Search

Begin New Search Topic Pandemic Publication Year within 25 Years

21. Covidocracy in the Election Process – An Analysis of the Pandemic Narrative Serving the State Capture

Author:
Srdan Hercigonja
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP)
Abstract:
In this analysis, the predominant narratives of the pandemic shall be explored, as well as the ways they have impacted the state capturing process in the period from the second half of 2021 till 3 April 2022, when the general and presidential elections took place in Serbia. The crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic denuded the authoritarian tendencies in Serbia, both in the state and in the society, making visible the size and scope of state capturing. To what extent this process has set in may be best visible by the way the institutions and authorities have made decisions during the pandemic management, as well as by the decision they have taken. It has been 26 months since the first infection case was registered in Serbia and since the two-month long state of emergency was introduced. Ever since, decisions have been taken towards reducing the virus spread, but also disregarding the opinions of experts in this field (epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists). The decisions were made depending on the ruling elite’s political interests. For the first year and a half after the outbreak, the mainstream discourse imposed by the authorities was that the state and the society were at war. All the elements of war discourse were noticeable in the statements of public officials, even experts – there is an enemy out there whom we must beat (the virus), emergency measures like curfew were introduced, the story of doctors like frontline warriors was imposed, and allies were also chosen for this war. The narrative of war like predominant discourse of fighting the pandemic provided legitimacy for the highest officials to take the crucial decisions in countering the pandemic – precisely this enabled the President of the Republic or the Prime Minister to take and communicate the most important decisions regarding this “war”, while experts were placed at the margins of decision-making. Finally, the top officials are competent for declaring victory at war, and the ruling party declared the victory over the pandemic twice, both times on the eve of elections – first time in May 2020, and second in March 2022. However, during the autumn 2021, the narrative of war as the prevalent one during the pandemic was replaced by quiet and silence, the story of the pandemic was pushed to the margins, which was particularly evident in the April 2022 pre-election period.
Topic:
Elections, Democracy, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia

22. Pandemic Management – Lessons Learned for a Safer Future

Author:
Milja Dimitrijevic and Rade Panic
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP)
Abstract:
How the pandemic was managed in Serbia and what are the recommendations for better coping in similar situations in the future, read in the analysis made by BCSP in cooperation with the Union of Doctors and Pharmacists of Serbia. The political and social context in which the pandemic management in Serbia is analysed is marked by a drastic decline in the level of democracy in the country, as well as the strengthening of authoritarian tendencies in the state and society within the process of “capturing the state” by the ruling elite. Unfortunately, Serbia cannot boast of successful results, especially if we take into account the number of deceased citizens, as well as the low level of vaccination compared to European Union countries. The number of deceased citizens in 2021 is as much as 18 percent higher than in the same period in 2020. Statistical data show that in 2021, most people died in Serbia within one year since the end of World War II. These data speak volumes about the results of the crisis management caused by the COVID-19 epidemic in Serbia. In this analysis, the focus is on two aspects of pandemic management – the legal aspects of crisis management and the health system’s readiness to deal with the crisis. The analysis was created within the framework of informal cooperation between the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy and the Union of Doctors and Pharmacists of Serbia. The author of the paper on the legal aspects of pandemic management is a lawyer from the Union of Doctors and Pharmacists Milja Dimitrijević, while the part about the capacities of the health system was written by Dr. Rade Panić, the President of the Union of Doctors and Pharmacists. The analysis was created within the survey that was conducted from October 2021 to March 2022. Precisely because of that, some data in the analysis were presented during the writing of the analysis itself, which were relevant during the research and writing the analysis (for example, when writing about the number of infected citizens, or the number of deceased doctors). Finally, the analysis concludes with certain recommendations necessary to improve the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, but possibly some other pandemics in the future.
Topic:
Governance, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia

23. (Absence of) Trust and Security in the Second Year of the Pandemic – Serbian Citizens’ Opinions about the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author:
Maja Bjelos and Srdan Hercigonja
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP)
Abstract:
What do Serbian citizens think about the COVID-19 pandemic? What are their opinions about vaccination? Do they trust the institutions that were managing the pandemic? We present you an analysis of citizens' attitudes on these topics. The public opinion poll on the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, the process of immunisation of the population and the impact of the pandemic on the work of institutions and the status of democracy was conducted during the relatively calm epidemiological period, just before the big wave in late 2021 and early 2022, when Serbia had a record number of registered citizens newly infected with the Coronavirus. At the same time, the survey was conducted in the period when all adult citizens were offered the so-called booster or the third dose of the vaccine against COVID-19. The observed period was marked by the political and security crisis in Kosovo, so the pandemic was not in the focus of public and political discussion. In the meantime, the gradual calming of the situation regarding the pandemic itself, and primarily the reduction of the number of newly infected and dead, created space for the analysis and assessment of the way the pandemic had been managed.
Topic:
Public Opinion, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia

24. The Post COVID-19 and RCEP: Pandemic Recovery in East Asia

Author:
Shandre Mugan Thangavelu, Shujiro Urata, and Dionisius Narjoko
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
The paper examines the impact of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on the COVID-19 pandemic recovery of the East Asian countries. Recent studies highlight the positive gains from the RCEP agreement for all 15 of its member countries (Itakura, 2022, Petri and Plummer, 2020; Park, 2022). However, the recovery will be not even across East Asia. The East Asian countries of China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (CJK) are likely to have the largest gains, as these countries dominate the regional global value chain (GVC) activities. The ASEAN least developed countries of Cambodia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), and Myanmar also experience positive gains from RCEP, but need to undertake deeper structural reforms to fully benefit from the agreement. The RCEP framework has elements that will be crucial for the post-pandemic recovery and regional transformation: (i) accelerating and enhancing GVC activities through the single rule-of-origin framework for the 15 RCEP member countries and CJK (China, Japan, and Korea) effects; (ii) services liberalisation and digital transformation in the key services trade of e-commerce, financial, professional, and telecommunications services; (iii) economic cooperation amongst the 15 RCEP member countries to address key contingency issues such as mass vaccination and health infrastructure, protocols for the movement of people, and trade capacity building for ASEAN least developed countries; and (iv) the ‘living’ nature of the RCEP agreement will be able to create a wider regional integration agenda to address key contemporary issues such as environment and climate change, skills development, green transformation, and developing digital and smart urban centres. ASEAN centrality, as highlighted by the RCEP framework, is critical for the post-pandemic recovery and structural transformation of the region.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Recovery, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Asia and ASEAN

25. COVID-19, Telework Patterns Within a City, and Changes in Urban Structure – Preliminary Findings

Author:
Ikumo Isono and Kazuhiro Nara
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
With the coronavirus disease (COVID-19, the spread of teleworking means that people do not necessarily have to live near their place of work. Will the role of cities change in this case? Teleworking patterns within a city matter. According to data from the Tokyo metropolitan area, people who live in a particular part of the city or work in the city centre are more likely to telework. Areas with a higher proportion of managers and professionals have higher rates of telework. Those who can telework may move from central Tokyo to other parts of the country, but the destination is mainly the outskirts of Tokyo. In the suburban areas, there was a positive correlation between the rate of increase in the number of migrants from the 23 wards of Tokyo and the teleworking rate. It is reasonable to assume that areas offering a good living environment are unevenly distributed, that the telework rate is high in these areas, and that the number of migrants is increasing in these areas. The government’s story that more people will move to rural areas as a result of widespread telework may not be so simple.
Topic:
Labor Policies, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Remote Work
Political Geography:
Japan and Asia

26. Digital Technology Adoption and Indonesia’s MSMEs during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author:
Teguh Yudo Wicaksono and Andre Simangunsong
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)
Abstract:
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has hit micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) hard. The estimated economic impact of COVID-19 could exceed the fiscal stimulus package as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Digital technologies have helped them to better navigate the situation. Yet Only 13% of MSMEs adopt the internet for marketing and delivering their products and services. This paper discusses Indonesia’s MSMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic and the digital transformation they pursue. We also discuss policy responses and government support to help MSMEs navigate the worst public crisis in our lifetime.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Indonesia and Oceania

27. A Global Development Paradigm for a World in Crisis

Author:
Rachael Calleja, Beata Cichocka, Mikaela Gavas, and Samuel Pleeck
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
This paper explores how and whether responses to COVID-19, particularly from non-DAC actors, have deepened the transition from an “international” to a “global” development paradigm, and it considers implications for the future of development cooperation. To do so, we map international responses to COVID-19—financial and beyond—to understand the changing nature of development challenges and cooperation as well as the growing role of non-DAC actors as part of this shift. Our analysis shows that while a diversity of actors contributed to international COVID-19 responses, the transition towards a global development paradigm has yet to materialize. Instead, responses to COVID-19 demonstrated clear tensions between the imperative for collaboration and the national interest, with the latter trumping the former.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

28. ABCs of the IFIs: The African Development Fund’s 16th Replenishment

Author:
Jocilyn Estes and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Many African countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, continue to grapple with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic while simultaneously confronting the challenges posed by slowing global growth, private capital outflows, debt distress, and the impacts of climate change. An estimated 55 million people on the continent have been pushed into extreme poverty since the onset of the pandemic. This devastating trend has been exacerbated by the ripple effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—supply chain disruptions, tightening fiscal space, and growing pressure on the cost of food, fuel, and fertilizer. International financial support for the continent has fallen woefully short of levels required to prevent the current crisis from derailing long-term development. The African Development Bank (AfDB) is the largest regional multilateral development finance institution on the continent. It provides critical financial support to countries across the region, including investment in vital infrastructure projects. The African Development Fund (AfDF) is the Bank’s concessional window, providing financing in the form of grants and concessional loans to resource-constrained governments responding to the growing challenges on the continent, including gaps in critical infrastructure and rising debt burdens. Amid ongoing and overlapping global emergencies, the stakes for the AfDF’s upcoming replenishment could hardly be higher. The AfDF is making the case to donors—who will come together later this year for a final meeting of the AfDF’s 16th replenishment (AfDF-16)—that the Fund needs substantial new resources to continue to support African people, businesses, and governments and make up lost ground in the fight against poverty. An ambitious 16th replenishment—coupled with policy and governance reform commitments—presents an opportunity for donors, including the United States, to complement long-standing investments in regional growth and infrastructure, offer a sustainable alternative to non-concessional Chinese lending, and make headway on the long road to economic recovery from the pandemic and worsening food security crisis.
Topic:
Development, Investment, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Africa

29. 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 (CGD)
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

30. Assessment of Expenditure Choices by Low- and Low- Middle-Income Countries During the Pandemic and Their Impact on SDGs

Author:
Sanjeev Gupta and Lucas Sala
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Until the COVID pandemic, public spending in low- and low-middle-income countries had been growing modestly. As a result, governments expanded service provision, including in social sectors, and enlarged welfare programs. This was made possible in part by domestic revenue growth. However, the pandemic has significantly lowered revenue receipts of these countries, while creating pressures to spend more on shielding the population and providing support to the economy. Unfortunately, health outlays did not increase as a share of total output during 2000-2018. The preliminary evidence compiled in this paper shows that health spending in relation to GDP increased virtually in all low and low-middle income countries in 2020, though not by as much as in advanced economies. However, higher health spending in low and low-middle income countries is unlikely to be sustained because of the pandemic’s adverse impact on revenues and other spending pressures. Furthermore, COVID has critically scarred the future productivity of these countries. Before the pandemic, the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 was doubtful in part because of the slow pace in generating additional revenues from domestic sources. As the financing needs have increased, the achievement of these goals will be delayed beyond 2030, unless additional financing sources can be found. This means that policy actions will need to be taken by these countries to create additional fiscal space going forward. There is potential to raise more revenues from domestic sources by implementing politically difficult policy measures and generating savings by improving the quality of public spending, including on health.
Topic:
Development, Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainability, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus