Pope says capitalism failed humanity during coronavirus pandemic

“The fragility of world systems in the face of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by market freedom... It is imperative to have a proactive economic policy directed at ‘promoting an economy that favors productive diversity and business creativity’ and makes it possible for jobs to be created, not cut.” The pope also restated the past calls for the redistribution of wealth, saying those with much should “administer it for the good of all.” But he clarified that he was “not proposing an authoritarian and abstract universalism.”

Read here (DW, Oct 4, 2020)

Capitalism after the pandemic: Getting the recovery right

‘Governments also need to consider how to use the returns on their investments to promote a more equitable distribution of income. This is not about socialism; it is about understanding the source of capitalistic profits. The current crisis has led to renewed discussions about a universal basic income, whereby all citizens receive an equal regular payment from the government, regardless of whether they work. The idea behind this policy is a good one, but the narrative would be problematic. Since a universal basic income is seen as a handout, it perpetuates the false notion that the private sector is the sole creator, not a co-creator, of wealth in the economy and that the public sector is merely a toll collector, siphoning off profits and distributing them as charity.

‘A better alternative is a citizen’s dividend. Under this policy, the government takes a percentage of the wealth created with government investments, puts that money in a fund, and then shares the proceeds with the people. The idea is to directly reward citizens with a share of the wealth they have created...

‘A citizen’s dividend allows the proceeds of co-created wealth to be shared with the larger community—whether that wealth comes from natural resources that are part of the common good or from a process, such as public investments in medicines or digital technologies, that has involved a collective effort. Such a policy should not serve as a substitute for getting the tax system to work right. Nor should the state use the lack of such funds as an excuse to not finance key public goods. But a public fund can change the narrative by explicitly recognizing the public contribution to wealth creation—key in the political power play between forces.’

Read here (Foreign Affairs, Oct 2, 2020) 

The world after Coronavirus: A Pardee Center video series

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis of unprecedented scale, with aftershocks that will be felt in virtually every aspect of life for years or decades to come. The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at the Pardee School of Global Studies is pleased to present “The World After Coronavirus,” a video series featuring more than 100 interviews with leading experts and practitioners from Boston University and across the world, exploring the challenges and opportunities we will face in our post-coronavirus future.

The series is hosted by Prof. Adil Najam, the Inaugural Dean of the Pardee School of Global Studies and former Director of the Pardee Center. Each episode is around five minutes long, and is an edited version of a slightly longer conversation between Dean Najam and our featured guest.

The entire series is curated on the Pardee Center’s YouTube channel.

