—such as staying at home, home-schooling their children, or accepting losses of income or even their jobs for the sake of protecting a few—we argued, this is likely to raise resistance in the population. The timespan is not sufficiently long for people to move through different stages of capability and need, which would facilitate the recognition of similarities with different groups of people. And it is not long enough for indirect reciprocity to materialize, which often facilitates people's willingness to support others.

Little did we know in 2011 that we would see this process unfolding before our own eyes. In my own country of residence, Austria, at the beginning of the crisis, news media were drunk with celebrations of solidarity. Television stations featured students who went shopping for their elderly neighbors, and people helping total strangers. Very soon, however, the atmosphere started to shift. “Us” vs. “them” rhetoric became stronger. “Why should I stay at home when I see old people jogging in the street?” participants in our interview study wondered (SolPan 2020). Data from a second study, an onine panel survey of a representative sample of the Austrian population (Austrian Corona Panel Project 2020), mirrored the trend that we observed in the qualitative data: over time, some forms of solidarity were waning. By mid-April, fewer people said they felt mutual support among the population than only a few weeks earlier (although we continue to find that those who consider their personal health risk to be low leave the house just as little or just as much as those who consider their personal risk to be high). Moreover, Austrians were not particularly solidaristic with citizens in other European countries: A majority rejected the idea that Austria should pay higher contributions to help other EU-countries through the COVID-19 crisis. Forty percent believed that Austria should be allowed to forbid the export of essential goods such as food, drugs, and protective equipment—while only 25 percent believe that other countries should be allowed to do the same (Austrian Corona Panel Project 2020; Partheymüller et al. 2020; Prainsack et al. 2020b). And when asked for their views about various scenarios of European-wide crisis support, not one scenario found wide support among our respondents.2

At the time of writing this piece, the crisis is not over, and it is too early to draw any firm conclusions. One insight from our qualitative study so far is that the strong government rhetoric about “risk groups” in the early phases of the pandemic seems to have enhanced the perception of differences between groups, and fueled animosities, rather than creating enabling conditions for solidarity to flourish. From that perspective, it may have been wiser to justify the closure of schools, businesses, and the restrictions on movement by emphasizing our shared vulnerability as humans, rather than single out specific groups as at-risk people that we need to make sacrifices for. I am concerned that what we saw happening to refugees in Europe in 2015 will repeat itself in times of COVID-19: after an initial surge of solidarity, where people in receiving countries related to newcomers through a shared collective memory of war and conflict, refugees started to be seen as “the other”: Muslims, violent men, welfare scroungers (e.g., Liebe et al. 2018; Vollmer and Karakayali 2018).

Support Solidified: Solidarity in and by Institutions

Solidarity at person-to-person level, in the form of people supporting others whom they recognize as similar to themselves has been found to be fragile during this crisis. But something else, something perhaps even more important, is going on as well: Even within the first month, the crisis had made Austria more unequal (for a summary, see Prainsack et al. 2020a). Those with lower levels of formal education have been hit harder by job losses, and those who had little money before the crisis had even less during it. Adults living with children faced more conflicts than before the crisis, and while life satisfaction decreased for everyone, that of women decreased the most (see also Austrian Corona Panel Project 2020; Haindorfer 2020). Findings from other countries point toward the same trend: not only the Corona virus, but also poverty and austerity has contributed to illness and death (e.g., Ahmed et al. 2020; Montacute 2020; van Dorn et al. 2020).

At least in this respect, the lessons are clear. Person-to-person solidarity is important, but focusing only on solidarity at this level risks ignoring more important systemic and structural factors. We need to address the causes of inequality and strengthen solidaristic institutions. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic it has become abundantly clear that in countries where social security instruments and collective bargaining exists, more people are buffered from the worst effects of the crisis, and more will get through the crisis without losing their homes, incomes, and trust in government. Countries with properly funded, accessible, non-profit healthcare are faring better than those that do not. Amid all the talk and excitement around learning healthcare systems and resilient societies in recent years and decades, what the COVID-19 crisis has taught us so far is that the most resilient societies are not those that have the best technologies or most obedient citizens. It is those that have solidaristic institutions.

