Several countries in almost all regions applied different models to try to stop the expansion of the coronavirus and all of them failed in their goals. Some countries have better control of the pandemic while in other the pandemic was and still is out of control. We have the USA models, the Chinese model, the Swedish model, the UK model, the EU model, among other models applied by developed and developing countries alike.

The information provided by governments on the situation of the pandemic within the country is important to be known by other countries because gives you a clear picture of what is really happening and if the measures adopted are really the correct ones. However, the correctness of this information does not stop the expansion of the pandemic in the country but the concrete measures adopted and, at the end of the day, everybody will know if the information provided by the government is the correct one or not.

Before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, China was already the second world economy with sustained growth for many years, well above the growth of the world's strongest economies. Experts predicted several years ago that by 2050 China could surpass the United States and become the world's leading economic power. The appearance of the coronavirus pandemic has affected all countries in one way or another. However, China is the only one with positive growth (slightly more than 1%) but well below its annual historical growth. In my opinion, the only ones who will benefit from this situation are the pharmaceutical companies and the countries that are developing different vaccines to combat the spread of the pandemic worldwide. For the pandemic to be stopped, hundreds of millions of vaccines are required to vaccinate the largest number of people in the world.

Dear Filippo Carmenati , thank you very much for the interesting question.

Far from being an expert on the subject. I take the liberty of mentioning some elements in line with the problem

The coronavirus has reached a global spread, linking local scales with natural and social conditions. With regard to this invisible threat, it has not yet been possible to reach a scientific consensus on its evolution and future outbreaks. The COVID-19 pandemic has made directly transparent the enormous differences in health, economic and political conditions between regions at global level. In this context, it is very difficult to discern the post-COVID-19 scenario in terms of "winners and losers".

Proponents of international cooperation argue that an effective strategy against the consequences of the coronavirus can only be achieved through international cooperation, as has happened in history in the face of other global challenges. However, States have mostly taken action in an uncoordinated manner, while international organisations such as the WHO have been left in a secondary role. A scenario of tension between communitarianism and cosmopolitanism is faced, as well as a disjunction between solidarity and responsibility. The result in terms of the political behaviour of States is generating different practical consequences in different populations.

In a pandemic ending that is difficult to predict –including the course of the economic recession clearly specified by Jorge Morales Pedraza – as occurs in every global crisis, there are changes in international trade, generating winners and losers. The former include sectors linked to the knowledge-based economy, information technology - data managers - and robotization. The latter, with a greater participation of the labour factor, such as automotive companies.

During the course of the health crisis produced by the COVID-19, unexpected phenomena have occurred, such as negative values in the future price of oil. Countries with economic structures dependent on the prices of raw materials -which they export to China, the United States and Europe- and on remittances, are strongly affected during the process of global economic slowdown.

Meanwhile, governments, regardless of their political ideology, are calling for incentives for household consumption - according to some authors in line with the universal basic income - to prevent a further deterioration in the level of economic activity. Fiscal measures based on subsidies are also adopted to consolidate the structure of the market. The entities that achieve this support from the State to a greater extent benefit more in relative terms.

Beyond the post-pandemic horizon, major restructuring is predicted in the global economy, and therefore there are clear winners and losers.

We expect more contributions. Greetings

Fernando (from Argentina)

Estimado Filippo , muchas gracias por la interesante pregunta.

Lejos de ser un entendido en el tema. Me tomo el atrevimiento de hacer mención a algunos elementos en línea con la problemática

El coronavirus ha alcanzado una propagación global, vinculando las escalas locales, con las condiciones naturales y sociales. Respecto a esta amenaza invisible, aun no se ha podido lograr a nivel científico un consenso sobre su evolución y sus futuras brotes. La pandemia del COVID-19 ha hecho directamente transparentes las enormes diferencias en materia sanitaria, económica y política existentes entre las regiones a nivel global. En este contexto, se hace muy difícil alcanzar un discernimiento sobre el escenario post COVID-19, en términos de “ganadores y perdedores”.

Los partidarios de la cooperación internacional argumentan que una estrategia efectiva contra las consecuencias del coronavirus solo puede lograrse mediante la cooperación internacional, como ha ocurrió en la historia frente a otros desafíos mundiales. No obstante, los Estados han tomado medidas mayoritariamente de manera descoordinada, mientras organizaciones internacionales, como por ejemplo la OMS han quedado en un papel secundario. Se enfrenta un escenario de tensión entre el comunitarismo y el cosmopolitismo, así como también una disyuntiva entre solidaridad y responsabilidad. El resultado en términos de comportamiento político de los Estados, está generando diferentes consecuencias prácticas en las distintas poblaciones.

En un final de pandemia difícil de predecir –incluido el curso de la recesión económica, especificado claramente por Jorge Morales Pedraza–, como ocurre en toda crisis global, se producen modificaciones en el comercio internacional, generando ganadores y perdedores. Entre los primeros se indica a los sectores vinculados a la economía basados en el conocimiento, la tecnología de la información –gestores de datos–, y la robotización. Los segundos, con mayor participación del factor trabajo, como por ejemplo las empresas automotrices.

Durante el transcurso de la crisis sanitaria producida por el COVID-19, se han producido fenómenos inesperados, como valores negativos en el precio futuro del petróleo. Los países con estructuras económicas dependientes de los precios de las materias primas –que exportan a China, Estados Unidos y Europa–, y de las remesas, se ven fuertemente afectadas durante el proceso de desaceleración de la economía global.

En tanto los gobiernos, independientemente de su ideología política, apelan al incentivo al consumo de los hogares –según algunos autores en avance en línea al ingreso básico universal –, para evitar un deterioro mayor del nivel de actividad económica. Así como también se adoptan medidas fiscales basadas en subsidios para consolidar la estructura del mercado. Las entidades que logran en mayor medida este apoyo del Estado, se ven más beneficiadas en términos relativos.

Tras el horizonte post-pandemia, se pronostican grandes restructuraciones en la economía global, y, por tanto, se atisban claros ganadores y perdedores.

Esperamos más contribuciones. Saludos

Fernando (de Argentina)

Besides what I have said before, most of the internal problems facing the USA is due to the irresponsible policies implementing by president Trump, including the wrong policy to fight against the coronavirus pandemic in the country

Filippo Carmenati & Jorge Morales Pedraza : Interesting debate that you both have started off with very valuable insights. Being a novice in this arena to make any reflection, I am afraid that I can offer any thoughtful ideas to further the discussions.. Yet, I feel that nation states worldover will have to evolve a new strategy of growth in the post-pandemic, where, neither the Chinese model nor the US model will offer a clear pathway!! To me, the two pathways seem to be extremes in terms of taking a wholistic worldview in addressing or containing the pandemic. On the one side, as I understand from several media reporting, China seemed to be less transparent about the whole story, managing the pandemic, telling the truth of the pandemic and its outcomes to the outside world. On the other, the US seemed to be managing the crisis in haphazard manner. To me, both do not offer any convincing and truthful way of managing the crisis, which the entire world could observe and learn from!!! Maybe, we may have to learn from many countries in the global south and (perhaps) few countries in the global north, which could offer some useful pathways to move forward...

Several countries in almost all regions applied different models to try to stop the expansion of the coronavirus and all of them failed in their goals. Some countries have better control of the pandemic while in other the pandemic was and still is out of control. We have the USA models, the Chinese model, the Swedish model, the UK model, the EU model, among other models applied by developed and developing countries alike.

The information provided by governments on the situation of the pandemic within the country is important to be known by other countries because gives you a clear picture of what is really happening and if the measures adopted are really the correct ones. However, the correctness of this information does not stop the expansion of the pandemic in the country but the concrete measures adopted and, at the end of the day, everybody will know if the information provided by the government is the correct one or not.