• Ban Ki-moon on The Future of the United Nations
• Leon E. Panetta on The Future of Public Service
• Richard N. Haass on The Future of ‘The World’
• Lawrence Lessig on The Future of Expertise
• Fred Swaniker on The Future of Education in Africa
• Nicol Turner Lee on The Future of Technology and Work
• Paul Webster Hare on The Future of Diplomacy
• Michelle A. Williams on The Future of Public Health
• Kara Lavender Law on The Future of the Oceans
• Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz on The Future of the WTO
• Alanna Shaikh on The Future of Global Health
• Barry Hughes on The Future of Disruptions
• Mariette DiChristina on The Future of Science Journalism
• James J. Collins on The Future of Synthetic Biology
• Sharon Goldberg on The Future of Cybersecurity
• Jeffrey D. Sachs on The Future of Global Sustainable Development
• Guy Kawasaki on The Future of Digital Marketing
• Ian Bremmer on The Future of Geopolitics
• Umar Saif on The Future of E-Commerce in the Developing World
• Janine Ferretti on The Future of Environmental Performance
• Judith Butler on The Future of Gender and Identity
• Richard Florida on The Future of Cities
• Martin Rees on The Future of the Future
• Julia Kim on The Future of Happiness
• Jeremy Corbyn on The Future of Politics (and Part 2)
• Ian Goldin on The Future of Globalization
• Judith Butler on The Future of Hope
• Robin Murphy on The Future of Robots
• Thomas Lovejoy on The Future of Nature
• Sandrine Dixson-Declѐve on The Future of the Green Economy
• Mary Evelyn Tucker on The Future of Religion and Ecology
• Mark C. Storella on The Future of Health Diplomacy
• Paul R. Ehrlich on The Future of Population and Extinction
• Adela Pineda on The Future of Literature
• Peter Gleick on The Future of Water
• Ricardo Hausmann on The Future of Tax Policy in Developing Countries
• Ramachandra Guha on The Future of Globalism
• Ann Marie Lipinski on The Future of Journalism
• Peter Frankopan on The Future of the Silk Roads
• Ha-Joon Chang on The Future of Developing Economies
• Alice Ruhweza on The Future of the Food System in Africa
• Elizabeth Economy on The Future of U.S.-China Relations
• Ibram X. Kendi on The Future of Racism
• Peter Maurer on The Future of Humanitarianism
• Jessica Stern on The Future of Extremism
• Angus Deaton on The Future of Despair
• Danielle Citron on The Future of Cyber Civil Rights
• Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on The Future of Human Rights
• Elizabeth M. Mrema on The Future of Biodiversity
• Dani Rodrik on The Future of Global Trade
• Nahid Bhadelia on The Future of Infectious Disease
• Vali Nasr on The Future of the Middle East
• Graham T. Allison on The Future of Thucydides
• Rachel Kyte on The Future of Renewable Energy
• David Miliband on The Future of Refugees
• Vala Afshar on The Future of Digital Business
• Kevin P. Gallagher on The Future of Economic Multilateralism
• Karen H. Antman on The Future of Medicine
• Adm. James G. Stavridis on The Future of the Military
• Thomas Piketty on The Future of Inequality
• Jomo Kwame Sundaram on The Future of Food Security
• Kevin Outterson on The Future of Health Law
• Bill McKibben on The Future of Environmentalism
• Laurie Garrett on The Future of Pandemics
• Malik Dahlan on The Future of Muslim Societies
• Sandro Galea on The Future of Mental Health
• Michael Barber on The Future of Government
• Peter Singer on The Future of Meat
• Phil Baty on The Future of Global Higher Education
• Sunita Narain on The Future of Global Cooperation
• Adil Haider on The Future of Emergency Medicine
• Michael Woldemariam on The Future of Africa
• Lucy Hutyra on The Future of CO2
• David Chard on The Future of Education
• Sakiko Fukuda-Parr on The Future of the SDGs
• Francis Fukuyama on The Future of Democracy
• Mark Blyth on The Future of Growth
• Claudia Juech on The Future of Data Governance
• Tom Tugendhat on The Future of the Nation State
• Rachel Nolan on The Future of Immigration
• Achim Steiner on The Future of International Development
• Michael Kugelman on The Future of South Asia
• Enrico Letta on The Future of the E.U.
• Marcia McNutt on The Future of Science
• Jorge Heine on The Future of Latin America
• Harvey Young on The Future of the Fine Arts
• Kishore Mahbubani on The Future of Asia
• Yolanda Kakabadse on The Future of Sustainable Development
• Atif Mian on The Future of Debt
• Parag Khanna on The Future of Supply Chains
• Noam Chomsky on The Future of Neoliberalism (and Part 2)
• Neta Crawford on The Future of War
• Perry Mehrling on The Future of Money
• Larry Susskind on The Future of Problem Solving in Crises
• Ellen Ruppel Shell on The Future of Work
• Kishore Mahbubani on The Future of World Order & Global Governance
• Saleemul Huq on The Future of Global Climate Policy
• Andrew J. Bacevich on The Future of National Security
• Muhammad Hamid Zaman on The Future of Humanitarian Relief
• Vivien Schmidt on The Future of Europe
• Jon Hutton on The Future of Conservation

Read here (Pardee School of Global Studies, Sept 29, 2020) 

Offline: Covid-19 is not a pandemic -- It is a syndemic: Richard Horton

‘The most important consequence of seeing COVID-19 as a syndemic is to underline its social origins. The vulnerability of older citizens; Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities; and key workers who are commonly poorly paid with fewer welfare protections points to a truth so far barely acknowledged—namely, that no matter how effective a treatment or protective a vaccine, the pursuit of a purely biomedical solution to COVID-19 will fail. Unless governments devise policies and programmes to reverse profound disparities, our societies will never be truly COVID-19 secure. 

‘As Singer and colleagues wrote in 2017, “A syndemic approach provides a very different orientation to clinical medicine and public health by showing how an integrated approach to understanding and treating diseases can be far more successful than simply controlling epidemic disease or treating individual patients.” I would add one further advantage. Our societies need hope. The economic crisis that is advancing towards us will not be solved by a drug or a vaccine. Nothing less than national revival is needed. Approaching COVID-19 as a syndemic will invite a larger vision, one encompassing education, employment, housing, food, and environment. Viewing COVID-19 only as a pandemic excludes such a broader but necessary prospectus.’

Read here (The Lancet, Sept 26, 2020)

How the pandemic revealed Britain’s national illness

‘Much of the focus has been on Johnson: an apparent manifestation of all that has gone wrong in Britain, a caricature of imperial nostalgia, Trumpian populism, and a general lack of seriousness. Yet this was not simply an issue of inept political leadership, inept or otherwise: Johnson stuck closely to a strategy designed and endorsed by the government’s experts, leaders in their fields and respected internationally. Even if the prime minister did make serious mistakes, the country’s issues run far deeper. The British government as a whole made poorer decisions, based on poorer advice, founded on poorer evidence, supplied by poorer testing, with the inevitable consequence that it achieved poorer results than almost any of its peers. It failed in its preparation, its diagnosis, and its treatment...

‘As prime minister, Johnson must accept that Britain’s failures are his as well. Still, the difficult truth is that the country’s failures clearly go beyond Johnson. They were collective, multilayered, and deadly. The most difficult question about all this is also the simplest: Why?... What emerges is a picture of a country whose systemic weaknesses were exposed with appalling brutality, a country that believed it was stronger than it was, and that paid the price for failures that have built up for years.’

Read here (The Atlantic, August 12, 2020)

How the pandemic defeated America

‘It is hard to stare directly at the biggest problems of our age. Pandemics, climate change, the sixth extinction of wildlife, food and water shortages—their scope is planetary, and their stakes are overwhelming. We have no choice, though, but to grapple with them. It is now abundantly clear what happens when global disasters collide with historical negligence.

‘COVID‑19 is an assault on America’s body, and a referendum on the ideas that animate its culture. Recovery is possible, but it demands radical introspection. America would be wise to help reverse the ruination of the natural world, a process that continues to shunt animal diseases into human bodies. It should strive to prevent sickness instead of profiting from it. It should build a health-care system that prizes resilience over brittle efficiency, and an information system that favors light over heat. It should rebuild its international alliances, its social safety net, and its trust in empiricism. It should address the health inequities that flow from its history. Not least, it should elect leaders with sound judgment, high character, and respect for science, logic, and reason.

‘The pandemic has been both tragedy and teacher. Its very etymology offers a clue about what is at stake in the greatest challenges of the future, and what is needed to address them. Pandemic. Pan and demos. All people.’

Read here (The Atlantic, August 4, 2020)

Rethink food security and nutrition following Covid-19 pandemic

‘The Covid-19 crisis has had several unexpected effects, including renewed attention to food security concerns. Earlier understandings of food security in terms of production self-sufficiency have given way to importing supplies since late 20th century promotion of trade liberalization.

‘Food systems need to be repurposed to better produce and supply safe and nutritious food. Ensuring that food systems improve nutrition is not just a matter of increasing production. The entire ‘nutrition value chain’ — from farm to fork, from production to consumption — needs to be considered to ensure the food system better feeds the population.

‘Food systems have to improve production practices, post-harvest processing and consumption behaviour. Resource use and abuse as well as environmental damage due to food production and consumption need to be addressed to ensure sustainable food systems.’

Read here (IPS News, July 2, 2020)

‘You have to take action’: One hospital cleaner’s journey through the pandemic

‘Two years ago, Ernesta decided she wanted to improve things for the cleaners at Lewisham hospital. She believed they deserved better pay and better treatment. She joined the union, persuaded her colleagues to join, too, and they began to organise themselves. In a long campaign to improve their working lives – a campaign that has persevered through a pandemic – the cleaners have won various battles, but they still have more to fight. In the past three months, their vulnerability has also been made distressingly clear. Cleaners from all over the country have died from Covid-19 – two of those who died worked down the road from Lewisham at St George’s hospital in Tooting. The pandemic has revealed what was always obvious to Ernesta: a hospital can’t function without its cleaners. They are as vital to its purpose as any of the other frontline staff, and equally at risk.’

Read here (The Guardian, June 30, 2020)

Scathing Covid-19 book from Lancet editor — rushed but useful

‘Since the coronavirus crisis began, Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of leading medical journal The Lancet, has been tearing across the British public sphere. Here he is on the BBC, the national broadcaster, there in the pages of The Guardian newspaper — taking the government to task for failures that have left the United Kingdom with the world’s second-highest per capita COVID-19 death toll so far (Belgium is top). Horton has never shied away from controversy (his journal published the retracted, fraudulent paper by Andrew Wakefield that alleged a non-existent link between vaccines with autism) or crusades (against the Iraq war and for political action on climate change). In coronavirus, he has found a cause that matches his energy: the Lancet journals are pumping out both the latest research and his pointed critiques of government policy; and last month, he reviewed a new book by the Slovenian Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek that imagines economic and social worlds after COVID-19.

