As a result of COVID-19 and its social and economic ramifications, people of all ages have been affected in almost every aspect of their lives. On the other hand, people of all ages are affected in different ways. Young people, particularly disadvantaged youth, face considerable risks in the areas of education, health and many other important areas as a result of the crisis. Short-term economic and egalitarian concerns may take precedence over long-term economic and social consequences, which will be borne by future generations. Using proper governance frameworks, governments must anticipate the consequences of response and recovery efforts on individuals of various ages in order to avoid exacerbating intergenerational imbalances and incorporate young people in the development of social resilience.
In response to the COVID-19 issue, several governments at all levels acted fast, using a site-based approach to policy measures and putting in place national and sub-national measures.
On the health sector, numerous countries have established territorially diverse methods, such as policies regarding masks or lockdowns.
Impact on Globalization and the free trade policies
While Coronavirus has prompted a new wave of globalization fails, the newest statistics and forecasts reveal that CEOs should prepare for and build a society in which both globalization and pro impacts are ubiquitous economic characteristics. As per the latest WTO prediction, global goods exports could decrease to levels set in the late mid-to-late 2000s between 2020 and 2021. That would be an excruciating decrease, even more so in today’s greater complexity global economy. Even the most pessimistic trade forecasts do not imply a come back to a world of closed market economies. The majority of the period after the end of World War II should stay unchanged in terms of trade integration (Allahwala & Keil, 2021).
By contrast, the decline in global tourism continues to stand out against a much more consistent growth sequence, and its effect is undeniable. The tourism industry contributes significantly more to worldwide output than automobile manufacturing, and business travel facilitates cross-border commerce and investment. Global tourism restrictions were in place in every country by 2020; in fact, over 40% of countries closed their borders to foreign travelers entirely or partially by then. Nearly 85% fewer seats were being flown on international flights compared to domestic flights, and 60% less were flown on local flights. Although this was an unusual drop, it was the result of a worldwide travel boom. Even if the number of people flying internationally drops by two-thirds, there will still be more people doing so than there were in the early 2000s (Barr, 2020).
Covid-19 is a major problem for globalization however it is exactly irreversible globalization and the opposition to it will keep bringing both economic opportunities and challenges despite the decline in global flows. The turmoil of globalization may be navigated and even profited from by paying close attention to the future drivers. Even as the administration of multinational firms becomes more challenging in a volatile environment of partially connected national economies, the chances for global strategy expand. To halt the pandemic and aid the economy’s recovery, multinational corporations must now clearly show their value by utilizing the world’s greatest resources (Allahwala & Keil, 2021).
Role of nationalism
Nationalist sentiment generally returns in the wake of a crisis, according to a large body of research. Countries shut their borders, hoarded medical resources, and played blame games when the coronavirus spread swiftly. Economic nationalism, medical nationalism, and everyday nationalism coexisted in the early stages of the pandemic crisis. As a result of the global financial crisis, there has been an increase in the significance of regional cooperation and international institutions.
Demand for medical resources to combat the pandemic has never been higher as it has become a global epidemic. Many countries adopted nationalistic policies in response to the rapidly worsening public health problem. A “my country first” approach was used to compete against one other for crucial health items and safety equipment rather than coordinating a European strategy. As a result, in the months leading up to the COVID-19 epidemic, there was an upsurge in “medical nationalism,” a trend that showed signs of spreading across continents even before the pandemic. Uncertainty and anxiety have caused regional coalitions to disintegrate.
The COVID-19 pandemic catastrophe and the ensuing lockdown regulations to stop the virus’ spread are putting the global economy through unprecedented strains. EU member states’ seeming lack of cooperation in early days nearly paralyzed the European single market, fueling the growth of economic nationalism after Europe had already borne the weight of the European debt issue and migrant problem for years. To put it simply, economic nationalism refers to economic operations that are and ought to be subservient to the purpose of state-building and to the affairs of the state. It is common for economic nationalism to reemerge during economic crises, nationalist movements, and the expansion of governments (Woods et al., 2020).
Studies of political theory have long been interested in tracing the underlying causes of nationalist upheaval and crisis. This epidemic has been dubbed “the largest worldwide public health calamity in a century” by the United Nations. A fresh wave of neo-nationalism is likely to emerge in the wake of such a catastrophic event, as has already been the case in the preceding decade of crises (Barr, 2020).
Impact on Canada’s Economy and its international relations.
COVID-19 had a profound effect on the Canadian economy, causing it to enter a period of economic decline. As a result of the government’s social distance laws, economic activity in the country was restricted. Companies began laying off workers in large numbers, and by May 2020, Canada’s unemployment rate had risen to above 10%, the highest level since 1976.
It was Covid 19 that had an impact on consumer habits. Panic buying flooded Canadian supermarkets in the onset of the pandemic, leaving many shelves bare. Only grocery and pharmacy stores were open to the public by the end of March, and they established strict social distance restrictions in their establishments. As Canadian businesses began to reopen in the following months, these regulations were also adopted.
In November 2021, employment levels had returned to levels not seen since February 2020 prior to the epidemic, but gains were mainly concentrated in part-time jobs, particularly those often held by women, which had a significant impact on the economy (Woods et al., 2020).
As Canada’s economy recovers, the federal government would do well to direct businesses toward a wider range of customers. Developing new commercial partners, such as India and Brazil, as well as those with comparable ideals, like the European Union, is a must for the United States. And it must do so quickly and forcefully. China cannot be replaced, and this does not mean that the United States should abandon its efforts. Reducing reliance and addressing vulnerability are the goals here.
This is also a little step in guiding China to a more constructive position in the international community.
The COVID-19 outbreak has strained diplomatic relations and prompted a call for a global truce from the United Nations Security Council. Developing an international system that allows Canada to pursue its own foreign policy and trade with a wide range of countries is a priority for Canada. Rather of competing poles, the world’s most powerful nations should serve as pillars of stability. In the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, there has been a major increase in global uncertainty. Despite the continuance of pressures favoring international collaboration and integration, sovereign states continue to be the main actors. A strategy to increase national power, including population size, should be adopted in the years that follow the pandemic, based on this level of uncertainty.
COVID nationalism. (2022). The Wuhan Lockdown, 159-186. https://doi.org/10.7312/yang20046-010
Allahwala, A., & Keil, R. (2021). The political economy of COVID-19: Canadian and comparative perspectives — an introduction. Studies in Political Economy, 102(3), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/07078552.2021.2000210
Barr, C. (2020). undefined. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 11(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjnser.2020v11n1a373
FAO COVID-19 response and recovery programme – Global humanitarian response plan. (2020). https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0285en
Woods, E. T., Schertzer, R., Greenfeld, L., Hughes, C., & Miller‐Idriss, C. (2020). COVID‐19, nationalism, and the politics of crisis: A scholarly exchange. Nations and Nationalism, 26(4), 807-825. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12644
Li, L. C. (2021). Facts and analysis: Canvassing COVID-19 responses. City University of HK Press.
Youth and COVID-19: Response, recovery and resilience. (2020).