Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis
Highlights
Introduction
Natural disasters are inevitable, and only through preparation can governments be ready to handle them. Only a suitable economic system is capable of managing crises effectively. Pandemics are not novel phenomena, as evidenced by historical outbreaks such as the Spanish Flu, Swine Flu, SARS, MERS, and Ebola. Each of these viruses had its outcomes and repercussions. However, their societal and economic impacts pale in comparison with those of COVID-19. COVID-19 differs from previous viruses due to its distinct characteristics of being highly transmissible, deadly, and rapidly contagious. Beyond these inherent characteristics, it was the deliberate downsizing of healthcare services that transformed the COVID-19 situation into a crisis.
The rapid global spread of COVID-19 elicited diverse responses from different states. Typical measures included school closures, travel restrictions, social distancing strategies, emergency investments in healthcare, and management of economic fallout. Nevertheless, there was notable diversity in the particular measures that were adopted and the pace at which they were put into effect. COVID-19 profoundly altered daily life across the globe. In addition to its effects on human health, the pandemic had adverse outcomes rooted in social realities, e.g., racial and economic inequality, exacerbating economic and social challenges on a global scale.
The economy required a stronger lever than the market's invisible hand. Given the circumstances, the states needed to intervene to the maximum extent. The pandemic brought to light the deficiencies of capitalism as an economic and even political system, prompting the possibility of a shift in this system. COVID-19 highlighted the inefficiencies of healthcare systems that followed a neoliberal ethos, demonstrating that a profit-driven economy cannot effectively protect lives and meet basic needs proactively and efficiently. It also showed that society would require alternative sectors capable of delivering comprehensive services.
Methodology
The COVID-19 pandemic posed an unprecedented challenge to all states, with some states outperforming others. What factors contributed to the disparate responses of states to COVID-19, and why were some nations more successful than others? To address these questions, this study employed a descriptive-comparative approach to analyze the performance of four capitalistic models (i.e., social embeddedness, power resource, historical institutionalist, and rationalist-functionalist) in five countries: Japan, Sweden, Germany, the US, and the UK. These countries are considered the representative cases of each capitalistic model. The research premise is that the nature of a state's economic system plays a key role in shaping its government's response to crises. Moreover, social democratic models (exemplified by Germany, Sweden, and Japan) are hypothesized to have probably excelled in addressing the pandemic due to their emphasis on robust social welfare provision. Nevertheless, neoliberal models (represented by the US and the UK) may have demonstrated greater success in vaccine development and innovation owing to their focus on market-driven solutions.
Results and Discussion
This study found significant variations in economic systems and governmental perceptions of the pandemic, leading to different performances and outcomes in terms of mortality rates and economic repercussions. The COVID-19 pandemic uncovered that the unequal capitalistic system placed powerful nations like the US and the UK in a precarious position at the height of the crisis. In other words, this system selectively eliminates cost-intensive social service sectors based solely on cost-benefit analyses. In contrast, countries such as Germany and Sweden, which did not integrate capitalism into their healthcare systems, exhibited greater success in managing the pandemic. Japan, too, succeeded in containing the virus; however, its achievements remained contentious, as they were not attributed to its economic policies. In recent years, Japan's conservative economic policies have been aligning with those of the US and the UK. These policies, coupled with inadequate medical support, resulted in Japan's therapeutic failure against COVID-19. Paradoxically, Japan's success in containing the pandemic crisis can be attributed to its educational policies and investments in education and inculcation.
This research further pinpoints that, for a more nuanced study of crisis responses in comparative studies, it is beneficial to disaggregate the crisis into distinct phases: the initial or entry phase, the containment or management phase, and the exit phase. The first phase encompasses anticipation, planning, and preparedness for crises. The second phase revolves around government policies and their investments in social services. The third phase focuses on measures that facilitate an exit from the crisis. Countries such as Germany, Sweden, and Japan demonstrated effective performance in the second phase due to their preparedness in the first phase, successfully navigating the crisis. Conversely, despite a less successful entry and inadequate management in the second phase, the US and the UK exhibited remarkable success in the exit phase. Their substantial investments in innovation and research enabled them to develop vaccines, effectively eradicating the pandemic.
Conclusion
The superior performance of certain capitalistic models across crisis phases can be attributed to variations in governmental prioritization of different issues. The success of Germany, Sweden, and Japan in crisis management can be attributed to their pre-existing infrastructure and prioritization of social services. In contrast, despite significant efforts, the US and the UK lacked the capacity for greater success, as evidenced by inadequate hospital beds and healthcare budgets during the crisis. Germany's state-oriented economic model facilitated greater preparedness and a more rapid response, which, combined with the country's robust healthcare system, contributed to its success. Sweden managed to navigate the crisis effectively with its unique approach, whereas Japan's expert-driven strategy and prior investments in inculcation enabled this country to overcome the crisis.
As viewed by the findings, the real-world performance of capitalistic economic systems typically necessitates a form of "crony capitalism." In other words, it is not a sound practice for nations to adopt socialist ideologies during crises, viewing crisis resolution as a government responsibility, only to revert to neoliberal principles once the crisis subsides and to perceive any form of government intervention as disruptive to market mechanisms. Political economy may be compelled to abandon the notion of distinct national capitalistic models altogether and embrace the concept of a mixed global capitalistic system. In the face of previous crises, the world missed opportunities to reshape its economic system; however, the opportunity has presented itself once again. This time, governments can seize the opportunity to reconsider the distribution system within the capitalistic framework while simultaneously navigating their way out of the crisis. The primary lesson from this crisis is that capitalism must be exercised differently.
Subjects
