Author name: Shubranshu Singh

In economic terms the Covid-19 pandemic has been a crisis like none other in world history. At present the subject of globalisation appears almost irrelevant. The barricades are up everywhere and anything beyond national boundaries seems to be out of scope. Battling the pandemic seems to be the only focal point. But at some stage, the economic costs will have to be weighed in the balance. The Presidential election in America as well as the ‘post Corona’ recovery in China, Western Europe and the United States will put globalisation, back on the radar. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] It is quite evident that the rise of China and India remains the dominant event in this time even in the context of this crisis. The transformation of these two countries consisting of almost 40% of humanity – more than two and a half times the population of all of today’s so called ‘developed countries’ – is likely to prove an even more significant phenomenon for the long-term future of humanity. Also, India and China have the most to lose if globalisation becomes a casualty. To my mind, the significance of globalisation remains as important as ever before. International economic integration is facilitating change in the world. This is true, not only in economic terms but also in how we tackle the bigger challenges such as climate change, fundamentalism, species extinction, financial instability and inequality. Globalisation means economic integration across national frontiers. It is a process by which the economic agents in any given part of the world are affected by events elsewhere in the world. Integration leads to markets operating across political boundaries and beyond nationality. In the economic sense, there are no foreigners. It is a process that has been on since the start of civilisation. In modern times, the movement of industrial goods, commodities and capital was overtaken by tradability of services boosted by offshoring thanks to the rise of information technology. India was a big beneficiary of this process. Economic liberalisation has pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and spread opportunities more widely than ever before. When economic liberalisation started in India in 1991, exchange controls were seen as things of the past and privatisation started in right earnest. We seemed party to the ‘Washington Consensus’ with an emphasis on sound monetary and fiscal policy and embracing of market forces towards economic development. Globally, the creation of the World Trade Organisation – WTO, in January 1995 was a point of inception. After the Uruguay Round, the world saw the futility of inward-looking trade policy, the harm of insular economics and the distributive rewards of trade liberalisation. India, like many other developing countries, did play a greater role in the Uruguay round. In my entire career of more than two decades, I have worked in the private sector and with global corporations managing global brands and businesses. I have learned, by experience, that an integrated world economy, founded on market relationships is beneficial for all. Socialism is a nonstarter without value creation. Communism failed and ended abruptly in the erstwhile Soviet Union. Liberal democracy is the best way -if not the only way- to run society along with an advanced economy. When we buy a brand we make a choice. When we cast a vote we make a choice. A capitalist economy runs on the open market basis is about making choices. That is the most beneficial system for the largest majority of the world’s people. The market is a very sophisticated, self-tuning and self-governing institution. Markets are above governments. Of course, governments can senselessly damage free-market economics. But, those states that understand that their long-run interest lies in a global cooperative economic order do well. Imperialism ended and Communism failed. Fascist military nationalism drew the world into a global war and destroyed Europe’s pre-eminence in the world. The only thing that survived and thrived is liberal, democratic, the market operated free economies. Yet, the threats to globalisation are real. The COVID-19 aftermath may give it finality. The earliest criticism of market-driven globalisation was that it subordinates interest of national economies, undermines democracy and leads to the surrender of sovereign power to powerful multinational corporations. Since the end of imperialism and the conclusion of World War II, almost all advanced economies in the world – with the exception of China – have become liberal democracies. They have free media, elections, rights and responsibilities monitored by institutions. Across the world, lifestyles have improved and become better in terms of evident measures. In fact, globalisation should have allowed us to fight global challenges together. If instead, a crisis like a pandemic succeeds in halting the movement towards global integration, we will see our progress get reversed, prosperity falling and a corrupt control strengthening over means of value creation. Our real challenge as one world is not to halt global economic integration but to celebrate it and strengthen it and make it work for those people that it has not been able to reach before. In their book ‘Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty’ Turkish-American economist Daron Acemoglu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and British political scientist James A. Robinson of the University of Chicago make the case that it is politics which decides the prosperity and success of nations. It is the nature of institutions we create that eventually determine our progress. The world cannot be better as divided earth with hostile states ignoring the welfare of us all. Our global issue will not forever be a pandemic or war or economic loss or gain. Our global issue is self-interested politics dominating free-market economics. We must not let that happen. http://www.businessworld.in/article/Why-Globalisation-Matters/22-04-2020-189971/

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world in fundamental ways. These changes are even more defining than those witnessed after World War II between 1939–45, the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 or the financial crisis of 2008. This is because each of these occurrences, in fact, accelerated globalisation whereas the coronavirus pandemic will reverse it, perhaps irreparably and permanently. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] This crisis has already ravaged economies, destroyed supply chains and exposed the operational inefficiencies in western societies stemming from a poor penetration of state power. The corporate might of western capitalism seems to be amounting to not much at all. Global capitalism depends on global trade and global movement of men and material. Its most representative icons are global brands. After this pandemic, we may no longer have viable global supply chains. The world’s largest brands have expanded globally because of distributed supply chains and accessible markets. The world has now seen how Western Europe and the United States of America have struggled in taking effective action. It has also been noted that an excessive reliance on China has now made it impossible for them to conduct business in any normal way whilst the pandemic impact lasts. Naturally, it is sovereign governments that are acting now and taking the initiative. National boundaries have been sealed. All human movement has stopped and transportation across borders has ceased. This is unprecedented. This rise of governmental action is in direct contradiction to the free business and globalisation imperative. We need government to manage the environment of business not be in business itself. But the crisis will motivate it to do the latter. So, here onwards, China is the economy to watch because that is the region that will determine whether globalisation is sustainable. Western Europe and the United States seem to have bailed out of the global economic network and shuttered down. Economic isolation seems the natural consequence and it is only to be expected. There is a galloping sense of vulnerability. Myopic pragmatism may win over optimistic farsightedness. Profitability will suffer. Restrictive domestic boundaries and impositions on business operations will mean less incentive to build global brands. Smaller national market opportunities will mean poorer innovations. Depressed economic activity will also mean a reduction in the productive capacity of the global economy. Therefore, globally orchestrated supply chains may simply become unviable besides being unfashionable. Global brands and global marketing are forces for integration whereas the potential rise of economic nationalism will be in opposition to such international integration. Immigration may be seen with hostility. The biggest risk is our consequential inability to look at global issues in global terms, e.g. – climate change, poverty, hunger, resource depletion etc. It is a cruel irony that a global crisis that is mortally threatening, potentially for each one of the 7 .8 billion people on the planet should result in drawing us apart under national flags rather than bring us together as threatened life forms on a small blue planet. There is a political and economic shock that is leading to a rejection of the concept of ‘one planet for businesses’. Economic liberalism is far more than being about economics. It has been an anchor for democracy and global diplomacy. Throughout history ‘collectivism’ and dogmatic politics have been pounding weak liberalism. Be it Communism, Nationalism, Fascism or Socialism. Nationalism in the European sense emerged as it supported a modern state and economy. It derives its sense of self from a unified culture and language. A nation is a social construct before being a legal, political, geographical or sovereign entity. Language additionally creates a unity of significance. Nationalism increases the authority of the state. A nation state is to power what a corporation is to profit. Nationalism taps into the human need for belongingness and seeking an object for devotion. This will now increase manifold as the world deals with the existential crisis and then with its trauma. In a more insular and parochially protectionist world, nationalism will become the default creed. The state will be a pseudo – commercial enterprise. The locus of commercial control will be wherever political power rests. The biggest job to be done in the world ‘after coronavirus‘ is not to build walls or impede global integration but to make globalisation work for more people than ever before. If we fail in doing this we will let the virus win. http://www.businessworld.in/…/Will-Globalization-Die-From-Covid-19…-/10-04- 2020-188874

If you were to google “How to prevent coronavirus infection?” washing hands will come up as the number one recommendation. Washing of hands to prevent infections is something most parents drill into their children from a young age. But did you know that till the mid-nineteenth century doctors went in blood-stained clothes from one surgery to another without ever washing hands? Ignaz Phillip Semmelweiss is the man who first discovered, understood and declared this truth. He was born in Hungary in 1818 and worked as a physician in Vienna, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian empire. He discovered via acute observation that the ward where midwives were responsible for deliveries had a much lower rate of infection and hence mortality amongst new mothers. The case for doctors- who also did autopsies –was quite the opposite. He therefore correctly, empirically, concluded that most likely because of the fact that doctors did not wash hands between autopsies and deliveries, they were carrying germs and causing infections. He developed the antisepsis method of washing hands with a solution of chlorinated lime (calcium hypochlorite) and it immediately led to a decline in the infection rate. However, as the belief that diseases were spread by ‘miasma’ or ‘bad humour’ or ‘vapours’ was deeply ingrained in Europe from the dark ages and Dr. Semmelweis failed to convince the doctors at his hospital, especially his boss. The more they resisted his ideas, the more forceful his defence of them until he was forced to resign. He went back to his native Budapest and though he became the Head of Obstetrics in a hospital there with similar results in reducing fatalities and despite his publishing “The Cause, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbirth Fever” in 1861, he failed to convince the medical fraternity in Europe and eventually died, in 1864, a broken man with deep psychological issues. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] If only he had managed to get support, by being able to persuade the other doctors about his ground-breaking discovery, imagine the number of lives it would have saved. Handwashing, which we know today is the best protection against catching infections such as coronavirus would have been popularised much earlier. There is a lesson in this for business managers and leaders who would like to bring about any big change. Successful change management requires that you are able to persuade others to listen to your ideas. It is not about the power of your idea or discovery but how others receive it that does the job. In his book “Give and Take” author Adam Grant a Professor at the Wharton School writes that people have three attitudes to reciprocity: The Givers like to give more than they get. They are not keeping score, but help out others with no intention of receiving any assistance back. The Matchers like to balance getting and giving exactly, practising quid pro quo. The Takers like to get more than they give. They feel the world is a zero-sum game, for them to win means others must lose. Takers like to believe it is only a matter of marshalling the facts, talking authoritatively and dominating through “powerful communication”. Givers use “powerless communication” where one expresses plenty of doubt and seeks advice from others leads to prestige and is much successful. He gives the example of Don Lane an Account Executive at Arnold Worldwide the advertising agency for Volkswagen came up with the famous line “Drive it. You’ll get it.” “He presented a sample radio script to show how it would work. Then he said to the creative director,” I know it is against the rules, but I want to give you a sense of what I am talking about. What do you think of this line? “Drive it. You’ll get it”. The creative director got it! Successful change management requires collaboration and the skills required for successful collaboration are simple. Collaboration requires an understanding of the shared goal, of who will do what, respect for each other, encouraging contribution from all, making sure that mistakes are used for learning and not pulling down the person committing them and most importantly keeping the team goal above the individual goal. It is usually the efforts of a team of people that leads to a successful breakthrough. While one person may be the face of the team, make no mistake without the team it is rare for success to be achieved. Take the recent Pune based start-up My Lab becoming the first company to develop an indigenous COVID-19 testing kit. While virologist Minal Dakhave Bhosale, Mylab’s research and development chief is the face of this achievement and is being credited for this by the media, she herself has said “It was an emergency, so I took this on as a challenge. I have to serve my nation,”…..adding that her team of 10 worked “very hard” to make the project a success. To bring about change one needs to ensure collaboration and use communication to get buy-in for your ideas. http://www.businessworld.in/…/Collaboration-And-Communication…-/04-04-2020- 188274