Uneven Governance
The Covid-19 epidemic has spread at an alarming rate. The economic activity has almost stopped as several countries executed stringent limits on the movement to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. Financial losses have been seen as a health and population growth. It is the most significant economic shock in decades in the world. The quick spread of the pandemic is challenging global governments to perform in conducts that are generally conducive to natural disasters, wars, and depressions (Ludovic et al. 2020, p. 3). In addition, the outbreak has begun global unrest that could last for months or more. State governments must take care of the problems in terms of economic recovery and governance at the time of the pandemic. This study will identify the government response to the identified challenges due to the Covid-19 crisis in long-and short-term.
Despite the shared characteristics of the fight against the COVID-19, the epidemic occurred in the acute inequality and governance fragmentation. The global governance viewpoint helps explain how to measure the issues of the Covid-19 epidemic. As stated by Wang & Sun (2021, p. 72), unevenness of power has existed in global governance, with some countries having more proficient actors than non-state actors and others. Globalization is a process of growing flow and connection filled with exception and inequality. In the face of the pandemic, the governance mechanism shows coordination problems, the claim of authority, and uneven capacity at diverse scales. The economic and social dimensions of the crisis-affected communities and countries differently because of various preparedness levels of their infrastructure capabilities, health, and social security system (Delios, Perchthold & Capri, 2021, p. 4).
The global economies faced a general lockdown and emergency regulation that extended government power, and conventional insight often points to the downfall of globalization and the growth of liberal world order. Globalization has suffered a severe blow since the inception of COVID-19, which seems more plausible from the perspective of global institutions (McMullin & Raggo, 2020. p. 1186).
Despite the damage caused by globalization caused by COVID-19, countries prioritize managing the economic and health crises faced by local people. In this context, the advantage of information exchange and international cooperation is not expected to retreat in consort with the epidemic. However, the aftershocks of an outbreak could lead to global problems that could last a long time, including restrictions on movement, growing dissatisfaction with governing institutes, high unemployment rates (Farzanegan, Feizi & Gholipour 2021, p.105). In addition, the authoritarian regimes have taken open-ended measures to limit civil liberties, add loyalists and assume more power under the mist of the pandemic.
During the COVID-19 epidemic, many developing and emerging economies experienced weaker growth even before the crisis. However, the COVID-19 outbreak made the economy more difficult. The epidemic will likely cause a recession in several nations by 2020, including per capita income declining in the most significant countries worldwide. Developed economies are expected to shrink by 7%. This weakness will likely spread to emerging economies and markets, which are predicted to shrink by 2.5% while tackling the domestic outbreak (Bernes et al. 2020, p. 10). It would signify the weakest performance of this economic group in a minimum of sixty years. In addition, the disaster emphasizes the requirement for urgent actions for the financial and health consequences of the outbreak, set the platform for long-term recovery, and protect vulnerable people (Lazarus et al. 2020, p. 6).
Globalization and the Pandemic Crisis
The covid-19 epidemic has emerged in terms of fragmentation. As a result, it has the potential to sharpen and perpetuate global inequality. Inequalities and fragmentation have geopolitical effects ranging from individual human bodies to nation-state entities and, ultimately, existing international governance structures. All of them significantly impact the attainment of the practical global response to the covid-19 crisis (McMullin & Raggo, 2020. p. 1186). The government will go through the three overlapping stages over time, such as:
Respond: Most governments are positioned at the response stage. Governments are coping with this calamity on the spot. The governments are moving fast and going through several standard practices, such as reducing travel, ordering business closures, providing direct financial assistance and reallocating the industry’s ability to meet imperative medical needs. However, in the Southern Hemisphere, some nations have not yet experienced such a crisis (Burrowes & Shannon 2021, para. 5).
Recover: When immediate risks subside, the government will enter a recovery stage, focusing on strengthening the economic recovery curve, and lessening the wider effects of the pandemic. Besides, government organizations will start to become standard. Nevertheless, governments will shift quickly, perhaps with conventional control shortcuts but unilateral executive action (Gautam & Hens, 2020. p. 2).
Thrive: After surviving the calamity, governments worldwide will make allowances for lasting progresses in government actions to respond successfully to imminent risk through re-examining supply chains, monitoring for future epidemics, and becoming more digital. In addition, old regulations and rules need to be re-assessed and technologies that have proved effective in times of crisis, for example, remote work and telehealth. These could be an effective alternative to government (Blanco & Rosales 2020, p. 2).
Although every government will look for a unique way to deal with the next crisis in three steps, government guidelines must be influential within the community in each stage. This means the main emphasis on financial survival, conduct, and restraint in short period. Besides, the goal will come up to economic recovery and come back to a typical situation in the middle period. In the long period, we should think to be better prepared to deal with the crisis and be in a better position for the populace’s health (Dergiades, Milas & Panagiotidis 2020, p. 4).
The government has now mostly managed crucial medical matters and severe financial crisis. Over the past week, the pressure to resume daily government activities has intensified, and services (e.g., licensing offices, libraries, schools, etc.) that are currently closed need to move into recovery (Debata, Patnaik & Mishra 2020. p. e2372). However, they thrive stage would not be a simple return to organizations for the new environment. Governments must oversee global and local health statistics, for example, hospitalization rates, treatment responses, and new cases. Governments also need to identify changes that can occur in diverse places at various times and may need to be reversed or suspended (Fetzer et al. 2020, p. 7).
Several governments have declared emergency programs to deliver long-and short-term economic relief during the past few weeks. For example, South Korea has said emergency cash payments of around US$820 (1 million won) for each household, excluding those in the top 30% of income earners. Also, the CERB (Canadian Emergency Response Benefit) provided CA$500 per week to those eligible for employment insurance for up to 16 weeks (Gautam & Hens, 2020. pp. 1). Then again, the Danish government covered almost 75% of wages for salaried labors, where the government of New Zealand send a one-time subsidy of around NZ$7,000 for permanent labors. Besides, employers applying for the subsidy scheme should retain staff and ensure full benefits. Australia provided cash flow support of around AU$100,000 for non-profit organizations and SMEs (Eggers, O’Leary & Chew 2020, p. 14).
Impact of Covid-19 Crisis on Global Economies
The government also supports self-employment and contract labor, like “gig” employees. For example, the US emergency relief package gives unemployment insurance to the gig employees for 4 months along with weekly payments of US$600 for 4 months. In the UK, self-employed employees were assured a one-time grant of 80% of their average monthly income. Furthermore, cities and states have taken additional measures, such as foreclosures and prohibiting residential eviction (Eggers, O’Leary & Chew 2020, p. 15).
The core operational and policy challenges incorporate staffing constraints, growing demand, the necessity for retraining and rulemaking, and insufficient ability for necessary basics, like call center. For example, in the US, above 6.6 million population filed for unemployment benefits in March (Hale et al. 2020, p. 5).
Here, the main challenge is restructuring and resuming the economy. It means supporting those organizations that have been shut down get back on track, helping those who have lost their jobs return to the job, and government institutions that have observed increased demand and reduced revenue to endure to operate. The recovery phase includes stimulus package that finance the whole thing from digital and physical structure to economic support for local governments and organizations in several nations (Moon 2020, p. 654). Through examining different economic sectors against the level of the Covid-19 crisis, governments can give more accurate direction than mere “non-essential” vs “essential” designation. This evaluation may consider issues, for example, the possibility of disease outbreaks and the sector’s ability to fight transmission. It can reopen the business, make decisions according to any parameters, and give residents and business owners safety guidelines. Essential corporations in Malaysia can function in food and beverage sector, logistic sector, agricultural production and livestock stock, nevertheless the Malaysian Agriculture and Food industry ministry recompensed food supply logistic businesses to work with reduced staffing and labor safety (The World Bank. 2020, para. 6).
The Covid-19 epidemic has defined the administrative weaknesses within the global governance structure. In addition, multilateral organizations like the WHO has come under attack from different quarters for being wrong and inefficient. Nevertheless, significant initiatives are aimed at encouraging a more coordinated and integrated international response (Albu et al., 2020, p. 12). For example, national governments have taken a large package of measures at the EU summit on April 23. These measures are anticipated to reinforce the EU’s solidarity and cohesion to address the broad economic impact of the outbreak and pave the way for unparalleled fiscal integration across the European Union. In another notable example of global solidarity, on April 15 at a meeting, the G20 countries decided to push back debt service payments in some poorest countries by the end of 2020 (Bromfield & McConnell 2021, p. 521).
To build a robust global governance framework, governments must apply a targeted financial market system. The national government must move the economy to the war equilibrium. International and national leaders must focus on giving the essential equipment for healthcare staff (Albu et al., 2020, p. 14). Governments should create new budgets to help the most economically disadvantaged industries, like small and medium-sized industries, which are most at risk. The liberal world economy needs to pave the way for more interventionist policies. National governments prepared to mitigate ecological change and other potential catastrophes. Finally, measures need to be considered for global health issues in society (Mather 2020, p. 582).
Three Stages of Government Response
The world’s future will depend on how nations co-operate globally, coordinate efforts and maximize their potential. International institutions and governments need to focus on the disaster education program. To reduce complacency or panic, education must be started at a primary age to educate how to act and respond during a calamity. The public must be alert and ready to deal with any disaster. Proper education about personal behavior and hygiene, and general knowledge, will be essential for human survival (Christensen & Lægreid 2020, p. 776).
National governments need to confirm the significance of the WHO and the United Nations and allow them to build the architecture of robust and effective public health governance. In a world of growing public health threats, national leaders need sufficient political will and strategic insight to build a robust governance architecture where they can pursue effective and comprehensive health cooperation under mutual respect and equality principles. In addition, a global health protection strategy is required where mechanisms and policies can be made for international health crises through coordination and consultation (Collins, Florin & Renn 2020, p. 1076).
National governments need to synchronize financial intervention. Individual nations have started to launch economic stimulus packages. For example, the United States has executed a $2 trillion program (Song & Zhou, 2020. p.22). Also, smaller countries have found their own. But every program will have global economic outcomes, mainly if the program is as extensive as the United States. It could affect worldwide capital and financial markets and impede the prospect of economic recovery. The worldwide integrated economic stimulus program is required to reduce these harmful effects (World Health Organization 2020, p. 2).
The international institutions, national governments, regional and multilateral forums must maintain protectionism and nationalism and enhance cooperation. In a crisis, the tendency towards economic protectionism and nationalism increases. Governments need to do the opposite and co-operate more, with increasing global trade (McMullin & Raggo, 2020. p. 1186). Reducing non-tariff and tariff barriers enables the supply of essential goods to deal with the epidemic and help immediate economic requirements. This requires rapid recovery by ensuring supply and promoting demand (Ali, Asaria & Stranges 2020, p. 415).
In conclusion, the increasing levels of inequality across and within nations have led to the intensification of the COVID-19 crisis and made substantial geopolitical instability. All governments across the world are looking for practical solutions to the challenges mentioned above. Many factors will influence the decisions and choices of each country, including the social system and economic power, economic diversity, political system, culture, public attitudes and beliefs in the current governance during the crisis. In challenging times, some governments will be tempted to tackle civilian challenges at the cost of long-term goals quickly.
References
Albu, L. L., Preda, C. I., Lupu, R., Dobrot?, C. E., C?lin, G. M., & Boghicevici, C. M., 2020. Estimates of dynamics of the covid-19 pandemic and of its impact on the economy. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 23(2), pp. 5-17.
https://ipe.ro/rjef/rjef2_20/rjef2_2020p5-17.pdf
Ali, S., Asaria, M. & Stranges, S., 2020. COVID-19 and inequality: are we all in this together?. Canadian journal of public health, 111(3), pp.415-416.
Guidelines For Effective Government Response
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310590/
Bernes, T., Brozus, L., Hatuel-Radoshitzky, M., Heistein, A., Greco, E., Sasnal, P., Yurgens, I., Kulik, S., Turianskyi, Y., Gruzd, S. & Sidiropoulos, E., 2020. Challenges of Global Governance Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic. Available at:
<https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/challenges-of-global-governance-amid-the-covid-19-pandemic.pdf> [Accessed 25 November 2021].
Blanco, M.L. & Rosales, A., 2020. Global Governance and COVID-19: The Implications of Fragmentation and Inequality. E-International Relations, 6. [online] Available at:
<https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/06/global-governance-and-covid-19-the-implications-of-fragmentation-and-inequality/> [Accessed 25 November 2021].
Bromfield, N. & McConnell, A., 2021. Two routes to precarious success: Australia, New Zealand, COVID-19 and the politics of crisis governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 87(3), pp.518-535.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0020852320972465
Burrowes, K. & Shannon, J., 2021. How governments can push towards a better tomorrow. [online] Available at: <https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/reinventing-the-future/take-on-tomorrow/government-challenges.html> [Accessed 25 November 2021].
Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P., 2020. Balancing governance capacity and legitimacy: how the Norwegian government handled the COVID?19 crisis as a high performer. Public Administration Review, 80(5), pp.774-779.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/puar.13241
Collins, A., Florin, M.V. & Renn, O., 2020. COVID-19 risk governance: drivers, responses and lessons to be learned. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7-8), pp.1073-1082. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2020.1760332
Debata, B., Patnaik, P., & Mishra, A., 2020. COVID?19 pandemic! It’s impact on people, economy, and environment. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(4), p. e2372.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pa.2372
Delios, A., Perchthold, G. & Capri, A., 2021. Cohesion, COVID-19 and contemporary challenges to globalization. Journal of World Business, 56(3), p.101197.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090951621000092
Dergiades, T., Milas, C. & Panagiotidis, T., 2020. Effectiveness of government policies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Available at SSRN, 3602004.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341528144_Effectiveness_of_Government_Policies_in_Response_to_the_COVID-19_Outbreak
Eggers, W., O’Leary, J. & Chew, B., 2020. Governments’ response to COVID-19: From pandemic crisis to a better future. [online] Deloitte Insights. Available at:
<https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/covid-19/governments-respond-to-covid-19.html> [Accessed 25 November 2021].
Farzanegan, M.R., Feizi, M. & Gholipour, H.F., 2021. Globalization and the outbreak of COVID-19: An empirical analysis. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(3), p.105.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340548015_Globalization_and_Outbreak_of_COVID-19_An_Empirical_Analysis
Fetzer, T., Witte, M., Hensel, L., Jachimowicz, J.M., Haushofer, J., Ivchenko, A., Caria, S., Reutskaja, E., Roth, C., Fiorin, S. & Gomez, M., 2020. Global behaviors and perceptions in the COVID-19 pandemic. Available at:
<https://repec.cepr.org/repec/cpr/ceprdp/DP14631.pdf> [Accessed 25 November 2021].
Gautam, S. & Hens, L., 2020. COVID-19: Impact by and on the environment, health and economy. Environment, Development and Sustainability, pp.1-2. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10668-020-00818-7.pdf
Hale, T., Petherick, A., Phillips, T. & Webster, S., 2020. Variation in government responses to COVID-19. Blavatnik school of government working paper, 31, pp.2020-11.
https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/sites/default/files/learning/document/2020/4/BSG-WP-2020-031-v3.0.pdf
Lazarus, J.V., Ratzan, S., Palayew, A., Billari, F.C., Binagwaho, A., Kimball, S., Larson, H.J., Melegaro, A., Rabin, K., White, T.M. & El-Mohandes, A., 2020. COVID-SCORE: a global survey to assess public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 (COVID-SCORE-10). PloS one, 15(10), p.e0240011. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240011
Ludovic, J., Bourdin, S., Nadou, F. & Noiret, G., 2020. Economic globalization and the COVID-19 pandemic: global spread and inequalities. Bull World Health Organ, pp.2-4. https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/20-261099.pdf
Mather, P., 2020. Leadership and governance in a crisis: some reflections on COVID-19. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change. Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 579-585. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2469985297
McMullin, C., & Raggo, P. 2020. Leadership and governance in times of crisis: A balancing act for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), pp. 1182-1190. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0899764020964582
Moon, M.J., 2020. Fighting COVID?19 with agility, transparency, and participation: wicked policy problems and new governance challenges. Public administration review, 80(4), pp.651-656. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13214
Song, L. & Zhou, Y., 2020. The COVID?19 pandemic and its impact on the global economy: What does it take to turn crisis into opportunity?. China & World Economy, 28(4), pp.1-25. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cwe.12349
The World Bank. 2020. The Global Economic Outlook During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Changed World. [online] Available at: <https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/06/08/the-global-economic-outlook-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-changed-world> [Accessed 25 November 2021].
Wang, Z. & Sun, Z., 2021. From globalization to regionalization: The United States, China, and the post-Covid-19 world economic order. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 26(1), pp.69-87. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11366-020-09706-3
World Health Organization, 2020. Addressing human rights as key to the COVID-19: response, 21 April 2020 (No. WHO/2019-nCoV/SRH/Rights/2020.1). World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331811/WHO-2019-nCoV-SRH-Rights-2020.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
