research paper effects of globalization

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Globalization and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Complementarities

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor, Malaysia, Department of Management, Mobarakeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Affiliation Applied Statistics Department, Economics and Administration Faculty, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

• Parisa Samimi, 
• Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi

• Published: April 10, 2014
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824
• Reader Comments

This study was carried out to investigate the effect of economic globalization on economic growth in OIC countries. Furthermore, the study examined the effect of complementary policies on the growth effect of globalization. It also investigated whether the growth effect of globalization depends on the income level of countries. Utilizing the generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator within the framework of a dynamic panel data approach, we provide evidence which suggests that economic globalization has statistically significant impact on economic growth in OIC countries. The results indicate that this positive effect is increased in the countries with better-educated workers and well-developed financial systems. Our finding shows that the effect of economic globalization also depends on the country’s level of income. High and middle-income countries benefit from globalization whereas low-income countries do not gain from it. In fact, the countries should receive the appropriate income level to be benefited from globalization. Economic globalization not only directly promotes growth but also indirectly does so via complementary reforms.

Citation: Samimi P, Jenatabadi HS (2014) Globalization and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Complementarities. PLoS ONE 9(4): e87824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824

Editor: Rodrigo Huerta-Quintanilla, Cinvestav-Merida, Mexico

Received: November 5, 2013; Accepted: January 2, 2014; Published: April 10, 2014

Copyright: © 2014 Samimi, Jenatabadi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The study is supported by the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia, Malaysian International Scholarship (MIS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Globalization, as a complicated process, is not a new phenomenon and our world has experienced its effects on different aspects of lives such as economical, social, environmental and political from many years ago [1] – [4] . Economic globalization includes flows of goods and services across borders, international capital flows, reduction in tariffs and trade barriers, immigration, and the spread of technology, and knowledge beyond borders. It is source of much debate and conflict like any source of great power.

The broad effects of globalization on different aspects of life grab a great deal of attention over the past three decades. As countries, especially developing countries are speeding up their openness in recent years the concern about globalization and its different effects on economic growth, poverty, inequality, environment and cultural dominance are increased. As a significant subset of the developing world, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries are also faced by opportunities and costs of globalization. Figure 1 shows the upward trend of economic globalization among different income group of OIC countries.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.g001

Although OICs are rich in natural resources, these resources were not being used efficiently. It seems that finding new ways to use the OICs economic capacity more efficiently are important and necessary for them to improve their economic situation in the world. Among the areas where globalization is thought, the link between economic growth and globalization has been become focus of attention by many researchers. Improving economic growth is the aim of policy makers as it shows the success of nations. Due to the increasing trend of globalization, finding the effect of globalization on economic growth is prominent.

The net effect of globalization on economic growth remains puzzling since previous empirical analysis did not support the existent of a systematic positive or negative impact of globalization on growth. Most of these studies suffer from econometrics shortcoming, narrow definition of globalization and small number of countries. The effect of economic globalization on the economic growth in OICs is also ambiguous. Existing empirical studies have not indicated the positive or negative impact of globalization in OICs. The relationship between economic globalization and economic growth is important especially for economic policies.

Recently, researchers have claimed that the growth effects of globalization depend on the economic structure of the countries during the process of globalization. The impact of globalization on economic growth of countries also could be changed by the set of complementary policies such as improvement in human capital and financial system. In fact, globalization by itself does not increase or decrease economic growth. The effect of complementary policies is very important as it helps countries to be successful in globalization process.

In this paper, we examine the relationship between economic globalization and growth in panel of selected OIC countries over the period 1980–2008. Furthermore, we would explore whether the growth effects of economic globalization depend on the set of complementary policies and income level of OIC countries.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section consists of a review of relevant studies on the impact of globalization on growth. Afterward the model specification is described. It is followed by the methodology of this study as well as the data sets that are utilized in the estimation of the model and the empirical strategy. Then, the econometric results are reported and discussed. The last section summarizes and concludes the paper with important issues on policy implications.

Literature Review

The relationship between globalization and growth is a heated and highly debated topic on the growth and development literature. Yet, this issue is far from being resolved. Theoretical growth studies report at best a contradictory and inconclusive discussion on the relationship between globalization and growth. Some of the studies found positive the effect of globalization on growth through effective allocation of domestic resources, diffusion of technology, improvement in factor productivity and augmentation of capital [5] , [6] . In contrast, others argued that globalization has harmful effect on growth in countries with weak institutions and political instability and in countries, which specialized in ineffective activities in the process of globalization [5] , [7] , [8] .

Given the conflicting theoretical views, many studies have been empirically examined the impact of the globalization on economic growth in developed and developing countries. Generally, the literature on the globalization-economic growth nexus provides at least three schools of thought. First, many studies support the idea that globalization accentuates economic growth [9] – [19] . Pioneering early studies include Dollar [9] , Sachs et al. [15] and Edwards [11] , who examined the impact of trade openness by using different index on economic growth. The findings of these studies implied that openness is associated with more rapid growth.

In 2006, Dreher introduced a new comprehensive index of globalization, KOF, to examine the impact of globalization on growth in an unbalanced dynamic panel of 123 countries between 1970 and 2000. The overall result showed that globalization promotes economic growth. The economic and social dimensions have positive impact on growth whereas political dimension has no effect on growth. The robustness of the results of Dreher [19] is approved by Rao and Vadlamannati [20] which use KOF and examine its impact on growth rate of 21 African countries during 1970–2005. The positive effect of globalization on economic growth is also confirmed by the extreme bounds analysis. The result indicated that the positive effect of globalization on growth is larger than the effect of investment on growth.

The second school of thought, which supported by some scholars such as Alesina et al. [21] , Rodrik [22] and Rodriguez and Rodrik [23] , has been more reserve in supporting the globalization-led growth nexus. Rodriguez and Rodrik [23] challenged the robustness of Dollar (1992), Sachs, Warner et al. (1995) and Edwards [11] studies. They believed that weak evidence support the idea of positive relationship between openness and growth. They mentioned the lack of control for some prominent growth indicators as well as using incomprehensive trade openness index as shortcomings of these works. Warner [24] refuted the results of Rodriguez and Rodrik (2000). He mentioned that Rodriguez and Rodrik (2000) used an uncommon index to measure trade restriction (tariffs revenues divided by imports). Warner (2003) explained that they ignored all other barriers on trade and suggested using only the tariffs and quotas of textbook trade policy to measure trade restriction in countries.

Krugman [25] strongly disagreed with the argument that international financial integration is a major engine of economic development. This is because capital is not an important factor to increase economic development and the large flows of capital from rich to poor countries have never occurred. Therefore, developing countries are unlikely to increase economic growth through financial openness. Levine [26] was more optimistic about the impact of financial liberalization than Krugman. He concluded, based on theory and empirical evidences, that the domestic financial system has a prominent effect on economic growth through boosting total factor productivity. The factors that improve the functioning of domestic financial markets and banks like financial integration can stimulate improvements in resource allocation and boost economic growth.

The third school of thoughts covers the studies that found nonlinear relationship between globalization and growth with emphasis on the effect of complementary policies. Borensztein, De Gregorio et al. (1998) investigated the impact of FDI on economic growth in a cross-country framework by developing a model of endogenous growth to examine the role of FDI in the economic growth in developing countries. They found that FDI, which is measured by the fraction of products produced by foreign firms in the total number of products, reduces the costs of introducing new varieties of capital goods, thus increasing the rate at which new capital goods are introduced. The results showed a strong complementary effect between stock of human capital and FDI to enhance economic growth. They interpreted this finding with the observation that the advanced technology, brought by FDI, increases the growth rate of host economy when the country has sufficient level of human capital. In this situation, the FDI is more productive than domestic investment.

Calderón and Poggio [27] examined the structural factors that may have impact on growth effect of trade openness. The growth benefits of rising trade openness are conditional on the level of progress in structural areas including education, innovation, infrastructure, institutions, the regulatory framework, and financial development. Indeed, they found that the lack of progress in these areas could restrict the potential benefits of trade openness. Chang et al. [28] found that the growth effects of openness may be significantly improved when the investment in human capital is stronger, financial markets are deeper, price inflation is lower, and public infrastructure is more readily available. Gu and Dong [29] emphasized that the harmful or useful growth effect of financial globalization heavily depends on the level of financial development of economies. In fact, if financial openness happens without any improvement in the financial system of countries, growth will replace by volatility.

However, the review of the empirical literature indicates that the impact of the economic globalization on economic growth is influenced by sample, econometric techniques, period specifications, observed and unobserved country-specific effects. Most of the literature in the field of globalization, concentrates on the effect of trade or foreign capital volume (de facto indices) on economic growth. The problem is that de facto indices do not proportionally capture trade and financial globalization policies. The rate of protections and tariff need to be accounted since they are policy based variables, capturing the severity of trade restrictions in a country. Therefore, globalization index should contain trade and capital restrictions as well as trade and capital volume. Thus, this paper avoids this problem by using a comprehensive index which called KOF [30] . The economic dimension of this index captures the volume and restriction of trade and capital flow of countries.

Despite the numerous studies, the effect of economic globalization on economic growth in OIC is still scarce. The results of recent studies on the effect of globalization in OICs are not significant, as they have not examined the impact of globalization by empirical model such as Zeinelabdin [31] and Dabour [32] . Those that used empirical model, investigated the effect of globalization for one country such as Ates [33] and Oyvat [34] , or did it for some OIC members in different groups such as East Asia by Guillaumin [35] or as group of developing countries by Haddad et al. [36] and Warner [24] . Therefore, the aim of this study is filling the gap in research devoted solely to investigate the effects of economic globalization on growth in selected OICs. In addition, the study will consider the impact of complimentary polices on the growth effects of globalization in selected OIC countries.

Model Specification

Methodology and Data

This paper applies the generalized method of moments (GMM) panel estimator first suggested by Anderson and Hsiao [38] and later developed further by Arellano and Bond [39] . This flexible method requires only weak assumption that makes it one of the most widely used econometric techniques especially in growth studies. The dynamic GMM procedure is as follow: first, to eliminate the individual effect form dynamic growth model, the method takes differences. Then, it instruments the right hand side variables by using their lagged values. The last step is to eliminate the inconsistency arising from the endogeneity of the explanatory variables.

The consistency of the GMM estimator depends on two specification tests. The first is a Sargan test of over-identifying restrictions, which tests the overall validity of the instruments. Failure to reject the null hypothesis gives support to the model. The second test examines the null hypothesis that the error term is not serially correlated.

The GMM can be applied in one- or two-step variants. The one-step estimators use weighting matrices that are independent of estimated parameters, whereas the two-step GMM estimator uses the so-called optimal weighting matrices in which the moment conditions are weighted by a consistent estimate of their covariance matrix. However, the use of the two-step estimator in small samples, as in our study, has problem derived from proliferation of instruments. Furthermore, the estimated standard errors of the two-step GMM estimator tend to be small. Consequently, this paper employs the one-step GMM estimator.

In the specification, year dummies are used as instrument variable because other regressors are not strictly exogenous. The maximum lags length of independent variable which used as instrument is 2 to select the optimal lag, the AR(1) and AR(2) statistics are employed. There is convincing evidence that too many moment conditions introduce bias while increasing efficiency. It is, therefore, suggested that a subset of these moment conditions can be used to take advantage of the trade-off between the reduction in bias and the loss in efficiency. We restrict the moment conditions to a maximum of two lags on the dependent variable.

Data and Empirical Strategy

We estimated Eq. (1) using the GMM estimator based on a panel of 33 OIC countries. Table S1 in File S1 lists the countries and their income groups in the sample. The choice of countries selected for this study is primarily dictated by availability of reliable data over the sample period among all OIC countries. The panel covers the period 1980–2008 and is unbalanced. Following [40] , we use annual data in order to maximize sample size and to identify the parameters of interest more precisely. In fact, averaging out data removes useful variation from the data, which could help to identify the parameters of interest with more precision.

The dependent variable in our sample is logged per capita real GDP, using the purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates and is obtained from the Penn World Table (PWT 7.0). The economic dimension of KOF index is derived from Dreher et al. [41] . We use some other variables, along with economic globalization to control other factors influenced economic growth. Table S2 in File S2 shows the variables, their proxies and source that they obtain.

We relied on the three main approaches to capture the effects of economic globalization on economic growth in OIC countries. The first one is the baseline specification (Eq. (1)) which estimates the effect of economic globalization on economic growth.

The second approach is to examine whether the effect of globalization on growth depends on the complementary policies in the form of level of human capital and financial development. To test, the interactions of economic globalization and financial development (KOF*FD) and economic globalization and human capital (KOF*HCS) are included as additional explanatory variables, apart from the standard variables used in the growth equation. The KOF, HCS and FD are included in the model individually as well for two reasons. First, the significance of the interaction term may be the result of the omission of these variables by themselves. Thus, in that way, it can be tested jointly whether these variables affect growth by themselves or through the interaction term. Second, to ensure that the interaction term did not proxy for KOF, HCS or FD, these variables were included in the regression independently.

In the third approach, in order to study the role of income level of countries on the growth effect of globalization, the countries are split based on income level. Accordingly, countries were classified into three groups: high-income countries (3), middle-income (21) and low-income (9) countries. Next, dummy variables were created for high-income (Dum 3), middle-income (Dum 2) and low-income (Dum 1) groups. Then interaction terms were created for dummy variables and KOF. These interactions will be added to the baseline specification.

