Essential, but Unprotected: How Have Informal Workers Navigated the Health Risks of the Pandemic?

Between February and June 2020: 1.Informal workers have delivered essential services throughout the pandemic, which directly exposed them to physical and mental health risks and threatened their welfare. 2. Despite the essential nature of their work, informal workers have been largely unprotected, with the costs of sourcing personal protective equipment (PPE) and accessing clean water and sanitation borne by workers themselves. 3. Health-related mutual aid and solidarity provided by membership-based organizations of informal workers to worker communities have proven vital in the absence of governmental support. 4.The onset of the pandemic necessitated an increased awareness of occupational health and safety among informal workers, which may have long-term benefits

Recognition, Responsiveness and Reciprocity: What Informal Worker Leaders Expect from the State, the Private Sector and Themselves

More than a year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence continues to accumulate that its economic impact has disproportionately hit vulnerable populations (OECD 2020). In the world of work, the most severe impact has been felt by workers who lack income security, contracts and access to basic protections, all of which are prevalent conditions in the informal economy. According to estimates compiled by the ILO (2020), workers globally lost $3.5 trillion during the first three-quarters of 2020 as a result of the pandemic, and workers in informal employment—particularly women (Azcona et al. 2020, Lakshmi Ratan et al. 2020)—have been especially vulnerable to income loss and poverty during the crisis

Why COVID-19 recovery must be gender-responsive

This summary highlights key learning from research from the Covid-19 Responses for Equity (CORE) initiative focusing on the impact the pandemic is having across different vulnerable groups and how gender intersects and often exacerbates these effects. Supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), CORE brings together 21 projects to understand the socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic, improve existing responses, and generate better policy options for recovery. The research is being led primarily by local researchers, universities, thinktanks and civil society organisations across 42 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East

Pourquoi la reprise après la Covid-19 doit être sexospécifique

This summary highlights key learning from research from the Covid-19 Responses for Equity (CORE) initiative focusing on the impact the pandemic is having across different vulnerable groups and how gender intersects and often exacerbates these effects. Supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), CORE brings together 21 projects to understand the socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic, improve existing responses, and generate better policy options for recovery. The research is being led primarily by local researchers, universities, thinktanks and civil society organisations across 42 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.Cette synthèse met en évidence les principaux enseignements tirés de la recherche menée dans le cadre de l’initiative Covid-19 Responses for Equity (CORE) axée sur l’impact de la pandémie sur différents groupes vulnérables et sur la façon dont le genre recoupe et exacerbe souvent ces conséquences. Soutenu par le Centre de recherches pour le développement international (CRDI), CORE réunit 21 projets visant à comprendre les impacts socio-économiques de la pandémie, améliorer les interventions existantes et générer de meilleures options stratégiques pour la reprise. La recherche est principalement dirigée par des chercheurs locaux, des universités, des groupes de réflexion et des organisations de la société civile dans 42 pays d’Afrique, d’Asie, d’Amérique latine et du Moyen-Orient.International Development Research Centr

People’s Agenda for Pandemic Preparedness

In May 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that Covid-19 is no longer a health emergency. Now that the world is in this new period of living with the coronavirus, it is an important time to gather knowledge gained from our experiences. Over 50 researchers from 25 countries across six continents have come together to share the key lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic, the policies to mitigate it, and the impacts of these policies. Several resounding lessons emerged from across the globe that seemed to be at the root of many of the issues raised, including: resolving systemic issues; ensuring the most vulnerable are supported; increasing community involvement, and taking pandemic innovations forward for the future

Além da racionalidade : em busca de um conceito mais amplo do processo deliberativo DOI:10.5007/2175-7984.2010v9n16p89

In light of the widening of contemporary struggles for recognition, within a context of greater visibility for new actors within public spaces, we have been able to identify the limitations of the liberal model of democracy which emphasizes, above all, legitimacy, power and rationality. This article proposes to take a look at the wide range of criticisms of deliberative democracy, particularly with regard to the use of rationality as the sole form of argumentation and action. Our critique of the use of rationality is anchored in Young’s (1990, 1997, 2001) and Hoggett and Thompson’s (2002) discussions. The incorporation of other forms of action and communicative patterns represents an attempt to make deliberative processes more inclusive, so that they may truly become sites of equality and emancipation. Keywords: Deliberative democracy, rationality, inclusion.Diante da ampliação das contemporâneas lutas pelo reconhecimento, em um contexto de maior visibilidade de novos atores nos espaços públicos, podem-se identificar as limitações do modelo liberal de democracia que enfatiza, sobretudo, a legitimidade, o poder e a racionalidade. Este artigo propõe-se a retomar as diversas críticas à democracia deliberativa, particularmente no que respeita ao uso da racionalidade como única forma deargumentação e de ação. A crítica ao uso da racionalidade será ancorada nas discussões feitas por Young (1990, 1997, 2001) e por Hoggett e Thompson (2002). A incorporação de outras formas de ação e padrões comunicativos assinala uma tentativa de possibilitar maior inclusão nos processos deliberativos para que eles se tornem espaços de igualdade e emancipação