Narratives provide the storylines through which people make sense of the
world. Actors strategically deploy narratives to advance agendas,
telling stories about what or who is to blame and what should be done.
When it comes to the coronavirus, multiple narratives
are emerging. Instead of adopting a common frame to understand this
threat, actors are doubling down on their existing critiques of
globalization and neoliberalism, using the coronavirus to show how right
they were all along.
Instead of trying to advance a dominant narrative about what the pandemic means for globalization, we think it is time to start developing mental models to understand what the different perspectives are, how they can be integrated and what trade-offs this might involve. This approach permits us to provide a more three-dimensional understanding of the problem. We’ve identified at least seven major storylines that are competing for attention in explaining what the virus means for economic globalization.
For right-wing populists like President Donald Trump, the coronavirus vindicates concerns about the need to protect the country’s borders and to keep foreigners—and their diseases—out. The threat is portrayed as foreign, and the response is to build walls and stop flights. According to this narrative, globalization accelerates the threat. As Aurélia Beigneux, a politician from France’s right-wing National Rally, warns: “The free circulation of goods and people, immigration policies and weak controls at the borders obviously allow the exponential spread of this type of virus.” Hyperconnected global cities might be towering forces economically, but they are also entry ports for infection. Living in a “flyover states” is, for once, an enviable position.
For left-wing populists like U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the crisis has made it abundantly clear that the country needs free health care and paid sick leave for everyone, right now. They focus less on the foreign threat—how the virus arrived in the country—and more on domestic problems—how inequality in shared social and economic structures means that people are not properly treated, permitting the disease to spread. Lack of health care, high insurance premiums, and minimal sick-leave entitlements mean that it is harder to get people to self-isolate and get tested, which will hamper containment and increase fatalities. Perhaps universal healthcare is a national security issue.
o security actors who have long been worried about America’s overreliance on Chinese imports, the coronavirus reinforces concerns about the fact that over 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in U.S. medicines are produced abroad, mainly in China and India, including over 97% of antibiotics. According to this geoeconomic perspective, the pandemic demonstrates why America needs to be more self-reliant when it comes to making essential products like penicillin. The hit Australia has taken with respect to its top services exports—education and tourism—also raises concerns about concentrated dependence. When Chinese students comprise 70–80% of the international student body of some universities, making up over 20% of some university budgets, grounding planes from China has significant economic effects.
Capitalist reformers criticize the myopic focus of multinational corporations on bolstering shareholder value in a way that has led many to focus on short-term efficiencies over long-term economic resilience. The “just-in-time” approach to manufacturing, in which manufacturers do not keep a large inventories of materials but instead order them to arrive shortly in advance of assembly, is highly vulnerable to supply chain shocks. Automakers globally have had to stall production after supplies of components from China were disrupted. This crisis therefore proves the need to shorten supply chains and build in more redundancy into manufacturing processes to ensure greater resilience.
Political observers view the coronavirus as a perfect illustration of the advantages or flaws of authoritarianism or democracy—pick your poison. Those inclined to criticize Chinese authoritarianism point to that government’s early attempt to silence doctors who were raising the alarm about the virus. Others point to the advantage that the Communist Party enjoyed in dealing with the virus, when the government used lockdown orders and technological surveillance to rapidly contain the virus’s spread. Conversely, while some celebrate the West’s freedom of speech, others point to the dillydallying of Western democracies in effectively curtailing these risks—with Italy and now the United States being cases in point. The coronavirus will have longer term implications for debates about liberal versus authoritarian capitalism.
Globalists view the coronavirus as a global threat that shows the common plight of humanity and the need to work together. Viruses don’t discriminate; nor should we. Instead of hoarding medical masks through export controls, countries should work together to ensure that all states have sufficient medical supplies. This is a time for global action and for all people and countries to come together. Countries should encourage scientists from around the world to work together to find a vaccine, rather than resorting to “sicken-thy-neighbor” export bans on medical supplies. Here, the goal is global cooperation to enable the continued flow of people, goods and ideas.
Read more at: Will The Coronavirus End Globalization? - Barron's
Instead of trying to advance a dominant narrative about what the pandemic means for globalization, we think it is time to start developing mental models to understand what the different perspectives are, how they can be integrated and what trade-offs this might involve. This approach permits us to provide a more three-dimensional understanding of the problem. We’ve identified at least seven major storylines that are competing for attention in explaining what the virus means for economic globalization.
For right-wing populists like President Donald Trump, the coronavirus vindicates concerns about the need to protect the country’s borders and to keep foreigners—and their diseases—out. The threat is portrayed as foreign, and the response is to build walls and stop flights. According to this narrative, globalization accelerates the threat. As Aurélia Beigneux, a politician from France’s right-wing National Rally, warns: “The free circulation of goods and people, immigration policies and weak controls at the borders obviously allow the exponential spread of this type of virus.” Hyperconnected global cities might be towering forces economically, but they are also entry ports for infection. Living in a “flyover states” is, for once, an enviable position.
For left-wing populists like U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the crisis has made it abundantly clear that the country needs free health care and paid sick leave for everyone, right now. They focus less on the foreign threat—how the virus arrived in the country—and more on domestic problems—how inequality in shared social and economic structures means that people are not properly treated, permitting the disease to spread. Lack of health care, high insurance premiums, and minimal sick-leave entitlements mean that it is harder to get people to self-isolate and get tested, which will hamper containment and increase fatalities. Perhaps universal healthcare is a national security issue.
o security actors who have long been worried about America’s overreliance on Chinese imports, the coronavirus reinforces concerns about the fact that over 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in U.S. medicines are produced abroad, mainly in China and India, including over 97% of antibiotics. According to this geoeconomic perspective, the pandemic demonstrates why America needs to be more self-reliant when it comes to making essential products like penicillin. The hit Australia has taken with respect to its top services exports—education and tourism—also raises concerns about concentrated dependence. When Chinese students comprise 70–80% of the international student body of some universities, making up over 20% of some university budgets, grounding planes from China has significant economic effects.
Capitalist reformers criticize the myopic focus of multinational corporations on bolstering shareholder value in a way that has led many to focus on short-term efficiencies over long-term economic resilience. The “just-in-time” approach to manufacturing, in which manufacturers do not keep a large inventories of materials but instead order them to arrive shortly in advance of assembly, is highly vulnerable to supply chain shocks. Automakers globally have had to stall production after supplies of components from China were disrupted. This crisis therefore proves the need to shorten supply chains and build in more redundancy into manufacturing processes to ensure greater resilience.
Political observers view the coronavirus as a perfect illustration of the advantages or flaws of authoritarianism or democracy—pick your poison. Those inclined to criticize Chinese authoritarianism point to that government’s early attempt to silence doctors who were raising the alarm about the virus. Others point to the advantage that the Communist Party enjoyed in dealing with the virus, when the government used lockdown orders and technological surveillance to rapidly contain the virus’s spread. Conversely, while some celebrate the West’s freedom of speech, others point to the dillydallying of Western democracies in effectively curtailing these risks—with Italy and now the United States being cases in point. The coronavirus will have longer term implications for debates about liberal versus authoritarian capitalism.
Globalists view the coronavirus as a global threat that shows the common plight of humanity and the need to work together. Viruses don’t discriminate; nor should we. Instead of hoarding medical masks through export controls, countries should work together to ensure that all states have sufficient medical supplies. This is a time for global action and for all people and countries to come together. Countries should encourage scientists from around the world to work together to find a vaccine, rather than resorting to “sicken-thy-neighbor” export bans on medical supplies. Here, the goal is global cooperation to enable the continued flow of people, goods and ideas.
Read more at: Will The Coronavirus End Globalization? - Barron's
No comments:
Post a Comment