Findings and Discussion

This section presents the empirical results of three approaches, based on the GMM -dynamic panel data; in Tables 1 – 3 . Table 1 presents a preliminary analysis on the effects of economic globalization on growth. Table 2 displays coefficient estimates obtained from the baseline specification, which used added two interaction terms of economic globalization and financial development and economic globalization and human capital. Table 3 reports the coefficients estimate from a specification that uses dummies to capture the impact of income level of OIC countries on the growth effect of globalization.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.t002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.t003

The results in Table 1 indicate that economic globalization has positive impact on growth and the coefficient is significant at 1 percent level. The positive effect is consistent with the bulk of the existing empirical literature that support beneficial effect of globalization on economic growth [9] , [11] , [13] , [19] , [42] , [43] .

According to the theoretical literature, globalization enhances economic growth by allocating resources more efficiently as OIC countries that can be specialized in activities with comparative advantages. By increasing the size of markets through globalization, these countries can be benefited from economic of scale, lower cost of research and knowledge spillovers. It also augments capital in OICs as they provide a higher return to capital. It has raised productivity and innovation, supported the spread of knowledge and new technologies as the important factors in the process of development. The results also indicate that growth is enhanced by lower level of government expenditure, lower level of inflation, higher level of human capital, deeper financial development, more domestic investment and better institutions.

Table 2 represents that the coefficients on the interaction between the KOF, HCS and FD are statistically significant at 1% level and with the positive sign. The findings indicate that economic globalization not only directly promotes growth but also indirectly does via complementary reforms. On the other hand, the positive effect of economic globalization can be significantly enhanced if some complementary reforms in terms of human capital and financial development are undertaken.

In fact, the implementation of new technologies transferred from advanced economies requires skilled workers. The results of this study confirm the importance of increasing educated workers as a complementary policy in progressing globalization. However, countries with higher level of human capital can be better and faster to imitate and implement the transferred technologies. Besides, the financial openness brings along the knowledge and managerial for implementing the new technology. It can be helpful in improving the level of human capital in host countries. Moreover, the strong and well-functioned financial systems can lead the flow of foreign capital to the productive and compatible sectors in developing countries. Overall, with higher level of human capital and stronger financial systems, the globalized countries benefit from the growth effect of globalization. The obtained results supported by previous studies in relative to financial and trade globalization such as [5] , [27] , [44] , [45] .

Table (3 ) shows that the estimated coefficients on KOF*dum3 and KOF*dum2 are statistically significant at the 5% level with positive sign. The KOF*dum1 is statistically significant with negative sign. It means that increase in economic globalization in high and middle-income countries boost economic growth but this effect is diverse for low-income countries. The reason might be related to economic structure of these countries that are not received to the initial condition necessary to be benefited from globalization. In fact, countries should be received to the appropriate income level to be benefited by globalization.

The diagnostic tests in tables 1 – 3 show that the estimated equation is free from simultaneity bias and second-order correlation. The results of Sargan test accept the null hypothesis that supports the validity of the instrument use in dynamic GMM.

Conclusions and Implications

Numerous researchers have investigated the impact of economic globalization on economic growth. Unfortunately, theoretical and the empirical literature have produced conflicting conclusions that need more investigation. The current study shed light on the growth effect of globalization by using a comprehensive index for globalization and applying a robust econometrics technique. Specifically, this paper assesses whether the growth effects of globalization depend on the complementary polices as well as income level of OIC countries.

Using a panel data of OIC countries over the 1980–2008 period, we draw three important conclusions from the empirical analysis. First, the coefficient measuring the effect of the economic globalization on growth was positive and significant, indicating that economic globalization affects economic growth of OIC countries in a positive way. Second, the positive effect of globalization on growth is increased in countries with higher level of human capital and deeper financial development. Finally, economic globalization does affect growth, whether the effect is beneficial depends on the level of income of each group. It means that economies should have some initial condition to be benefited from the positive effects of globalization. The results explain why some countries have been successful in globalizing world and others not.

The findings of our study suggest that public policies designed to integrate to the world might are not optimal for economic growth by itself. Economic globalization not only directly promotes growth but also indirectly does so via complementary reforms.

The policy implications of this study are relatively straightforward. Integrating to the global economy is only one part of the story. The other is how to benefits more from globalization. In this respect, the responsibility of policymakers is to improve the level of educated workers and strength of financial systems to get more opportunities from globalization. These economic policies are important not only in their own right, but also in helping developing countries to derive the benefits of globalization.

However, implementation of new technologies transferred from advanced economies requires skilled workers. The results of this study confirm the importance of increasing educated workers as a complementary policy in progressing globalization. In fact, countries with higher level of human capital can better and faster imitate and implement the transferred technologies. The higher level of human capital and certain skill of human capital determine whether technology is successfully absorbed across countries. This shows the importance of human capital in the success of countries in the globalizing world.

Financial openness in the form of FDI brings along the knowledge and managerial for implementing the new technology. It can be helpful in upgrading the level of human capital in host countries. Moreover, strong and well-functioned financial systems can lead the flow of foreign capital to the productive and compatible sectors in OICs.

In addition, the results show that economic globalization does affect growth, whether the effect is beneficial depends on the level of income of countries. High and middle income countries benefit from globalization whereas low-income countries do not gain from it. As Birdsall [46] mentioned globalization is fundamentally asymmetric for poor countries, because their economic structure and markets are asymmetric. So, the risks of globalization hurt the poor more. The structure of the export of low-income countries heavily depends on primary commodity and natural resource which make them vulnerable to the global shocks.

The major research limitation of this study was the failure to collect data for all OIC countries. Therefore future research for all OIC countries would shed light on the relationship between economic globalization and economic growth.

Supporting Information

Sample of Countries.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.s001

The Name and Definition of Indicators.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087824.s002

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: PS. Performed the experiments: PS. Analyzed the data: PS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: PS HSJ. Wrote the paper: PS HSJ.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Bhandari AK, Heshmati A (2005) Measurement of Globalization and its Variations among Countries, Regions and over Time. IZA Discussion Paper No.1578.
• 3. Collins W, Williamson J (1999) Capital goods prices, global capital markets and accumulation: 1870–1950. NBER Working Paper No.7145.
• 4. Obstfeld M, Taylor A (1997) The great depression as a watershed: international capital mobility over the long run. In: D M, Bordo CG, and Eugene N White, editors. The Defining Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the Twentieth Century. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press: NBER Project Report series. 353–402.
• 7. De Melo J, Gourdon J, Maystre N (2008) Openness, Inequality and Poverty: Endowments Matter. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3981.
• 8. Berg A, Krueger AO (2003) Trade, growth, and poverty: a selective survey. IMF Working Papers No.1047.
• 16. Barro R, Sala-i-Martin X (2004) Economic Growth. New York: McGraw Hill.
• 21. Alesina A, Grilli V, Milesi-Ferretti G, Center L, del Tesoro M (1994) The political economy of capital controls. In: Leiderman L, Razin A, editors. Capital Mobility: The Impact on Consumption, Investment and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 289–321.
• 22. Rodrik D (1998) Who needs capital-account convertibility? In: Fischer S, editor. Should the IMF Pursue Capital Account Convertibility?, Essays in international finance. Princeton: Department of Economics, Princeton University. 55–65.
• 25. Krugman P (1993) International Finance and Economic Development. In: Giovannini A, editor. Finance and Development: Issues and Experience. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 11–24.
• 27. Calderón C, Poggio V (2010) Trade and Economic Growth Evidence on the Role of Complementarities for CAFTA-DR Countries. World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper No.5426.
• 30. Samimi P, Lim GC, Buang AA (2011) Globalization Measurement: Notes on Common Globalization Indexes. Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology 1(7).
• 36. Haddad ME, Lim JJ, Saborowski C (2010) Trade Openness Reduces Growth Volatility When Countries are Well Diversified. Policy Research Working Paper Series NO. 5222.
• 37. Mammi I (2012) Essays in GMM estimation of dynamic panel data models. Lucca, Italy: IMT Institute for Advanced Studies.
• 41. Dreher A, Gaston N, Martens P (2008) Measuring globalisation: Gauging its consequences: Springer Verlag.
• 42. Brunner A (2003) The long-run effects of trade on income and income growth. IMF Working Papers No. 03/37.
• 44. Alfaro L, Chanda A, Kalemli-Ozcan S, Sayek S (2006) How does foreign direct investment promote economic growth? Exploring the effects of financial markets on linkages. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.
• 46. Birdsall N (2002) A stormy day on an open field: asymmetry and convergence in the global economy. In: Gruen D, O'Brien T, Lawson J, editors. Globalisation, living standards and inequality. Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia and Australian. 66–87.
• 47. Solt F (2009) Standardizing the World Income Inequality Database. Social Science Quarterly 90: 231–242 SWIID Version 233.230, July 2010.
• 48. Beck T, Demirgüç-Kunt A, Levine R (2009) Financial Institutions and Markets across Countries and over Time. Policy Research Working Paper No.4943.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The State of Globalization in 2021

• Steven A. Altman
• Caroline R. Bastian

Trade, capital, and information flows have stabilized, recovered, and even grown in the past year.

As the coronavirus swept the world, closing borders and halting international trade and capital flows, there were questions about the pandemic’s lasting impact on globalization. But a close look at the recent data paints a much more optimistic picture. While international travel remains significantly down and is not expected to rebound until 2023, cross-border trade, capital, and information flows have largely stabilized, recovered, or even grown over the last year. The bottom line for business is that Covid-19 has not knocked globalization down to anywhere close to what would be required for strategists to narrow their focus to their home countries or regions.

Cross-border flows plummeted in 2020 as the Covid-19 pandemic swept the world, reinforcing doubts about the future of globalization. As we move into 2021, the latest data paint a clearer — and more hopeful — picture. Global business is not going away, but the landscape is shifting, with important implications for strategy and management.

• Steven A. Altman is a senior research scholar, adjunct assistant professor, and director of the DHL Initiative on Globalization at the NYU Stern Center for the Future of Management .
• CB Caroline R. Bastian is a research scholar at the DHL Initiative on Globalization.

Partner Center

Research on Globalization Impact Factors and Sustainable Development Strategies

• Conference paper
• First Online: 27 September 2022
• Cite this conference paper

• Mengtong Liu 7  

Part of the book series: Applied Economics and Policy Studies ((AEPS))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Business and Policy Studies

1284 Accesses

Economic globalization itself is known for facilitating the distribution of the means of production, but it often has a negative impact because the distribution process is not efficient enough. COVID-19 has largely curbed globalization since its massive outbreak in late 2019 and shifted the process of globalization, which had been experiencing protectionist shocks, into reverse globalization. Globalization seems to be in a tense situation and at risk of extinction: Differences in policy responses among nation-states reveal different attitudes toward economic globalization; Individual psychological satisfaction with the sense of recognition and the rapid development of the market economy are opposing and circular features. This paper addresses the question of the pros and cons of globalization, used literature research to study the imbalance rules of globalization, the mechanism of populism’s influence on globalization, found the cyclical development trend of globalization, and used China’s response as a practical case to support and analyze, with a view to providing reference for other countries to deal with globalization in the current internationally situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Steger, M.B.: Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (Vol. 86). Oxford University Press (2017)

Google Scholar  

O’Sullivan, M.: The end of globalization (and the beginning of something new). [video] (2020). https://www.ted.com/talks/mike_o_sullivan_the_end_of_globalization_and_the_beginning_of_something_new/up-next

Hunt, M.H.: Liberal Leviathan: the origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Political Sci. Quarterly 127 (3), 472–474 (2012)

Article   Google Scholar  

Li, X.: The development direction of economic globalization. J. Seek truth 21 , 3 (2018)

Moshirian, F.: Globalization and the role of effective international institutions. J. Bank. Finance 31 (6), 1579–1593 (2007)

Krasner, S.D., Goldstein, J., Keohane, R.: In ideas and foreign policy. Westphalia, ed. Goldstein, J., Keohane, R.:, 235–64 (1993)

Collins, C.S., Rhoads, R.A.: The World Bank, support for universities, and asymmetrical power relations in international development. High. Educ. 59 (2), 181–205 (2010)

Kevenhörster, P.: Mancur Olson, The logic of collective action. public goods and the theory of groups, Cambridge 1965. In: Schlüsselwerke der Politikwissenschaft , pp. 345–348). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (2007)

Grinin, L.: The tiger and the dragon-development models and perspectives of India and China. J. Globalization Studies 4 (1), 5–31 (2013)

Tytell, I., Wei, S.J.: Does financial globalization induce better macroeconomic policies? (2004)

Olivié, I., Gracia, M.: Is this the end of globalization (as we know it)? Globalizations 17 (6), 990–1007 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1716923

Goodbye Doha, hello Bali. The Economist. (2021). https://www.economist.com/leaders/2012/09/08/goodbye-doha-hello-bali

Antràs, P.: De-Globalisation? Global value chains in the post-COVID-19 age (No. w28115). National Bureau of Economic Research (2020)

Sarfo, E.A.: Supply chain management-The engine of today’s globalization and industrialization (2020)

Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., Wei, S.J., Kose, M.A.: Effects of financial globalization on developing countries: some empirical evidence. In: India’s and China’s recent experience with reform and growth, pp. 201–228. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2005)

Mohiuddin, M., Rashid, M.M., Al Azad, M.S., Su, Z.: Back-shoring or re-shoring: determinants of manufacturing offshoring from emerging to least developing countries (LDCs). Int J Log Res Appl 22 (1), 78–97 (2019)

Relinger, R.: NAFTA and US cornsubsidies: Explaining the displacement of Mexico’s corn farmers. Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD (2010)

Stiglitz, J.E.:. Making Globalization Work. WW Norton & Company (2007)

Okereke, M.: Towards vaccine equity: should big pharma waive intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines? Public Health in Practice (Oxford, England) 2 , 100165 (2021)

Fischer, S.: Globalization and its challenges. American Economic Review 93 (2), 1–30 (2003)

Stiglitz, J.: Rich countries, poor people? N. Perspect. Q. 24 (1), 7–9 (2007)

Awuah, G.B., Amal, M.: Impact of globalization: The ability of less developed countries’(LDCs’) firms to cope with opportunities and challenges. European Business Review (2011)

Sacerdote, B.: Fifty years of growth in American consumption, income, and wages (No. w23292). National Bureau of Economic Research (2017)

Cooper, I., Mondal, A., Antonopoulos, C.G.: A SIR model assumption for the spread of COVID-19 in different communities. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 139 , 110057 (2020)

Polanyi, K., MacIver, R.M.: The great transformation, Vol. 2, p. 145. Beacon Press, Boston (1944)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Colorado Denver, 1201 Larimer St, Denver, CO, 80204, USA

Mengtong Liu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mengtong Liu .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Postal Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China

Xiaolong Li

School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China

Chunhui Yuan

Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Ivoslav Ganchev

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Liu, M. (2022). Research on Globalization Impact Factors and Sustainable Development Strategies. In: Li, X., Yuan, C., Ganchev, I. (eds) Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Business and Policy Studies. CONF-BPS 2022. Applied Economics and Policy Studies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5727-7_56

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5727-7_56

Published : 27 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5726-0

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5727-7

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.11; 2020 Dec 20

The impact of COVID-19 on globalization

Nistha shrestha.

a Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Muhammad Yousaf Shad

b Department of Statistics, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

c Department of Public Health & Prevention Sciences, Baldwin Wallace University, Berea, OH, USA

Modasser Hossain Khan

d Center for Natural Resources Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Ajlina Karamehic-Muratovic

e Department of Sociology and Anthropology, St Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA

Uyen-Sa D.T. Nguyen

Mahdi baghbanzadeh.

f Data analytics division, Zarrin Jam Marina, Tehran, Iran

Robert Wardrup

Nasrin aghamohammadi.

g Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence-based Practice, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Malaya Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Diana Cervantes

Kh. md nahiduzzaman.

h Faculty of Applied Science, School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia (UBC), Okanagan, BC V1V 1V7, Canada

Rafdzah Ahmad Zaki

Ubydul haque, associated data.

Data and codes are accessible to researchers upon request for data sharing to the corresponding author.

Globalization has altered the way we live and earn a livelihood. Consequently, trade and travel have been recognized as significant determinants of the spread of disease. Additionally, the rise in urbanization and the closer integration of the world economy have facilitated global interconnectedness. Therefore, globalization has emerged as an essential mechanism of disease transmission. This paper aims to examine the potential impact of COVID-19 on globalization and global health in terms of mobility, trade, travel, and countries most impacted.

The effect of globalization were operationalized in terms of mobility, economy, and healthcare systems. The mobility of individuals and its magnitude was assessed using airline and seaport trade data and travel information. The economic impact was measured based on the workforce, event cancellations, food and agriculture, academic institutions, and supply chain. The healthcare capacity was assessed by considering healthcare system indicators and preparedness of countries. Utilizing a technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), we calculated a pandemic vulnerability index (PVI) by creating a quantitative measure of the potential global health. The pandemic has placed an unprecedented burden on the world economy, healthcare, and globalization through travel, events cancellation, employment workforce, food chain, academia, and healthcare capacity. Based on PVI results, certain countries were more vulnerable than others. In Africa, more vulnerable countries included South Africa and Egypt; in Europe, they were Russia, Germany, and Italy; in Asia and Oceania, they were India, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey; and for the Americas, they were Brazil, USA, Chile, Mexico, and Peru. The impact on mobility, economy, and healthcare systems has only started to manifest. The findings of this study may help in the planning and implementation of strategies at the country level to help ease this emerging burden.

1. Background

Globalization has emerged as a means to ensure economic and cultural growth of individuals [ 1 ]. The rise in urbanization and the closer integration of the world economy has facilitated global interconnectedness [ 2 ]. Yet, trade and travel, essential components of globalization, are significant contributors to the spread of infectious diseases. Historically, pandemics have been observed throughout the history of human movement and communication [ 3 ]. The bubonic plague caused by Yersinia pestis was transmitted from China to Europe through trade routes [ 4 ]. Similarly, following the movement of armies in the first world war, the influenza pandemic of 1918 led to over 50 million deaths worldwide [ 5 ]. More recently, the Asian flu of 1957 (influenza A H2N2) was reported in 20 countries and primarily spread via land and sea travel [ 6 , 7 ]. The Hong Kong flu pandemic (influenza A H3N2) spread extensively through air travel [ 8 , 9 ]. Over the years, globalization has amplified global disease transmission and has had significant economic implications. The close integration of the economy in modern times has, therefore, emerged as an essential mechanism of disease transmission [ 10 ].

The consequences of a pandemic are not only defined in terms of mortality but also by their impact on our daily livelihood and the economy, with globalization accelerating this loss and costing billions (US dollars) in expenditures. Pandemics affect the economy in terms of demand and supply. First, consumers and investors tend to lose confidence in marketplaces affected by the pandemic, depreciating the demand side of the market [ 11 ]. Second, absenteeism and reduction in the workforce negate the supply side [ 11 ]. Lastly, public health and international response to pandemics affect economics and development policies in trade, travel, and health response [ 11 ].

A pandemic can also affect the economy in terms of decelerating the economic growth of affected countries, leading to a reduction in trade and increase in poverty [ 11 , 12 ]. For example, the 1918 influenza pandemic presented financial loss in the form of decreased education, increased disabilities, and lower socioeconomic status [ 13 ]. Another significant impact of pandemics emerges in the form of workforce reduction. Absenteeism in schools and the workforce were considered as a direct economic impact of the Hong Kong flu in the 70s [ 13 ]. Likewise, flu pandemics have led to a notable reduction of human and economic capital, as illustrated by the SARS pandemic, which had an estimated economic impact of $18 billion in East Asia [ 14 ].

The end of 2019 challenged the world with an epidemic of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), first observed in Wuhan, China [ 15 ]. COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV 2, presents with a spectrum of symptoms ranging from mild to severe with asymptomatic presentation also described [ 16 ]. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic, [ 15 ] and as of October 21, 2020, over 41 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 1.13 million deaths have been reported worldwide [ 17 ].

This unprecedented time of COVID-19 and the implemented lockdown measures have influenced uncertainties regarding economic growth. The uncertainty on the global growth forecast by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2020 is expected to decline by 3%, and by 6.1% for advanced economies [ 18 ]. Additionally, China, the second-largest economy, reported a reduction of 6.8% in the first quarter [ 19 ]. The lockdown measures have also increased telework and telecommuting, canceled operations, and restricted supply and demand.

The impact that COVID-19 can exert on health systems of the world varies. Low- and middle-income countries with less developed health systems are likely to face more significant challenges and remain vulnerable in controlling COVID-19 compared to the high-income countries [ 20 ]. Thus, determining the vulnerability indices at the national level is crucial in helping policymakers and the WHO to better control and mitigate the impact of the pandemic more efficiently.

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on globalization in terms of mobility, economy, and healthcare systems by utilizing data obtained for 1) mobility and travel resources, 2) economy and workforce, 3) healthcare capacity, and 4) country-level health vulnerability. Health vulnerability was examined through the calculation of a Pandemic Vulnerability Index (PVI).

2.1. Mobility and travel resources

The mobility of individuals and the respective magnitude was assessed using airlines and seaport trade and travel information. Major airlines were selected based on the number of countries traveled to and from by each airline throughout Asia, the Americas, and Europe. To understand the situation before the introduction of COVID-19 in January 2020 [ [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] ], detailed information related to travel history was obtained from the airlines' 2018–2019 annual reports. Similarly, major cruise companies were selected and their 2018–2019 yearly reports were studied [ [27] , [28] , [29] ]. Furthermore, significant seaports and trade volumes in areas with major shipping routes were examined by investigating the world shipping council website [ 30 ]. Current responses to COVID-19 were studied by following the official notices and websites of the travel companies [ [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] ].

2.2. Economy and workforce

Economic impact was explored through trade volumes, event cancellation, and workforce impact based on the 2018–2019 database [ [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] ]. Additional information was collected by examining the changes in the workforce, stock market, and major industries since the introduction of COVID-19 in January 2020 compared to 2019. Stocks were studied to investigate the stock value difference through the course of the pandemic.

2.3. Food and agriculture

The impact on food and agriculture was examined in terms of supply, agricultural contribution to GDP, food expenditures, agricultural imports, global food chains, business closures, food insecurity, supply disruptions, and response to COVID-19 [ [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , [64] , [65] , [66] , [67] ].

2.4. Academic institutions

The impact on academic institutions was explored by studying the measures taken by universities to handle COVID-19. Furthermore, university reopening plans and future enrollment impact, particularly among international students, were also examined [ [68] , [69] , [70] ].

2.5. Healthcare capacity

Healthcare capacity (diagnosis, ICU, hospital beds) was examined by studying the healthcare systems and preparedness of countries. Additional information regarding healthcare responses and workforce impact were analyzed by following news articles, health department websites, WHO situation reports, and published peer-reviewed articles. Search engines such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and the websites of the Ministry of Health, and WHO's country office were used [ [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] ]. Detailed information regarding healthcare responses was collected by corresponding with the WHO country representative. The reported cases were studied from multiple sources, namely WHO situation reports, John Hopkins University interactive dashboard, and the Worldometers website [ 17 , [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] , [83] , [84] , [85] ]. The health indicators were reviewed and extracted from the global health security index website [ 86 ]. Furthermore, the COVID-19 disease prevalence, impacted population, and other country-specific information were studied and derived from the World Bank open data websites and Index Mundi [ [87] , [88] , [89] ].

2.6. Pandemic vulnerability index (PVI)

We focused on the multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for the COVID-19 vulnerability assessment, as countries adopt different strategies to control the COVID-19 pandemic according to their means and resources. We used the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), which takes into consideration uncertainty as well as positivity or negativity of various criteria and their related weights in ranking one country compared with others [ 90 ]. The TOPSIS method reduces the difference in the rankings which uses a crisp or fuzzy data set [ 91 ]. We used the national data reported on September 4, 2020 regarding COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates, tests per million population, number of active cases, and the total number of those who recovered from COVID-19, from the Worldometers website ( https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ). We also considered population density per sq. km, Global Health Index (GHI), diabetes prevalence, and date of the first case (COVID 19) reported for each country. More details are provided in the supplement.

Further, this technique also considers the reduction of the difference of rankings inherent in ranking data sets (see Supplement). We used coefficients from a generalized linear model (GLM) for the weights of the ranking criteria and the explanatory factors, such as population density, days since the first case was reported, GHI, diabetic prevalence index, number of active cases, total cases reported, total tests conducted, and total tests per million [ 86 ]. This technique results in a ranking criterion that is computed from how far apart or close a country is from the highest as well as lowest vulnerable position, considering its weight. A high score indicates high vulnerability to the widespread transmission of COVID-19.

3.1. Impact on mobility

3.1.1. air travel.

Ten significant airlines covering over 50 countries presented large coverage in terms of passengers carried. Table 1 (appendix) includes relevant information regarding airlines. As the table shows, airlines such as Turkish, Delta, and Lufthansa Group each carried more than 5 million passengers per month in 2018–2019. Most airliner countries have responded to COVID-19 by implementing international travel bans from affected countries. On average, about a 30% reduction in stock prices has been observed among major airlines.

3.1.2. Sea travel and trade

Table 2 (appendix) outlines the three major cruise lines and their status during the pandemic. The Carnival Corporation is one of the largest cruise line companies with over 100 vessels carrying about one million passengers monthly across its multiple cruise lines. The corporation responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by suspending cruises from March 13–April 9, 2020. This cruise line has observed over a 60% reduction in stock prices.

Table 3 (appendix) includes information related to trade and travel through seaports. Los Angeles [ 92 , 93 ] saw a reduction in total trade volume by over 22% while Shanghai seaport observed a reduction in weekly vessel calls by 20% since January of 2020 [ 54 , 55 ], resulting in increased spillover in nearby Singapore and South Korea [ 57 , 58 ]. In the United States (US), Los Angeles handled 9.46 million TEU in 2018, and since the pandemic, a reduction in trade volume by over 22% has been observed. Similarly, in Long Beach, where over 8 million TEU vessels have been handled, a 17% decrease in imports has been reported [ 46 , 93 , 94 ].

3.1.3. Travel restrictions

Table 4 (appendix) includes continent-specific data on the travel restrictions implemented worldwide. Almost all (99.7%) of the individuals in South America and 92.5% in North America are living under travel restrictions. Only 62% of individuals are living under travel restrictions in Africa.

3.2. Impact on major industries

3.2.1. event cancellation.

Social distancing has been implemented since the pandemic broke out, which led to the cancellations of numerous events across the world. For instance, the 2020 Summer Olympics to be held in Japan was rescheduled for 2021. Sports events such as athletics, cycling, soccer, golf, auto racing, tennis, cricket, badminton, rugby, and basketball have been canceled or postponed (Table 5, appendix).

3.2.2. Impact on workforce

With lockdowns and travel restrictions, the workforce has been affected universally. About 62% of the global employment constitutes of an informal economy characterized by a lack of social security, benefits, healthcare access, income security, or the possibility of working remotely; thus exposing the most vulnerable group. Among the most vulnerable in the labor market, almost 1.6 billion informal economy workers are significantly impacted by the lockdown measures [ 59 ].

The most affected industries such as manufacturing, accommodation, food services, and retail include about 54% of employers worldwide and account for 30% of average GDP. It is estimated that a considerable amount of time and effort is needed for these sectors to recover [ 59 ].

Working hours are expected to decline by 10.5% compared to the quarter prior to the pandemic, which accounts for 305 million full-time jobs. The Americas, Europe, and Central Asia are expected to observe a significant loss in working hours. The highest loss in working hours is expected in low- and middle-income countries [ 59 ].

