Search

Begin New Search Topic COVID-19 Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Research Paper Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Addressing Inequality and Exclusion in the Pandemic’s Aftermath

Author:
Paul von Chamier
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation
Abstract:
During the first quarter of 2022, signs continued to emerge that suggest the most acute stage of the pandemic is slowly drawing towards its end. COVID-19, a black-swan event that disrupted the world, brought into sharp focus systemic issues surrounding inequality and exclusion that well predated 2020. Societies that experienced deeper societal inequities before the crisis ended up being more vulnerable to both the infection spread and the related economic recession.
Topic:
Public Opinion, Inequality, COVID-19, and Exclusion
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. The Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2022

Author:
Jo Walker, Matthew Martin, Emma Seery, Nabil Abdo, Anthony Kamande, and Max Lawson
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
The 2022 Commitment to Reducing Inequality (CRI) Index is the first detailed analysis published looking at governments’ policies and actions to fight inequality during the first two years of the pandemic. This fourth edition of the CRI Index reviews the spending, tax and labour policies and actions of 161 governments during 2020–2022. COVID-19 has increased inequality worldwide, as the poorest people were hit hardest by both the disease and its profound economic impacts. Yet the CRI 2022 Index shows clearly that most of the world’s governments failed to mitigate this dangerous rise in inequality. Despite the biggest global health emergency in a century, half of low-and lower-middle-income countries saw the share of health spending fall during the pandemic, half of the countries tracked by the CRI Index cut the share of social protection spending, 70% cut the share of education spending, while two-thirds of countries failed to increase their minimum wage in line with gross domestic product (GDP). Ninety-five percent of countries failed to increase taxation of the richest people and corporations. At the same time, a small group of governments from across the world bucked this trend, taking clear actions to combat inequality, putting the rest of the world to shame.
Topic:
GDP, Inequality, Tax Systems, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. COVID-19's Impact on the Environment and Sustainability The Triple-R (Response, Recovery, Redesign) Proposal

Author:
Hideyuki Mori
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Japan Institute Of International Affairs (JIIA)
Abstract:
Broadly speaking, the COVID-19 crisis has been sparked by a combination of two factors. The first is the threat of zoonoses faced in common by humans and other vertebrate animals, and once again it has become clear that the capture and sale of wild animals can produce crises such as this. The second factor is the overall acceleration in the movement of people and goods across national borders that is characteristic of globalization. The first factor enabled transmission of the COVID-19 virus from animals to humans, while the second caused these infections to spread worldwide to a pandemic level.
Topic:
Environment, Sustainability, COVID-19, and Air Pollution
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Rethinking Human Security amid the Coronavirus Crisis: Thoughts on Japan's Contributions During and After the Pandemic

Author:
Sachiko Ishikawa
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Japan Institute Of International Affairs (JIIA)
Abstract:
With the COVID-19 pandemic threatening the lives and livelihoods of all people on Earth, UN Secretary-General Guterres from the outset has called for more international solidarity and cooperation than ever to respond to the coronavirus. Today, after a quarter of a century since the concept of human security was first brought to the world by the UNDP in 1994, the pandemic struck just as the importance of reconsidering its value and implementation in light of changes within the international community was being debated. In 2020, discussions about rethinking the concept and practice of human security in the context of the coronavirus pandemic increased, especially among academic societies and aid workers in Japan.
Topic:
Recovery, Human Security, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Japan and Global Focus

5. The Global Economic Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Second Wave and Policy Implications

Author:
Gyeong Lyeob Cho, Minsuk Kim, and Yun Kyung Kim
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
This paper examines the macroeconomic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic through the Computable General Equilibrium model. Due to a second wave and a subsequent delay in economic recovery, the pandemic could lead to a permanent shock in capital accumulation and productivity. This implies that the shock may not merely affect the short-term growth rate but also negatively impact the future economic growth path from its pre-pandemic trend. Through simulations, in the mild scenario, countries lose 0.10% to 0.31% of their future economic growth rates; in the severe scenario, they lose 0.21% to 0.69%.
Topic:
Economics, Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. Europe’s Quest for Technology Sovereignty: Opportunities and Pitfalls

Author:
Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Covid-19 and its broader implications have highlighted the importance of Europe’s digital transformation to ensure Europeans’ social and economic well-being. It provides important new learnings about Europe’s quest for “technology sovereignty”. While the debate about technology sovereignty is timely, the precise meaning of sovereignty or autonomy in the realm of technologies remains ambiguous. It should be noted that the political discussions about European technology sovereignty emerged far before the outbreak of the Coronavirus. The European Commission’s recently updated industrial and digital policy strategies “institutionalised” different notions of sovereignty, reflecting perceptions that more EU action is needed to defend perceived European values and to secure Europe’s industrial competitiveness. Often the political rhetoric reflected perceptions that Europe is losing global economic clout and geopolitical influence. It was said that dependency on technological solutions, often originating abroad, would require a European industrial and regulatory response. Against this background, the Corona crisis provides two important lessons for EU technology policymaking. Firstly, during the crisis digital technologies and solutions made European citizens stronger. Technology kept Europe open for business despite the lock-down by enabling Europeans to work from home, receive essential home deliveries, home schooling, online deliveries and to use online payments, etc. In addition, Europe’s citizens became more sovereign with respect to accessing information and data that helped track and contain the spread of the virus. Secondly, the crisis tested Europe’s resilience and perceived dependency on (foreign) technology solutions. Early developments indicate that Member States’ homemade solutions did not fare better than existing European and international solutions. A few national and EU IT solutions failed while existing European and global solutions, from cloud infrastructure to communications, payments to streaming services, all continued to work well. Politically, however, the crisis could be used to justify more EU or national government interference in Europe’s digital transformation. Indeed, for some the debate about European technology sovereignty is largely about designing prescriptive policies, which paradoxically risk reducing Europeans’ access to the innovative technologies, products and services that helped Europe through the crisis. Policies taken into consideration include new subsidies to politically picked companies, or new rules and obligations for certain online business models. Policy-makers advocating for such policies tend to ignore critical insights from the Covid-19 crisis and failed industrial policy initiatives, including sunk public investments and protracted subsidies for industrial laggards. In a time of economic hardship, the EU and national governments should be wary of spending even more taxpayer money to replicate existing world-class technology solutions, that in most cases are used in combination with local technologies, with “Made in EU” services of inferior quality and reliability. Moreover, due to different levels of economic development and differences in regulatory cultures, prescriptive technology policies would exclude many Member States from utilising existing and new opportunities that arise from digitalisation, slowing down economic renewal and convergence. The EU cannot be considered a monolithic block that thrives on a unique set of prescriptive technology policies. Before the Corona pandemic, initiatives towards European technology sovereignty were mainly pushed by France and Germany, fed by concerns over their companies’ industrial strength in times of growing economic and geopolitical competition. Industrial and technology policies favoured by the EU’s two largest countries will have a disproportionately negative impact on Europe’s smaller open economies, whose companies and citizens could be deprived from cutting-edge technologies, new economic opportunities and partnerships on global markets, undermining these economies’ development and international competitiveness. Any EU-imposed technology protectionism along the lines suggested by some policy-makers in large EU Member States would leave the entire EU worse off. It would disproportionately hurt countries in Europe’s northern, eastern and southern countries more than the large countries whose economies are generally more diverse than Europe’s smaller Member States. It would, however, make sense for the EU to agree on a shared definition of “technology sovereignty”. Different interpretations could cause serious policy inconsistencies, undermining the effectiveness of EU and national economic policies. Anchored in technological openness, technology sovereignty can indeed be a useful ambition to let Europe’s highly diverse economies leapfrog by using existing technologies. To become more sovereign in a global economy, Europeans need to focus on becoming global leaders in economic innovation – not just in regulation. If anchored in mercantilist or protectionist ideas, technological sovereignty would make it harder for many Member States to access modern technologies, adopt new business models and attract foreign investment – with adverse implications on future global competitiveness, economic renewal and economic convergence. Policymaking towards a European technology sovereignty that benefits the greatest number of Europeans – not just a few politically selected “winners” – should aim for a regulatory environment in which technology companies and technology adopters can thrive across EU Member States’ national borders. The European Single Market has deteriorated in recent years and significantly during the crisis. The new von der Leyen Commission has now repeatedly called for a strengthening of the Single Market. Becoming a world leader in innovation requires a real Single Market in which companies can scale up, with as few hurdles as possible, and then compete globally. It should be supplemented by pro-competitive policies and incentives for research and investment. Brussels cannot set the global standards in technology policymaking alone. Europe’s policy-makers should aim for closer market integration and regulatory cooperation with trustworthy international partners such as the G7 or the larger group of the OECD countries. It is in the EU’s self-interest to advocate for a rules-based international order with open markets. International cooperation should be extended beyond trade to include cooperation on technology policies, e.g. artificial intelligence. Regulatory cooperation with allies such as the USA is essential to jointly set global standards that are based on shared values. Both the EU and the US have much more to gain if they prioritise such alignment, to advance a shared vision for a revamped open international trading system, in a world increasingly influenced by regimes with fundamentally different views on state intervention and human rights. Anchored in technological openness, the EU and the US can promote technology sovereignty that allows for development and renewal elsewhere in the world.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, International Political Economy, Science and Technology, Sovereignty, European Union, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Global Focus

7. A Guide to Investigating Outbreak Origins

Author:
Richard Pilch, Miles A. Pomper, Jill Luster, and Filippa Lentzos
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
COVID-19 has exposed key gaps in the global community’s ability to assess infectious disease outbreaks of international concern, in particular the ability to differentiate between natural and laboratory sources of infection. The risk of natural outbreaks is increasing as unchecked population growth, industrial expansion, and corresponding ecological disruption increases the likelihood that novel disease agents will come into contact with naïve human populations. Likewise, the risk of laboratory accidents is increasing as more high-containment laboratories are built and higher risk experiments are conducted around the world. Meanwhile, a deliberate biological attack may resemble an outbreak of natural or accidental origin, and a natural or accidental outbreak may be misattributed as an attack. The purpose of this Occasional Paper is to outline a readily adoptable, stepwise methodology to guide the investigation of corresponding outbreak origins, building upon traditional epidemiological principles. We have sought to remain minimally intrusive at all times; however, an increasing level of need-to-know information, site, and personnel access becomes necessary as attention shifts toward potential laboratory sources. Accordingly, we include recommendations to ensure such access under existing international regimes, primarily the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Health Regulations.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Science and Technology, World Health Organization, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus