Search

Begin New Search Topic Health Crisis Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 25 Years

1. The First COVID Wave: Comparing Experiences of Adults Age 50 and Older in the U.S. and Europe

Author:
Thomas Barnay and Eric Defebvre
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Commonwealth Fund
Abstract:
Three years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the United States remains one of the hardest-hit countries, with more than 1 million confirmed coronavirus deaths, of which more than 91 percent involved people 50 years and older.1 Beyond causing this enormous loss of life, the pandemic has had other significant adverse consequences, including hospitalizations, job loss, and delayed care for millions of Americans. In this brief, we examine how U.S. adults age 50 and older fared during the first wave of the pandemic in the summer of 2020, compared with their peers in European countries.
Topic:
Pandemic, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. A return to grace for nuclear power in European public opinion? Some elements of a rapid paradigm shift

Author:
Mathieu Brugidou and Jérémy Bouillet
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
The health crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic, and perhaps above all the war in Ukraine, together with increasingly outspoken Chinese and/or American interventionism, have largely contributed to "breaking European energy taboos"[1] towards more collective and coordinated approaches. This is undeniable in the field of energy: if certain mechanisms such as the general cap on gas prices have not been adopted, some measures, which were hard to imagine at European level until recently, have now been ratified, such as joint gas purchases, shared objectives for reducing energy demand, the obligation to store energy, etc.
Topic:
Public Opinion, Nuclear Power, COVID-19, Health Crisis, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe

3. Social Protection Reforms in the MENA Region: Possibilities and Challenges

Author:
Abdalhadi Alijla
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
IEMed/EuroMeSCo
Abstract:
The COVID-19 crisis that hit the world in 2020 revealed a huge gap in access to public services, equality and government responsiveness to the consequences of the pandemic. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the COVID-19 crisis showed the inadequacy of the public institutions and their abilities to protect the poor, and ensure that populations’ needs are met, especially informal workers, women, children and the elderly. The social protection systems in the MENA countries are relatively weak, facing challenges or disfunctions through many ad-hoc programmes, making it difficult to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. This is particularly observed in countries facing a pre- COVID-19 economic crisis, such as Lebanon. There is clear evidence that social protection systems have a positive impact on the lives of the population in times of crisis. They improve access to health and education, and increase economic security. Social protection systems work during times of crisis and times of stability, but they are strategic tools that show that states have the capacity to design and deploy policy tools to protect people. In divided societies, inequalities are usually wider and, therefore, a comprehensive social protection system with a high rate of coverage is needed. In this Policy Study, we present four chapters, examining the state-of-the-art of social protection systems in the MENA region, challenges, and potential opportunities that government, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and the European Union (EU) could take to assist in establishing comprehensive social protection systems. The COVID-19 crisis is an opportunity to learn and identify where the gaps are and what needs to be done by formal and informal institutions in the MENA region to reform and re-engineer their social protection systems with help from the EU and its institutions. COVID-19 arrived in the MENA region during an economic crisis in Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia, marked by huge inequalities, vulnerabilities with increasing poverty and low trust in governments and their performance. Lockdown, closure and physical distancing have also led to loss of jobs and income for millions of people, mainly informal workers, and businesses. The vulnerable groups who are already living in economic distress, such as informal workers, youth, women and the elderly, are the most affected parts of the population. They are the most vulnerable to loss of income and unemployment. This study highlights that MENA states lack comprehensive and effective social protection systems. In many MENA countries, ad-hoc programmes substitute a comprehensive social protection system. The study examines the rural-urban and socioeconomic group gaps in accessing services, such as health and education, and economic opportunities. It shows that the historic gap between urban-rural and socioeconomic groups' ability to access the same services and opportunities compared to other groups affected the ability of those groups to cope with the pandemic, exposing them to more vulnerability. The study examines the policy response of the MENA governments to the pandemic, namely in Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco – four countries that have been particularly challenged by COVID-19. It identifies several gaps and op- portunities to develop the social protection system. The study examines cash- based programmes, access to public health, informal workers, women’s protection, digitalisation of social protection systems, and education, to some extent. It focuses on youth, women, the elderly, disabled persons and children as the most vulnerable groups in the region. It identifies that coordination between formal in- stitutions and INGOs needs to be formalised, informal workers need to be included in the social protection system, women and the elderly should be prioritised, and informal social protection mechanisms could be supported through livelihood activities, but is not seen as a major part of any social protection mechanism. It finally highlights the need for digitalisation of reformed social protection systems or strategies.
Topic:
Governance, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, North Africa, and MENA

4. A Package of Reforms for Financing Pandemic Preparedness and Response for the G7

Author:
Amanda Glassman and Eleni Smitham
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
COVID-19 has shown the detrimental consequences of insufficient and fragmented financing for outbreak preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR). As the world seeks to recover from the current COVID-19 pandemic, and to mitigate recovery needs for future health crises, more must be done to accelerate global efforts to ensure rapid, adequate funding and governance for global health security, which has been under-resourced and under-prioritized. The rationale for reforming and replenishing the global health architecture to prepare for the next pandemic is clear: to protect health, human lives, and economic well-being.[1] Without dedicated and accelerated investment—in scaled up surveillance, strengthened national health systems, enhanced research and development of medical countermeasures, and more—we will continue to face more frequent and more complex epidemics and pandemics in the years ahead, and be less prepared to stop them.[2] Without the capacity to surge financing to respond at-scale to infectious disease outbreaks, we risk a repeat of the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Last July, the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP) on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, mandated by the Italian Presidency of the G20, released the report A Global Deal for Our Pandemic Age, laying out policies and investments needed to reduce vulnerabilities to future pandemics.[3] Likewise, in 2021, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response[4] described the shortcomings of the existing architecture and suggested similar policies for the future, including greater assessed contributions for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the need for dedicated financing to prevent and prepare for the next COVID-19 variant and pandemic risk. The Global Preparedness and Monitoring Board’s periodic reports went in this same direction[5] , as did earlier assessments following Ebola, SARS and MERS outbreaks though recommendations often went without implementation.[6] These reports and the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic itself have again made clear that existing mechanisms for financing pandemic preparedness and response are not fit-for-purpose, nor at the sufficient speed and scale needed to ensure global health security. Current financing for pandemic preparedness is small, fragmented, and concentrated in the health sector.[7] Different organizations across the global health and international financial institution architecture hold different comparative advantages in mobilizing and deploying monies and need to be fully financed to do what they are best suited to do. However, no institution (that is adequately funded, credible, and capable) is currently mandated to or accountable for ensuring pandemic preparedness, resulting in financing and accountability gaps, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where Global Health Security Action Plans too often go un-costed and unfunded.[8] Further, new regional organizations and groupings are leaders in their own development, and must be a central part of a new global health security architecture—the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing (PAVM), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Forum for the Progress and Development of South America (PROSUR), among others, are examples. Adequate reforms and robust replenishments of global health organizations new and old are needed to ensure stronger global health security and pandemic preparedness now and in the future. External funders should take a comprehensive view of the major global health initiatives and consider how a range of reforms, when combined, have the potential to respond more coherently and efficiently to the financing demands related to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, other macro risks that affect public spending on health, and in the face of future health threats. There are reasons for optimism. Unlike the experience during previous pandemic threats, COVID-19 has finally seen the International Monetary Fund become more aware and vocal on the need to address both COVID-19 and future pandemic risks as “systemic risk(s) to the global economy, not just the development […] of a particular country.”[9] Finance, health and development policymakers are increasingly coming together in different fora and recognizing the need to invest across sectors and to connect the international financial architecture with health initiatives in ways that will deliver better outcomes.[10]
Topic:
Reform, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Prospects for agriculture in the new European context: the French example

Author:
Bernard Bourget
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
The health crisis and the subsequent invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army has revealed the EU's dependence on agriculture and food, as well as in other strategic sectors such as energy[1]. Can French agriculture seize the opportunities offered by the new situation resulting from these major events to give it new life? As the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union enters its final month, this is an opportunity to take stock of the situation and prospects for French agriculture before the implementation of the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2023 and the objectives of the European Commission's Green Deal.
Topic:
Agriculture, European Union, Health Crisis, Green Deal, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe and France

6. The impacts of the pandemic on investment flows in BRICS countries: a preliminary analysis based on UNCTAD global investment reports

Author:
Ana Garcia, Rafaela Mello, Victor Fernandes, Maria Eduarda Lopes, João Carmino, and Felipe Queiroz
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
BRICS Policy Center
Abstract:
In 2020, with the advent of the pandemic, the lockdown and social isolation actions implemented by governments in order to contain the contagion of the virus had an impact on the economies, reducing the speed of execution of existing investment projects and hindering the prospect of new ones. In this sense, the flow of direct investments around the world fell by 35% in 2020, reaching US$ 1 trillion, compared to US$ 1.5 trillion in the previous year, according to UNCTAD. Based on this observation, the present research aims to understand the main trends around the investment flow related to the BRICS countries, in order to assess how the Covid-19 pandemic impacted the dynamics of investments in the world, and especially, in emerging economies. To this end, the reports produced by UNCTAD from 2019 to 2022 regarding global investment flows were analyzed, in order to understand how the scenario was before the pandemic and what dynamics were underway before the health crisis, but it also allowed to understand what transformations occurred with the course of the pandemic, in addition to signaling paths and trends for the future.
Topic:
Economy, Investment, COVID-19, BRICS, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Russia, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil

7. Chinese COVID-19 Misinformation A Year Later

Author:
Elizabeth Chen
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
On January 28, members of an international team led by the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded fourteen days of quarantine and began field work in Wuhan, China for a mission aimed at investigating the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the time of writing, the team had made visits to the Hubei Center for Disease Control and Prevention; the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. State media also reported that the WHO team visited “an exhibition featuring Chinese people fighting the epidemic,” raising concerns that the trip could prove to be little more than a public relations move even as the origins of the coronavirus remain heavily politicized and uncertain (Global Times, January 31). Foreign experts have worried about whether the WHO investigation will be sufficiently transparent or if investigators will be allowed adequate access to key locations and scientific data (SCMP, January 27). Apart from a “terms of reference” report and a list of WHO members released in November, further details on the WHO team’s trip have not been released.
Topic:
World Health Organization, COVID-19, Misinformation, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
China and Asia

8. Economic costs and benefits of accelerated COVID-19 vaccinations

Author:
Joseph E. Gagnon, Steve Kamin, and John Kearns
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
COVID-19 vaccination programs are generally understood to be a prerequisite for a return to normalcy in our social and economic lives. Emergency measures to research, test, produce, and distribute vaccines have been expensive, but increases in GDP resulting from the vaccines are expected to exceed those costs by wide margins. Few studies have quantified the economic costs and benefits of different rates of COVID-19 vaccination, however. This Policy Brief focuses on developing such a quantitative assessment for the United States; the approach may be applied to other countries as well. Two illustrative scenarios support the conclusion that most plausible options to accelerate vaccinations would have economic benefits that far exceed their costs, in addition to their more important accomplishment of saving lives. This Policy Brief shows that if, for example, the United States had adopted a more aggressive policy in 2020 of unconditional contracts with vaccine producers, the up-front cost would have been higher but thousands of lives would have been saved and economic growth would have been stronger. Instead, the federal government conditioned its contracts on the vaccines’ being proven safe and effective. The projections presented in this analysis show that even if unconditional contracts led to support for vaccines that failed the phase III trial and ultimately were not used, the cost would have been worth it.
Topic:
Economics, Health, Crisis Management, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. Dividing up Covid-19 vaccine: distribution based on countries’ weight

Author:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Abstract:
Ending the coronavirus pandemic is not only about the technical issue of vaccine development. The challenge is multidimensional, involving a global proprietary pharmaceutical system and an exclusive, nationalist tendency in wealthy, prosperous states.
Topic:
Nationalism, Vaccine, COVID-19, Health Crisis, and Pharmaceuticals
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10. The Impact of COVID-19 on CSDP: Forging Opportunity out of Crisis?

Author:
Tobias Pietz
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
When the Covid-19 pandemic began to sweep through the world in the early months of 2020, no country or international organisation had contingency plans in place to deal with a crisis that could occur anywhere and affect everybody simultaneously. In the case of the missions and operations deployed under the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), Covid-19 had a severe impact, including on Brussels-based personnel and structures, early on. In hindsight, it is easy to criticise the first three months of crisis management at the CSDP structures in Brussels as well as what operations and missions did in the field. However, the unique and novel challenge of this pandemic must never be lost sight of in any assessment of CSDP performance. The pandemic and its effect on the CSDP revealed some crucial challenges faced by EU missions and their operational and planning structures. This Brief tries to shed light on the impact that Covid-19 has had on the CSDP and points to some lessons which can be drawn from the experiences of dealing with the pandemic crisis so far.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus