World history demonstrates a variety of examples of how nations and their residents pool their efforts in order to achieve the desired effect. As a matter of fact, these unions are frequently caused by some global issues, increasing the necessity to act in a symbiosis. Hence, after the Second World War, politicians of the leading states made the decision to commence a policy of uniting their states’ powers in order to resist the international threat. Such a concept is known as a process of globalization and could be defined as follows:
Globalization is the word used to describe the growing interdependence of the world’s economies, cultures, and populations brought about by cross-border trade in goods and services, technology, and flows of investment, people, and information. (“What Is Globalization?” 2018, para. 1)
One of the most recent and severe prerequisites of reenforcing the globalization process is the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and world crisis. The following framework of international cooperation, in its turn, might be regarded from various perspectives. On the one hand, globalization is one of the most beneficial aspects in terms of economic coordination, especially at times when individual countries are going through rapid deterioration stages (Sułkowski 2020). On the contrary, however, such a tight relationship within states might lead to the increasing rates of infection contagion (Antràs et al. 2020). Thus, the primary purpose of the following thesis is to analyze the ways in which globalization negatively affects the economy and disease rates within individual states in the long-term perspective. Moreover, it is necessary to define the scope of the virus’s influence on the international security, especially in the context of global health policy.
It is generally accepted that the healthcare facilities all over the world are to obtain an extensive program dedicated to the outbreak’s response, which would tackle the issues of international security and interstate relocation. However, researchers claim only a part of the states to be theoretically ready to deal with the outbreak and its consequences (Kandel et al. 2020). Thus, it becomes evident that whereas only some member states are able to contain the pandemic in a timely manner, there is no chance to secure a proper level of international security.
The COVID-19 pandemic has already tackled a series of economic aspects of the separate nations and its residents, leading to the unprecedented rates of unemployment and inflation. In order to mitigate the potential outcomes of the ongoing global disaster, state leaders, while taking care of the local economy, decided to collaborate with the nations that require help to develop a relatively stable world infrastructure (Iwuoha et al. 2020; Shukla 2020). However, while, in theory, such an approach is seemingly the best solution to the issue, the reality of this model disrupts the overall relationship between states.
It is generally believed that the key to maintaining world peace and a stable economy lies within the stronger states’ ability to assist nations seeking support and mentorship. The primary COVID-19 agenda was supposed to follow suit in order to stabilize the overall state of affairs (Bertelsmeier and Ollier 2020). However, in terms of the following pattern, one significant thing was overlooked: Coronavirus outbreak was an unprecedented example of a global disaster that could not be anticipated and addressed in a timely manner even by the world’s most powerful countries (R Yacoub and El-Zomor 2020). Thus, some of the globalization fundamentals, implying balancing the world economy in a collective manner, were impossible to address due to the global confusion in terms of resource allocation and reevaluating standards of living.
The very process of handling the pandemic required a series of collective efforts to be made in order to secure the world population. For the most part, these efforts included rapid attempts to create a COVID-19 vaccine, as it required the collaboration of some of the most brilliant scientific minds from all over the world (Jackson 2020). Moreover, the coworking process was also implied to engage in timely relief supplies to the developing countries in order to contain the disease expansion (Sforza and Steininger 2020). Considering these facts, one might suggest that the outbreak of COVID-19 should have served as a bridgehead for the development of a solid globalization pattern followed by positive interventions in the lives of separate countries.
To begin with, the process of globalization marked its beginning almost half a century ago, making steady steps toward the consolidation of the states. The COVID-19 precedent left state leaders no choice but to unite their efforts in a forcible manner, sacrificing state possessions and frameworks (Farzanegan et al. 2020). The world history consists of a variety of examples of how untimely and involuntary policy commences might lead to exhaustion and crisis in the long run. Thus, the pandemic situation, while requiring immediate intervention, has no qualitative basis for the globalization process optimization (Jenny 2020). As a result, it has become evident that in spite of the notion of globalization being on the international agenda for a long time, there is no practical ability to implement the policies when faced with a real threat. Another crucial revelation that stems from the aforementioned issue is the instability of the international security paradigm as a whole, making it necessary to establish an explicit cooperation and response model.
“What Is Globalization?” 2018. PIIE. Web.
Antràs, Pol, Stephen J. Redding, and Esteban Rossi-Hansberg. Globalization and Pandemics. No. w27840. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020.
Bertelsmeier, Cleo, and Sébastien Ollier. “International tracking of the COVID-19 invasion: an amazing example of a globalized scientific coordination effort.” Biological Invasions (2020): 1.
Farzanegan, Mohammad Reza, Mehdi Feizi, and Hassan F. Gholipour. “Globalization and outbreak of COVID-19: An empirical analysis.” CESifo Working Paper, no. 8315 (2020).
Iwuoha, Jude Chukwunyere, and Adaeze Ukamaka Jude-Iwuoha. “COVID-19: Challenge to SDG and Globalization.” Electronic Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 2 (2020).
Jackson, Emerson Abraham. “Emerging Innovative Thoughts on Globalization amidst the Contageon of COVID-19.” Munich Personal RePEc Archive (2020): 1-17.
Jenny, Frederic. “Economic Resilience, Globalization and Market Governance: Facing the COVID-19 Test.” Globalization and Market Governance: Facing the COVID-19 Test (2020).
Kandel, Nirmal, Stella Chungong, Abbas Omaar, and Jun Xing. “Health security capacities in the context of COVID-19 outbreak: an analysis of International Health Regulations annual report data from 182 countries.” The Lancet (2020).
R Yacoub, Amin, and Mohamed El-Zomor. “Would COVID-19 be the turning point in history for the globalization era? The short-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 on Globalization.” The Short-Term and Long-Term Impact of COVID-19 on Globalization. (2020).
Sforza, Alessandro, and Marina Steininger. “Globalization in the Time of COVID-19.” CESifo Working Paper, no. 8184 (2020).
Shukla, Sushma. “COVID-19 and Globalization, An Analysis.” Cape Comorin 2, no. 4 (2020): 60-64.
Sułkowski, Łukasz. “Covid-19 pandemic; recession, virtual revolution leading to de-globalization?.” Journal of Intercultural Management 12, no. 1 (2020): 1-11.