In this chapter, I look briefly at the impact of COVID-19 in the context of welfare and at the effect this has had on lived experiences and on the ‘doing’ of welfare in the public consciousness. Writing this chapter is a tricky task as the situation remains very much live and therefore what is written here will inevitably age quickly. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the onset of the pandemic saw the idea of welfare and the role of welfare states come into sharp focus virtually overnight. In the face of the global developments arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, the social contract was rapidly rewritten, and the social safety net rapidly expanded as emergency welfare payments were rolled out across jurisdictions (Hick and Murphy, 2021). In terms of what was offered in the context of welfare and particularly with respect to unemployment supports, I focus, in the main, on the Irish example. However, for context and to give a sense of the global picture, I offer some detail of the responses seen across jurisdictions. It should also be noted that responses across jurisdictions, in general, contained a range of measures, including wage subsidy schemes and supports for the self-employed. However, I focus on what would be generally constituted as ‘out-of-work’ or unemployment support benefits and so, in the Irish case, this means focusing on the Pandemic Unemployment Payment, commonly referred to as the PUP. First, however, to get a sense of what the welfare response has been internationally, Table 8.1 (adapted from Institute for Government [UK], 2021) provides an overview across nine countries.

In general, this table suggests that responses, in the main, have reflected the particular and embedded welfare logic of the countries involved in terms of how the various schemes have been administered and the level of support offered. Sweden, for example, falls back on a social insurance model and ties this to eligibility. Denmark, Germany and France all offered support based on previous earnings. The US operationalises the language of ‘through no fault of their own’ in terms of eligibility, which at once reflects a liberal welfare heritage and perceived degrees of deservingness.