3.3. Impact on the healthcare capacity

The unforeseen pandemic has challenged the healthcare systems worldwide. Some nations are impacted less than others, as demonstrated by country-specific fatality rates. Table 6 (appendix) illustrates the cases, recovery, and fatality rates from COVID-19 in countries with developed healthcare systems. The United Kingdom has the highest fatality rate followed by the Netherlands. Canada has high number of cases in this list of the top 10 developed health systems and a low fatality rate of 2.46%. The lowest fatality was reported in Australia.

The current confirmed cases in major countries that were affected as of June 20, 2020, and the current healthcare capacities are listed in Table 7 (appendix). As of November 7, 2020 the US has conducted over 157 million COVID-19 diagnostic tests and reported over 10 million cases and 0.23 million deaths. Currently, there are 2.9 hospital beds per 1000 people and 34.7 ICU beds per 100,000 population. The number of ventilators available in the US is 177,000.

3.4. Food and agriculture

The impact of COVID-19 on the food and agriculture industries is presented in Table 8 (appendix). As shown in Table 9 (appendix), the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have reported a high impact from production and supply disruptions [ 65 ]. Interestingly, these countries have a low impact on the demand shock due to COVID-19 [ 65 ]. Countries with higher GDP from agriculture, such as Bangladesh, have presented low exposure to supply but high exposure to the demand shocks (Table 9, appendix) [ 65 ].

In addition, an initial slump in services and consumption at leading food chains contributed greatly to the disruptions in the food industry. This has been attributed to the many closures due to lockdowns. Although limited disruptions in supply have been reported, numerous franchises have been closed in European markets.

3.4.1. Academic institutions

Academic institutions have observed major disruptions similar to disruptions in other major industries. Most institutions have resorted to moving classes online and cancelling in-person classes [ 95 ]. Transitioning to online classes brought many logistical problems. Results from a survey showed that almost 10% of institutions do not have the facilities and infrastructures in place to conduct online classes, and most of these institutions are in Africa [ 69 ]. Furthermore, the majority of the institutions have indicated a significant impact on enrollment of both new international and local students, with negative financial consequences [ 69 ]. Additionally, 80% of the institutions in the survey reported a negative impact on research at higher institutions owing to travel bans, cancellation of research events, and incomplete projects [ 69 ]. Moreover, limited flexibility has been observed in the United States from restricted use of grant funding to alleviate the impact of COVID-19 [ 96 ].

In an attempt to deal with the ongoing pandemic, many universities have been considering or adopting the following methods of reopening the new academic year: adopting online-only instructions, in-person with social distancing, or creating a hybrid model with components of both in-person and online elements [ 95 ]. Nevertheless, the economic impact of the pandemic on academic institutions is devastating. For example, the US institutions of higher education will lose an estimated one billion dollars due to the cancellation of study abroad programs, and new student enrollments are likely to suffer. Further, an estimated loss of three billion dollars will happen if future international students cannot be enrolled [ 68 ]. In Australia, major universities are estimated to lose a cumulative five billion AUD by 2024. According to a recent report, 38 universities would collectively lose 3.3 billion AUD due to the loss of international students alone [ 70 ]. In the UK, where most universities have moved online, 13 universities can potentially face bankruptcy due to COVID-19 [ 97 ]. With an approximate decrease in enrollment by 50% among incoming international and 10% among local students, an estimated loss of 11 billion pounds have been reported, including revenue from non-academic venues such as accommodation and services [ 97 ].

3.5. Pandemic vulnerability index (PVI)

Based on results calculated for the PVI (the higher the score, the more vulnerable), the top ten highly vulnerable countries include Brazil, India, the USA, Russia, South Africa, Chile, Mexico, Iran, Peru, and Pakistan. Fig. 1 A–D presents the PVI rankings among 180 countries. South Africa and Egypt are highly vulnerable countries in Africa ( Fig. 1 . A). Regarding the PVI rankings such that the lower the rank, the higher the vulnerability. The countries with high numbers of active cases (data not shown), such as Russia, Germany, and Italy ( Fig. 1 B), are more vulnerable than other countries in Europe. Asia and Oceania include the majority of countries that are highly vulnerable to COVID-19, such as India, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Iraq, and Oman ( Fig. 1 C). Countries such as Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Colombia are highly vulnerable in South America, although most of them have a moderate number of active cases ( Fig. 1 D). Conversely, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Bolivia are less vulnerable than other countries in the American continents. The USA has the highest number of active cases and is ranked 3rd in the world and is considered highly vulnerable ( Fig. 1 D).

A. COVID-19 risk and vulnerability index in Africa, B. Europe, C. Asia and Oceania, D. Americas (Red bars indicate ranking and the blue bar indicates vulnerability index score). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

4. Discussion

The world has drastically changed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has had a devastating impact on the global economy and the health of communities across the world. This paper examined the effects on globalization in terms of mobility, trade, travel, global health, and the countries most impacted. In 2019, 4.5 billion passengers traveled by airlines and this number decreased to 2.2 billion during the pandemic [ 98 ]. Thus, globalization has led to the spread of the disease owing to mobility channels such as air and ship travel. Restricted travel, mobility regulations, and lockdown of economies and trade limited, and in some cases halted, globalization to reduce the rapidly rising number of COVID-19 cases. However, this strategy has put pressure on the airline and shipping industries, resulting in loss of income, disruption of global trading, and decimation of the tourism industry. Furthermore, event cancellations have affected the economy and tourism of various countries. The consequential impact on the workforce, supply chain, and consumer behavior is observed as a cascading chain of events that has halted the global economy.

Major airlines have implemented travel bans and reported declining stock value. Similarly, cruise lines are well-established forms of international tourism presenting a steady annual increase with over 28 million passengers in 2018 [ 99 ]. Yet, cruise ships have been recognized as an epicenter for outbreaks. More than 800 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed to have originated in a cruise ship settings [ 100 ]. The stocks of cruise line companies have been declining, resulting in layoffs and affecting the livelihood of the employees.

Restrictive lockdowns implemented as a response to the pandemic have led to a decrease in production, consumption, employment, and supply chain that affect the world economy at large [ 101 ]. It is estimated that the global economy and value chains are likely to create an economic depression more severe than the 2008 financial crisis [ 102 ]. Furthermore, only 34% of employment in the US can be performed from home, which accounts for 44% of all wages [ 48 ]. Individuals working in industries such as transportation, construction, retail, service, and hospitality may find it implausible to work remotely [ 48 ]. In the US alone, the unemployment rate has risen to 14.7% in April from 10.3% in March, indicating the highest monthly increase in unemployment in history.

Travel and tourism account for over 10% of the global GDP and is one of the industries affected directly by COVID-19 [ 39 ]. Numerous international and national sports, conferences, and concerts have been canceled due to the pandemic, causing massive losses in the host nation [ 103 ]. Tourism is expected to be immensely affected by this pandemic. Asia-pacific region of destinations such as Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia are expected to be significantly affected. Furthermore, unemployment is a major problem with an estimated 14% decline in jobs related to this industry [ 38 ]. Additionally, academic research and higher education have also been affected by the loss of international students and scholars, as well as research in basic, clinical, and population-based studies due to lockdowns and physical distancing requirements.

The pandemic has impacted the food and agriculture industry greatly. Developed countries are facing disruptions in production and supply chains due to the needs of advanced and capital-intensive agricultural systems, disruptions in local and international mobility, delays in customs, and disruptions in credit markets [ 65 ]. In addition, there have been major shortages in developed countries with high-demand supplies such as face masks, sanitizers, and paper products due to hoarding and lack of adequate supplies [ 104 ]. Nevertheless, the looming risk of food insecurity in developed nations lies in the impact of COVID-19 on people's employment, as demonstrated by the current economic recession, which stands at 6% on average in 2020 [ 105 , 106 ]. This situation is even worse for Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), which have shown a high risk to the demand-side of food insecurity due to low socio-economic status, access issues, and dependency on the importation of food [ 65 ]. Developing countries are estimated to observe at least a 3.6% decrease in GDP, with Africa, South Asia, and South America affected the most. Globally, over 140 million people are estimated to face extreme poverty, which would increase food insecurity severely [ 106 ]. Subsequently, the journey from farm to fork has been somewhat concerning in the service delivery of restaurants. While many global food chains have reported bankruptcy and closures in selected markets, delivery services by third-party vendors have been thriving [ 67 , [107] , [108] , [109] , [110] , [111] , [112] , [113] ]. Concerns regarding the food and agriculture industry have escalated all over the world with the progression of the pandemic, and with no end in sight.

Academic institutions also have been affected by the pandemic and emerged as a key concern due to mobility and socializing of students. While many universities have shifted to online, hybrid, or in-person classes with social distancing [ 95 ], universities have emerged as a new hotspot of COVID-19 after reopening [ 114 , 115 ]. Therefore, the implications of reopening universities have proven to be severe for public health. Moreover, universities are predicting a steep decline in new enrollments of both international and local students; the serious financial impact will have major economic consequences [ 69 , 97 ].

Healthcare systems across the world are exhausting themselves in the control of COVID-19. This study also calculated a country level PVI and assigned rankings. We identified that countries with high numbers of active cases are more vulnerable such as Ireland, the UK, and Italy in Europe, despite having good healthcare facilities. This again illustrates the globalization that may have precipitated the amplification of pandemic in these regions. The vulnerable countries in Asia are, Hong Kong, Singapore, and India in Asia. A plausible explanation may be the high population density in these areas. The US has the highest burden of COVID-19 and the health system is struggling to meet the demands of this pandemic. Most of the countries in Africa have a poor healthcare system and most of them fall to the bottom of GHI (data not provided). Although they have a low number of cases, a poor healthcare system and low GHI score [ 86 ] make them more vulnerable [ 86 ]. On the other hand, some countries have low prevalence of testing and some have high prevalence of active cases now. This illustrates multiple facets of handling the control and containment of COVID-19. Therefore, the control strategies taken by different countries to handle the pandemic can ease the vulnerability of countries to COVID-19. However, every control action has consequential effects on the economy and global health at large.

Although this study utilized multiple elements to characterize the effects of the pandemic on globalization and implemented an innovative technique that has not previously applied to assess a country's vulnerability to the pandemic, some limitations exist. Some information was extracted and taken from non-traditional sources such as news articles due to a lack of information from official sources. In addition, for the calculation of the PVI and rank, the selection of variables was influenced by the availability of country-level data. For example, only the diabetic prevalence was available for all countries; no other risk factors such as hypertension prevalence was available. Moreover, country-level data do not consider subject-level risk factors; thus, within the same country, people with different levels of the same risk factors may have different vulnerabilities to the transmission of COVID-19.

5. Conclusion

The pandemic has exposed the urgent need to revisit disaster preparedness and public health response to a health crisis such as COVID-19. Though much progress has been made in the nations' and the world's ability to respond to a public health emergency, the healthcare capacity of various powerful nations has been tested during this pandemic. Even developed countries with sophisticated infrastructure, sanitation, and hygiene that have undergone epidemiological transitions are facing difficulties controlling the epidemic. Less developed countries, however, have been overwhelmed, with many nations unable to adequately respond to and control the pandemic due to the lack of infrastructure, resources, fragile governments, and impoverished communities. The pandemic has exposed and exacerbated disparities between low- to middle-income countries and high-income and developed nations, and between the poor and the rich. The pandemic has also exposed inadequate surveillance systems worldwide, and the inability to detect and control the pandemic. The information presented in this paper can assist governments and policymakers to respond to COVID-19 faster and more efficiently by instituting control measures that limit the spread and alleviate the vulnerabilities to local and global economies.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Availability of data and materials

UH was supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant # 281077).

Authors' contributions

Nistha Shrestha and Ubydul Haque: Conceived the study design, collected data, conducted the experiments, analyzed, and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. Muhammad Yousaf Shad: Analyzed and interpreted the data and contributed to writing. Osman Ulvi and Modasser Hossain Khan: Collected data and contributed to writing. Ajlina Karamehic-Muratovic, Uyen-Sa D. T. Nguyen, Mahdi Baghbanzadeh, Robert Wardrup, Nasrin Aghamohammadi, Diana Cervantes, Kh Md Nahiduzzaman, and Rafdzah Ahmad Zaki: Contributed to writing and reviewing of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgement

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100180 .

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material

The Dark Side of Globalization: Unveiling its Negative Aspects

Examining the harmful impacts of globalization on society and economies..

Globalization has been a prominent force in shaping the modern world, connecting nations and cultures in ways previously unimaginable. However, beneath the surface of increased trade and communication lies a darker side filled with negative consequences. From economic inequality to cultural homogenization, there are several aspects of globalization that have raised concerns among critics.

One of the most significant negative aspects of globalization is the widening gap between the rich and the poor. As multinational corporations expand their operations across borders, they often exploit cheap labor in developing countries, leading to higher profits for the wealthy elite while leaving workers in poverty. This economic inequality has only been exacerbated by the outsourcing of jobs to countries with lower labor costs, further marginalizing already disadvantaged communities.

Another detrimental impact of globalization is the loss of cultural diversity. As Western culture spreads around the world through media and consumer products, local traditions and customs are often marginalized or erased altogether. This cultural homogenization not only erases the unique identities of indigenous peoples but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes and misconceptions about different cultures.

Furthermore, globalization has also been linked to environmental degradation. The increased demand for natural resources and consumer goods has led to overexploitation of the planet's finite resources, leading to deforestation, pollution, and climate change. The lack of global regulations and enforcement mechanisms has allowed multinational corporations to exploit the environment with impunity, putting the future of the planet at risk.

In addition, globalization has also been blamed for the spread of infectious diseases. The ease of travel and trade has facilitated the rapid transmission of diseases such as SARS, