Introduction
The outbreak of COVID-19 shows that infectious diseases spread across the planet much faster than ever before. Since the 1970s, at least one new infectious disease has been reported annually. These conclusions were made by the World Health Organization (WHO), which published a report on the situation in the world (Vineis, 2017, p. 13). Globalization creates favorable conditions for the spread of many infectious diseases and changes in their structure. All the aspects of globalization, including economic, environmental, and technological, are closely interconnected and affect both the prevalence of infections and the possibility of their prevention and control. This paper focuses on examining the subjective and objective globalization aspects in the spread of COVID-19 as well as identifying its consequences and impact on the global economy.
Objective and Subjective Globalization as the Underlying Reason for COVID-19 Spread
In today’s trend of connectivity, the objective dimension of globalization plays a key role. Networked and communication-based forms promote global trade that almost has no borders. Steger (2017) rationally stresses that the intensification of economic connections across the countries and fosters economic relationships (p. 39). Accordingly, one may observe the emergence of a new economic order, agreements and conflicts, and the changing power of transnational corporations. Greater emphasis is given to the international financial institutions, while the internalization of trade and finance is another vital sign of the objective dimension of globalization. Thus, the evidence that is currently available regarding the mentioned dimension is extensive and detailed since many studies discuss one or another side of this issue.
The movement of goods and people along with the tendency to shift cultures are among the main reasons for the rapid spread of COVID-19. International commerce contributes to the spread of infectious agents worldwide. As reported by the World Trade Organization (WTO), “the value of merchandise trade was up 10% to US$ 19.48 trillion in 2018”, and “the value of commercial services trade rose 8% to $5.80 trillion in 2018” (“Global trade growth,” 2019). The WTO and other organizations also promote neoliberalism that sets certain characteristic features to the international economy (Vineis, 2017, p. 3). The contemporary representatives of economic neoliberalism follow two traditional principles: firstly, they proceed from the fact that the market, as the most efficient form of management, creates the best conditions for exponential economic growth. Secondly, they defend the priority importance of the freedom of participants in economic activity. These principles ensure greater freedom of global commerce, which encourages expansion perspectives, partnerships, and other forms of global connections.
For the causative agent to be able to circulate in a new region for it, the latter must have favorable conditions, including the presence of carriers and/or a sensitive population, certain behavioral stereotypes, et cetera (Bashford, 2006, p. 180). The modern means of transportation and the latest technologies for moving huge masses of people and goods through air, land, and oceans significantly activate the spread of infections and their carriers in almost all countries of the world. Steger (2017) draws attention to the fact that the expansion of international trade and the movement of people between continents increase the likelihood of the spread of infectious diseases (p. 76). It is especially pertinent to infections with a short incubation period and an airborne mechanism of transmission of pathogens, including influenza, smallpox, plague, and other viruses.
The subjective dimension of globalization refers to ideological, political, and emotional manifestations, ranging from xenophobia to alter-globalism. Considering that this aspect of globalization changes people as subjects, it is critical to pay attention to understandings, feelings, and perceptions. For example, political ideologies tend to become global imaginaries. They give the basis for considering various “isms”, such as cosmopolitanism, capitalism, and so on (Dasgupta, 2018). A characteristic feature of modernity is the ongoing process of urbanization, traveling, and global connections, which has led to profound changes in the social and demographic structure of society, culture, and lifestyle (Link, 2007, p. 82). It should be noted that along with the positive aspects, they have negative outcomes, such as rapid changes in the environment, high population density, and enormous traffic flows. An accelerated rhythm of life, a decrease in physical mobility, an increase in signs of social disorganization and deviating behavioral norms, and psychoemotional stress have become constant companions of the population in large cities.
Consequences and Impact
The coronavirus outbreak can be regarded as an unprecedented stress test for globalization. The key supply chains are torn, while the countries are seeking to stockpile medicines and limit the movement of people. The crisis prioritizes rethinking the interconnected global economy. Globalization not only contributed to the spread of the dangerous disease but also emphasized the interdependence of companies and countries, making them objects of unexpected crises (Link, 2007, p. 41). Both companies and states suddenly discovered how vulnerable they are. In terms of objective globalization, this outbreak makes a negative impact not only on the economy of China but also on other affected countries. The majority of flights are canceled, financial markets suffer a meltdown, and sports games are played in empty stadiums (Farrell & Newman, 2020). Many areas of production and service are lockdown since people are obliged to follow quarantine rules and stay at their homes to stop the pandemics. An alarming rate of increasing infection and dying makes it clear that the peak of the situation is not yet achieved, which points to the long-lasting consequences.
According to traditional ideas, globalization creates a prosperous international market, allowing manufacturers to build flexible supply chains, replacing, if necessary, a supplier or any component. The business began to take advantage of the global distribution of labor, and Adam Smith’s so-called wealth of nations turned into the wealth of the world (Steger, 2017, p. 41). Specialization provided efficiency, and it, in turn, led to growth. At the same time, globalization has created a complex system of interdependence. Companies joyfully built global supply chains, resulting in intricate production networks linking the entire global economy. The components of a single product today can be manufactured in dozens of countries. The trend towards specialization sometimes made it difficult to find alternatives, especially in the case of unusual skills or products (Kamradt-Scott, 2015, p. 56). Production has become global, and the interdependence of states has also increased since no country can completely control all the goods and components needed by its economy. National economies have become participants in the global supply chain.
However, the outbreak of coronavirus shows that it is better to reconsider the global connections in terms of economy. It is critical to remain integrated for countries to combat the pandemics and continue the effective collaborations, but the alternatives should be identified as well. For example, there is a shortage of medical equipment and drugs in the US and Europe, which is largely caused by the fact that China is the key supplier of this product (“Global trade growth,” 2019). Along with these shortages, people with low income and chronic and social problems face an even greater burden. Another concern is associated with the actions of President Trump and elections. While he argued that Democrats exaggerate the economic threat of coronavirus, the US is at the top of the list of the affected countries, suffering enormous healthcare costs and shortages in related areas. The views of people regarding pandemics and globalization in general also tend to change, and these alterations are likely to persist after the end of this critical situation.
The solution to the identified problem is associated with bridging subjective and objective dimensions, which can be done by paying more attention to the former. Today, greater attention is paid to economic relations, while uncertainty and fear people feel in the face of COVID-19 are given little importance. The World Economic Forum states that for many people, this situation is a signal that China is a source of danger, and it cannot be trusted (“Could coronavirus bring”, 2020). Accordingly, nationalist attitudes and movements may appear. Another issue is conspiracy theories that are extensively discussed in the public, which is supported by misinformation flood. One may suggest that increased levels of xenophobia and mysticism can be the most threatening consequences of coronavirus (Farrell & Newman, 2020). Therefore, the governments and media should mitigate uncertainty by providing only reliable information and supporting those who need it in terms of resources.
A significant part of globalization refers to goods, but another part is about people with their ideas and opinions. For example, universities and tourism are the key areas that work with people all over the globe and contribute to information exchange. After the coronavirus pandemics, one may anticipate the recession that is likely to reverse globalization. The politics of protectionism and demand for customization can also add to this tendency, even though it seems that globalization is a process that cannot be overturned. The concern is, however, not only regarding the changes but also how to manage them and how far they would go (Bloom, 2020). To avoid the economic depression of 1918, it is critical to regulate and control both economic risks and the related human factors, such as attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies.
Conclusion
To conclude, this paper provides an analytical review of the links between COVID-19 and global economic connections. It is revealed that the objective dimension of globalization promoted international trade and the movement of goods and people, which was one of the main reasons for the spread of coronavirus. At the same time, the subjective dimension of globalization changed the relationships between people who became more open to interacting globally. The impact of COVID-19 on globalization was also examined based on the academic literature and current media articles. It is possible to expect that international economic relations would be reconsidered to minimize shortages in case of another crisis. It is proposed to align subjective and objective components of globalization to reduce the gap by paying more attention to how people are impacted as individuals, namely, ideologies and attitudes should be taken into account.
References
Bashford, A. (2006). Medicine at the border: Disease, globalization and security, 1850 to the present. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bloom, J. (2020). Will coronavirus reverse globalisation?.BBC News. Web.
Could coronavirus bring about the ‘waning of globalization’?.(2020). Web.
Dasgupta, R. (2018). The demise of the nation state.The Guardian. Web.
Farrell, H. & Newman, A. (2020). Will the coronavirus end globalization as we know it?. Foreign Affairs. Web.
Global trade growth loses momentum as trade tensions persist.(2019). Web.
Kamradt-Scott, A. (2015). Managing global health security: The world health organization and disease outbreak control. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Link, K. (2007). Understanding new, resurgent, and resistant diseases: How man and globalization create and spread illness. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Steger, M. B. (2017). Globalization. A very short introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Steger, M., & Wilson, E. (2012). Anti‐globalization or alter‐globalization? Mapping the political ideology of the global justice movement. International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 439-454.
Vineis, P. (2017). Health without borders: Epidemics in the era of globalization. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.