COVID-19 & Globalization

Photo by Anna Shvets

The editorial commentary of One Health on COVID-19 and globalization in April 2020 flagged - “Nations everywhere must recognize that in this era of massive global exchange of persons and goods, leaving the outbreaks soring anywhere possess a risk everywhere.” This call resonated with eventual public health directives -- norms of social distancing measures were complemented by inter-country distancing in forms of - “global termination of travel mostly via national policy responses; attacks on global organisations such as the World Health Organization; the conflict between states over pharmaceutical tools and the support of medical research companies; and the de facto absence of leadership from international organisations like the European Union or G20 in response to this crisis.” (Zimmermann et al. 2020) The vitality of globalization processes can be traced to its desire for interconnectedness -- a double-edged sword when it comes to the spread of infectious diseases. On one hand, it can accelerate the spread of viruses -- thereby increasing morbidity and mortality at a breakneck speed. On the other hand, it can enable rapid dissemination of preventive measures, best practices and know-how, based on shared learning experiences. The globalization linkages with pandemic, as elicited in past records, is staggering. “Historically, pandemics have been observed throughout the history of human movement and communication. The bubonic plague caused by Yersinia pestis was transmitted from China to Europe through trade routes. Similarly, following the movement of armies in the first world war, the influenza pandemic of 1918 led to over 50 million deaths worldwide. More recently, the Asian flu of 1957 (influenza A H2N2) was reported in 20 countries and primarily spread via land and sea travel. The Hong Kong flu pandemic (influenza A H3N2) spread extensively through air travel.” (Shrestha et al. 2020) Given the attendant differences in risk exposure, structural resilience and healthcare competence within and between nations, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the globalization processes cannot be generalized across the spectrum. This piece is an attempt to trace the impact of COVID-19 on globalization -- focusing on the themes of human mobility, world economy and public health -- and to chart a way forward for a sustainable and sustained recovery.

Human mobility

According to the World Travel & Tourism Council’s Economic Impact Report 2020, travel and tourism sector’s contribution to global GDP dropped to USD 4.7 trillion in 2020 (5.5 percent of the global economy), from nearly USD 9.2 trillion the previous year (10.4 percent), due to travel restrictions and quarantine norms. More than 62 million jobs were lost, representing a drop of 18.5 percent, leaving just 272 million employed across the industry globally. Small and Medium Enterprises, which make up 80 percent of all businesses in the sector, were particularly affected. As one of the world’s most diverse sectors, the impact on women, youth and minorities was disproportionately high. (Outlook 2021) On the same vein, the Global Business Travel Association estimates that worldwide spending on commercial travel won’t recover to its pre-pandemic peak of USD 1.4 trillion until 2025. Some corporates have found this reversal acting in their favour - for they are able to cut costs using video conferencing tools and uphold pledges of carbon emission reduction. At large, the travel and tourism industry is bullish on the short term -- from expectations of pent-up demand for leisure trips -- subject to rollout and uptake of vaccines in a reasonable timeframe. (Bloomberg 2021) In another report, American Express Global Travel Trends Report 2021, concerning consumer sentiment insights towards travel nearly a year after the COVID-19 pandemic began, found out that the majority of respondents in India, 69 percent, are planning for one big international trip. (Financial Express 2021)

World economy

International trade in 2020,  nosedived about 9 percent, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. With trade in goods contracting by about 6 percent and trade in services contracting by about 16.5 percent. Economies of East Asia, particularly China, Taiwan and Vietnam, significantly increased their global market share during 2020 -- indicating that the impact of the pandemic was asymmetrical.  Global foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows plummeted by 42 percent in 2020 -- including investments directed to the Sustainable Development Goals. Greenfield investment projects (-35 percent) plunged more vis-a-vis cross-border mergers and acquisitions (-10 percent) and new international project finance deals (-2 percent). Notably, the pandemic aided acceleration of digital transformation of businesses. The share of e-commerce in global retail trade  surged from 14 percent in 2019 to about 17 percent in 2020. Other sectors such as teleworking, distance learning, online conferencing, gaming and digital entertainment also flourished. Considering the persistent digital divides between and within countries, it is safe to assume that the benefits of digital transformation are not balanced or inclusive. (UNCTAD 2021) The June 2020 Global Economic Prospects - a report by the World Bank estimated a 5.2 percent contraction in global GDP in 2020 using market exchange rate weights -- one of the most severe global recession in decades. It added that the pandemic will leave lasting scars -- through reduced investment, an attrition of human capital for loss of work and schooling, and disruption of global trade and supply chains. The January 2021 report revised the 2020 contraction to 4.3 percent and estimated 2021 growth rate at 4 percent.

Public health

The global nature of COVID-19 unveiled the chronic deficiencies of healthcare systems and subjected them to unprecedented stress tests around the world. Lack of preparedness and short supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers, hospital equipment, sanitizing supplies, toilet paper, and water -- stood out as major hurdles to combat the pandemic. (Kaye et al. 2020) Also, local mutations of viruses (such as the U.K., South Africa and Brazil variants) had significant implications for global health -- for the propensities of the viruses to transmit swiftly. In view of the dimensions of the problems, a globally coordinated, coherent and cohesive response was momentous -- which the World Health Organization through its relentless efforts ensured -- despite aspersions cast on its credibility by right-wing nationalists. Another defining initiative which is dawning at the moment is COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Facility (COVAX) - “a solution that would accelerate the development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as diagnostics and treatments, and guarantee rapid, fair and equitable access to them for people in all countries.” (Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance)  Furthermore, the pandemic has also reignited the debate to think through social and political determinants of health more sincerely in a bid to strengthen health governance across the board. To set the global health research and policy agenda, PLOS Special Collection on “Post pandemic: How will COVID-19 transform global health?” highlights the following critical themes -- “investments in better pandemic preparedness; more invigorated efforts to address structural and systemic inequities within the sustainable development framework and universal health care; enhancing resilience of our health care delivery systems; and achieving greater accountability for our actions as a threat to one poses a threat to all.” -- which can serve as goalposts for innovative and just policy formulations. (Reid et al. 2021)

Conclusion

The impact of COVID-19 on the globalization process is broad based -- it has manifested itself in almost every aspect of life and livelihood across geographies.  By far, the concerted efforts to alleviate the devastation caused by the pandemic from across quarters is inspiring. However, considerations for recovery options shall call for greater debate and deliberation -- for  they have wide ranging implications -- on society, polity and culture. For example, standardized health interventions can assume proportions of McDonaldization -- a disproportionate emphasis on efficiency, calculability, predictability and control. (Ritzer 1996) This approach is problematic as it can lead to health providers undervaluing sociocultural determinants of health, illness and wellbeing -- and health seekers taking a backseat. The pandemic and subsequent calls for Keynesian interventions has demonstrated that the neoliberal outlook towards public policy has questionable implications -- one of which is resilience of societies to withstand large-scale disruption. (Siddiqui 2020) Lack of resilience is particularly of grave concern for historically marginalized groups like women, children, disabled, migrants etc. -- as it accentuates their vulnerabilities and sufferings. In this backdrop, it is paramount for policymakers to think of ways to build societies based on the merits of community, ecology, feminism, solidarity and shared prosperity -- for a sustainable and sustained recovery. These attributes derive their strength from a higher moral ground -- but are often at loggerheads with notions of globalization fuelled by ruthless market forces. (Bapat 2000) In such a scenario -- given the fact that globalization is here to stay (Appadurai 2020) -- it is apposite to adopt a model of flexible developmental state as opposed to a bureaucratic one. A flexible developmental state is adept at building local networks around global capital and taking local innovation networks global -- with carefully crafted policies for enhancing capabilities of the society. As opposed to authoritarianism, it allows the possibility of distinct alternatives to be allowed, contested and evaluated in the public discourses. (Riain 2000) The heart of globalization rests in the fundamental values of good governance and mutual trust -- shaping temporal and spatial dimensions of lived experiences. Are these values impacted by COVID-19? Only time will tell.

References:

Mas-Coma, S., Jones, M. K., & Marty, A. M. (2020). COVID-19 and globalization. One Health, 9, 100132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100132

Zimmermann, K. F., Karabulut, G., Bilgin, M. H., & Doker, A. C. (2020). Inter‐country distancing, globalisation and the coronavirus pandemic. The World Economy, 43(6), 1484–1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12969

Shrestha, N., Shad, M. Y., Ulvi, O., Khan, M. H., Karamehic-Muratovic, A., Nguyen, U. S. D., Baghbanzadeh, M., Wardrup, R., Aghamohammadi, N., Cervantes, D., Nahiduzzaman, K. M., Zaki, R. A., & Haque, U. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on globalization. One Health, 11, 100180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100180

Staff. (2021). The World Travel & Tourism Council’s annual Economic Impact Report (EIR) reveals the full impact that COVID-19 had on the global travel and tourism sector last year. Outlook India. https://www.outlookindia.com/outlooktraveller/travelnews/story/71339/wttc-research-reveals-global-travel-tourism-sector-suffered-a-loss-of-almost-us45-trillion-in-2020-due-to-the-impact-of-covid-19

Tanzi, A. (2021). Business Trips Struggle to Recover in the Age of Zoom Video Meetings. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/not-so-frequent-flyers-business-travel-misses-out-on-recovery

Maji, P. (2021). Indians most interested in future travel: Report. The Financial Express. https://www.financialexpress.com/money/indians-most-interested-in-future-travel-report/2219325/

UNCTAD. (2021). Trade and investment under COVID-19 (UNCTAD/OSG/INF/2021/1). https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osginf2021d1_en.pdf

World Bank. (2020). Global Economic Prospects, June 2020. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects

World Bank. (2021). Global Economic Prospects, January 2021. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects

Kaye, A. D., Okeagu, C. N., Pham, A. D., Silva, R. A., Hurley, J. J., Arron, B. L., Sarfraz, N., Lee, H. N., Ghali, G., Gamble, J. W., Liu, H., Urman, R. D., & Cornett, E. M. (2020). Economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare facilities and systems: International perspectives. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2020.11.009

COVAX explained. (2021, January 21). Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covax-explained

Reid, M., Abdool-Karim, Q., Geng, E., & Goosby, E. (2021). How will COVID-19 transform global health post-pandemic? Defining research and investment opportunities and priorities. PLOS Medicine, 18(3), e1003564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003564

Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation Into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life (Revised ed.). Pine Forge Press.

Siddiqui, K. (2021). The Impact Of Covid-19 On The Global Economy. The World Financial Review. https://worldfinancialreview.com/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-global-economy/

Bapat, J. (2000). Globalisation, environmental protest, locality and modernity. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 34(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/006996670003400203

Appadurai, A. (2020). Coronavirus Won’t Kill Globalization. But It Will Look Different After the Pandemic. Time. https://time.com/5838751/globalization-coronavirus/

Riain, S. (2000). The Flexible Developmental State: Globalization, Information Technology, and the “Celtic Tiger.” Politics & Society, 28(2), 157–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329200028002002