Portugal has been confronted with a succession of crises in recent years. This article explores the differences in the way that, in Portugal, the welfare regime tackled the Great Recession context (financial, euro, sovereign debt, structural adjustment crises) and COVID-19 crisis through very different policy responses. The fact that the governments in office acted differently when faced with realities that were close in time but very distinct, generates a paired comparative scenario, without forgetting the interim period. Supported by a plural methodological approach that gathers information from various sources, the outcomes reveal important aspects about the policy direction of changes and in terms of socio-economic indicators. First, policy responses have followed three dynamics in tension: Retrenchment, Mitigation, and Expansion. Second, the policies make a difference, producing distinct outcomes in terms of socioeconomic indicators (unemployment, inequality, poverty). Third, the responses to crises induced more “radical” measures (towards Retrenchment or Expansion), which are not consistent with interim situations. Finally, while the austeritarian response was part of the government in office's program, this was not the case during the pandemic, when the response was involuntary and unprogrammed. This means that, in being a provisional and dated response, there is a high risk that in the near future there will be a resumption of Mitigation or even Retrenchment policies.

--

Crises,Employment measures,Social policy,Vulnerabilities,Welfare regimes

• Psychology - Social Sciences
• Sociology - Social Sciences
• Political Science - Social Sciences