Conclusion

Pandemics do not automatically increase or decrease solidarity; the relationship between the two is complex in the deep sense of the word. Inter-personal and group-level solidarity is dependent on many factors including the existence of institutions that give people the economic and mental ability to support others rather than fending only for themselves, and on public and political discourse, which can foster solidarity by foregrounding shared stakes and commitments, or do the opposite, by playing out different groups in society against each other. Going forward, rather than only celebrating solidarity where we see it happen, we need to build institutions and circumstances that can make solidarity stable and lasting. These include strong and well-funded public infrastructures (Wagenaar & Prainsack 2020), solidaristic healthcare, and an equitable distribution of tax burdens. Such solidaristic institutions, in turn, also increase the resilience of societies in times of crisis.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to my colleagues within the Solidarity in times of Pandemics (SolPan) and the Austrian Corona Panel Project (ACPP) for inspiring discussions on various aspects discussed in this piece, and to Selen A. Ercan, Jean-Paul Gagnon, and Hendrik Wagenaar for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The usual disclaimer applies.

Notes
1

These statements draw upon preliminary findings from a multinational qualitative study on how the COVID-19 crisis affects people in nine European countries; see SolPan 2020.

2

A general increase in member state's contributions to the EU and common debt mechanisms found the lowest levels of support, while a joint credit fund, and voluntary in-kind donations, were more popular. For an overview, see Kalleitner and Bobzien 2020.

References

  • Ahmed, F., N. E. Ahmed, C. Pissarides, and J. Stiglitz, J. 2020. “Why Inequality Could Spread COVID-19.” The Lancet Public Health 5 (5): e240.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Appiah, A., 1993. In My Father's House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Austrian Corona Panel Project. 2020. Austrian Corona Panel Data. Vienna: University of Vienna. https://viecer.univie.ac.at/coronapanel/austrian-corona-panel-data/method-report/ (accessed May 20, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • Brunkhorst, H. 2005. Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Dawson, A., and B. Jennings. 2012. “The Place of Solidarity in Public Health Ethics.” Public Health Reviews 34 (1): 4.

  • De Grandis, G., and Littmann, J. 2011. Pandemics: Background Paper in the context of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Forward Look. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Pandemics_background_paper.pdf (accessed May 25, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • van Dorn, A., R. E. Cooney, and M. L. Sabin. 2020. “COVID-19 Exacerbating Inequalities in the US.” The Lancet 395 (10232): 12431244.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of Communicative Action Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

  • Habermas, J. 1986. “Gerechtigkeit und Solidarität.” In Zur Bestimmung der Moral, eds W. Edelstein, and G. Nunner-Winkler, 1164. Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp (in German).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haindorfer, R. 2020. “Corona macht unzufrieden! Frauen aktuell mit ihrem Leben unzufriedener als Männer.” CoronaBlog. https://viecer.univie.ac.at/corona-blog/corona-blog-beitraege/blog16/ (accessed May 2, 2020) (in German).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalleitner, F., and L. Bobzien. 2020. “Europäische Solidarität während der COVID-19-Pandemie? Die öffentliche Meinung zur europäischen Krisenfinanzierung.” https://viecer.univie.ac.at/corona-blog/corona-blog-beitraege/blog46/ (accessed May 31, 2020) (in German).

    • Export Citation
  • Liebe, U., J. Meyerhoff, M. Kroesen, C. Chorus, and K. Glenk. 2018. From Welcome Culture to Welcome Limits? Uncovering Preference Changes over Time for Sheltering Refugees in Germany. PloS one 13 (8).

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Molm, L., J. L Collett, and D. R. Schaefer. 2007. “Building Solidarity through Generalized Exchange: A Theory of Reciprocity.” American Journal of Sociology 113 (1): 205242.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Montacute, R. 2020. Social Mobility and Covid-19: Implications Of The Covid-19 Crisis for Educational Inequality. London: The Sutton Trust. Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/35323/2/COVID-19-and-Social-Mobility-1.pdf (accessed May 28, 2020).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pang, T. 2016. “Is the Global Health Community Prepared for Future Pandemics? A Need for Solidarity, Resources and Strong Governance.” EMBO Molecular Medicine 8 (6), 587588.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Partheymüller, J., M. Angelova, and N. Büttner. 2020. “Nationale oder europäische Lösungen?CoronaBlog. https://viecer.univie.ac.at/corona-blog/corona-blog-beitraege/blog17/ (accessed May 3, 2020) (in German).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prainsack, B, and A. Buyx. 2011. Solidarity as an Emerging Concept in Bioethics. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

  • Prainsack, B, and A. Buyx. 2017. Solidarity in Biomedicine and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Prainsack, B., B. Kittel, S. Kritzinger, and H. Boomgaarden. 2020a. “COVID-19 Affects Us All—Unequally.” Medium (April 14, 2020): https://medium.com/@bprainsack/covid-19-affects-us-all-unequally-lessons-from-austria-faf8398fddc1 (accessed May 3, 2020).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prainsack, B., B. Kittel, S. Kritzinger, and H. Boomgaarden. 2020b. “From Acute Crisis to Long-Term Coping?Medium (April 14, 2020): https://medium.com/@bprainsack/from-acute-crisis-to-long-term-coping-b36d0cefd0ef (accessed May 3, 2020).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saltman, R. B., and O. Ferroussier-Davis. 2000. “The Concept of Stewardship in Health Policy.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78: 732739.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schelkle, W. 2017. The Political Economy of Monetary Solidarity: Understanding the Euro Experiment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scholz, S. J. (2008). Political Solidarity. Penn State Press.

  • Solidarity in times of Pandemics (SolPan). 2020. “What is SolPan?.” https://digigov.univie.ac.at/solidarity-in-times-of-a-pandemic-solpan/solpan/ (accessed August 10, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • Sternø, S. 2005. Solidarity in Europe. The History of an Idea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Trappenburg, M. 2000. “Lifestyle Solidarity in the Healthcare System.” Health Care Analysis 8 (1), 6575.

  • United Nations (UN. 2020. “Acts of Kindness Spread Amid COVID-19 Outbreak as UN Acts to Counter Threat.” www.un.org/en/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/acts-solidarity-spread-amid-covid-19-outbreak-un-continues-counter (accessed May 3, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • Varoufakis, Y. 2020. “Solidarity is Not What Europe Needs. Project Syndicate.” (April 20). www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/eurobonds-must-be-based-on-self-interest-not-solidarity-by-yanis-varoufakis-2020-04 (accessed April 28, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • Vollmer, B., and S. Karakayali. 2018. “The Volatility of the Discourse on Refugees in Germany.” Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 16 (1–2):118139.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wagenaar, H., and B. Prainsack. 2020. “The New Normal: The World after COVID-19. A Blog in Four Parts.” https://medium.com/@hendrik.wagenaar/the-new-normal-the-world-after-covid-19-201189e22545 (accessed May 31, 2020).

    • Export Citation

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Contributor Notes

Barbara Prainsack is a professor and director at the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Solidarity (CeSCoS), Department of Political Science, University of Vienna and a professor at the Department of Global Health & Social Medicine at King's College London. Her work explores the social, ethical, and regulatory dimensions of genetic and data-driven practices and technologies in biomedicine and forensics. Barbara is currently a member of the National Bioethics Commission in Austria, and a member of the European Group on Ethics of Science and New Technologies advising the European Commission. Her latest books are: Personalized Medicine: Empowered Patients in the 21st Century? (New York University Press, 2017), and Solidarity in Biomedicine and Beyond (with A. Buyx, Cambridge University Press, 2016). E-mail: barbara.prainsack@univie.ac.at

Democratic Theory

An Interdisciplinary Journal

  • Ahmed, F., N. E. Ahmed, C. Pissarides, and J. Stiglitz, J. 2020. “Why Inequality Could Spread COVID-19.” The Lancet Public Health 5 (5): e240.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Appiah, A., 1993. In My Father's House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Austrian Corona Panel Project. 2020. Austrian Corona Panel Data. Vienna: University of Vienna. https://viecer.univie.ac.at/coronapanel/austrian-corona-panel-data/method-report/ (accessed May 20, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • Brunkhorst, H. 2005. Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Dawson, A., and B. Jennings. 2012. “The Place of Solidarity in Public Health Ethics.” Public Health Reviews 34 (1): 4.