‘Now Horton has a book of his own. The COVID-19 Catastrophe is a sort of history, diagnosis and prescription, in real time. It is wide ranging, querying the changing role of international cooperation and the fallout of austerity economics, and taking a deeper dive into China’s scientific and political response to the crisis than most Western media have offered. But the book returns again and again to the catastrophe in both the United Kingdom and the United States. It is haunted by the question: how did two of the richest, most powerful and most scientifically advanced countries in the world get it so wrong, and cause such ongoing pain for their citizens?’

Read here (Nature, June 18, 2020)

Economic ghosts block post-lockdown recovery

‘As governments the world over struggle to revive their economies after the debilitating lockdowns they imposed following their failure to undertake adequate precautionary containment measures to curb Covid-19 contagion, neoliberal naysayers are already warning against needed deficit financing for relief and recovery.’

Read here (IPS News, June 9, 2020)

Has the coronavirus crisis killed neoliberalism? Don't bet on it

‘...All of this is not to deny that the Covid-19 crisis poses a real threat to neoliberal orthodoxy. Physical distancing and enforced quarantine have disrupted the labour market, potentially shifting the balance of power between labour and capital in favour of workers... But given the persistence and adaptability of neoliberal ideology over the past 10 years, any sober assessment of the current situation needs to be attuned to the possibility of its survival (or successful mutation), as well as its possible demise.’

Read here (The Guardian, May 16, 2020)

It’s no accident Britain and America are the world's biggest coronavirus losers

‘When the business of government becomes limited to populist set pieces, its ranks are purged of doers and populated instead with cheerleaders. This is how we ended up with the current cast of dazed-in-headlights Tory cabinet members. In the US, the very notion of an “administration” has been worn away. As the New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen puts it, “There is no White House. Not in the sense that journalists have always used that term. It’s just Trump – and people who work in the building”.’

Read here (The Guardian, May 10, 2020)

Manifesto for post-neoliberal development: Five policy strategies for the Netherlands after the Covid-19 crisis

‘The Manifesto calls the Dutch Government to implement five key policy strategies for moving forward during and after the Covid-19 crisis:

• A move away from “development” focused on aggregate GDP growth;
• An economic framework focused on redistribution;
• Transformation towards regenerative agriculture;
• Reduction of consumption and travel; and
• Debt cancellation.

‘This Manifesto brings to the forefront some fundamental concerns of degrowth scholars and activists, and shows that these concerns are close to the hearts and minds of many academics who may not (yet) see themselves as part of the degrowth community. Particularly relevant is the link between economic development, the loss of biodiversity and important ecosystem functions, and the opportunity for diseases like COVID-19 to spread among humans. The Manifesto proposes policies that, as research tells us, are critical for a more sustainable, equal and diverse society - one that can better prevent and deal with shocks, including climate change related ones, and pandemics to come.’

Read here (Ontgroei, April 16, 2020)

Related:

Use crisis to make post corona society fairer and sustainable, say scientists. Read here

Circumventing catastrophes: ‘We will never know unless we try: again and again, and ever harder’

In the last paragraph of his 100-page book, ‘Does the richness of the few benefit us all?’, the highly distinguished sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman (1925-2017) wrote:

‘It seems that one needs catastrophes to happen in order to recognise and admit (retrospectively alas, only retrospectively...) their coming. A chilling thought if ever there was one. Can we ever refute it? We will never know unless we try: again and again, and ever harder.’

The following is a synopsis of the book published in 2013: ‘It is commonly assumed that the best way to help the poor out of their misery is to allow the rich to get richer, that if the rich pay less taxes then all the rest of us will be better off, and that in the final analysis the richness of the few benefits us all. And yet these commonly held beliefs are flatly contradicted by our daily experience, an abundance of research findings and, indeed, logic. Such bizarre discrepancy between hard facts and popular opinions makes one pause and ask: why are these opinions so widespread and resistant to accumulated and fast-growing evidence to the contrary?

‘This short book is by one of the world’s leading social thinkers is an attempt to answer this question. Bauman lists and scrutinises the tacit assumptions and unreflected-upon convictions upon which such opinions are grounded, finding them one by one to be false, deceitful and misleading.’

Purchase here (Amazon, undated)

Will Covid-19 remake the world?

‘Covid-19 may well not alter – much less reverse – tendencies evident before the crisis. Neoliberalism will continue its slow death. Populist autocrats will become even more authoritarian. Hyper-globalization will remain on the defensive as nation-states reclaim policy space. China and the US will continue on their collision course. And the battle within nation-states among oligarchs, authoritarian populists, and liberal internationalists will intensify, while the left struggles to devise a program that appeals to a majority of voters.’

Read here (Project Syndicate, April 6, 2020)