  • De Grandis, G., and Littmann, J. 2011. Pandemics: Background Paper in the context of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Forward Look. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Pandemics_background_paper.pdf (accessed May 25, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • van Dorn, A., R. E. Cooney, and M. L. Sabin. 2020. “COVID-19 Exacerbating Inequalities in the US.” The Lancet 395 (10232): 12431244.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of Communicative Action Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

  • Habermas, J. 1986. “Gerechtigkeit und Solidarität.” In Zur Bestimmung der Moral, eds W. Edelstein, and G. Nunner-Winkler, 1164. Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp (in German).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haindorfer, R. 2020. “Corona macht unzufrieden! Frauen aktuell mit ihrem Leben unzufriedener als Männer.” CoronaBlog. https://viecer.univie.ac.at/corona-blog/corona-blog-beitraege/blog16/ (accessed May 2, 2020) (in German).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalleitner, F., and L. Bobzien. 2020. “Europäische Solidarität während der COVID-19-Pandemie? Die öffentliche Meinung zur europäischen Krisenfinanzierung.” https://viecer.univie.ac.at/corona-blog/corona-blog-beitraege/blog46/ (accessed May 31, 2020) (in German).

    • Export Citation
  • Liebe, U., J. Meyerhoff, M. Kroesen, C. Chorus, and K. Glenk. 2018. From Welcome Culture to Welcome Limits? Uncovering Preference Changes over Time for Sheltering Refugees in Germany. PloS one 13 (8).

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Molm, L., J. L Collett, and D. R. Schaefer. 2007. “Building Solidarity through Generalized Exchange: A Theory of Reciprocity.” American Journal of Sociology 113 (1): 205242.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Montacute, R. 2020. Social Mobility and Covid-19: Implications Of The Covid-19 Crisis for Educational Inequality. London: The Sutton Trust. Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/35323/2/COVID-19-and-Social-Mobility-1.pdf (accessed May 28, 2020).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pang, T. 2016. “Is the Global Health Community Prepared for Future Pandemics? A Need for Solidarity, Resources and Strong Governance.” EMBO Molecular Medicine 8 (6), 587588.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Partheymüller, J., M. Angelova, and N. Büttner. 2020. “Nationale oder europäische Lösungen?CoronaBlog. https://viecer.univie.ac.at/corona-blog/corona-blog-beitraege/blog17/ (accessed May 3, 2020) (in German).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prainsack, B, and A. Buyx. 2011. Solidarity as an Emerging Concept in Bioethics. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

  • Prainsack, B, and A. Buyx. 2017. Solidarity in Biomedicine and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Prainsack, B., B. Kittel, S. Kritzinger, and H. Boomgaarden. 2020a. “COVID-19 Affects Us All—Unequally.” Medium (April 14, 2020): https://medium.com/@bprainsack/covid-19-affects-us-all-unequally-lessons-from-austria-faf8398fddc1 (accessed May 3, 2020).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prainsack, B., B. Kittel, S. Kritzinger, and H. Boomgaarden. 2020b. “From Acute Crisis to Long-Term Coping?Medium (April 14, 2020): https://medium.com/@bprainsack/from-acute-crisis-to-long-term-coping-b36d0cefd0ef (accessed May 3, 2020).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saltman, R. B., and O. Ferroussier-Davis. 2000. “The Concept of Stewardship in Health Policy.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78: 732739.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schelkle, W. 2017. The Political Economy of Monetary Solidarity: Understanding the Euro Experiment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scholz, S. J. (2008). Political Solidarity. Penn State Press.

  • Solidarity in times of Pandemics (SolPan). 2020. “What is SolPan?.” https://digigov.univie.ac.at/solidarity-in-times-of-a-pandemic-solpan/solpan/ (accessed August 10, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • Sternø, S. 2005. Solidarity in Europe. The History of an Idea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Trappenburg, M. 2000. “Lifestyle Solidarity in the Healthcare System.” Health Care Analysis 8 (1), 6575.

  • United Nations (UN. 2020. “Acts of Kindness Spread Amid COVID-19 Outbreak as UN Acts to Counter Threat.” www.un.org/en/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/acts-solidarity-spread-amid-covid-19-outbreak-un-continues-counter (accessed May 3, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • Varoufakis, Y. 2020. “Solidarity is Not What Europe Needs. Project Syndicate.” (April 20). www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/eurobonds-must-be-based-on-self-interest-not-solidarity-by-yanis-varoufakis-2020-04 (accessed April 28, 2020).

    • Export Citation
  • Vollmer, B., and S. Karakayali. 2018. “The Volatility of the Discourse on Refugees in Germany.” Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 16 (1–2):118139.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wagenaar, H., and B. Prainsack. 2020. “The New Normal: The World after COVID-19. A Blog in Four Parts.” https://medium.com/@hendrik.wagenaar/the-new-normal-the-world-after-covid-19-201189e22545 (accessed May 31, 2020).

    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 586 586 128
PDF Downloads 402 402 56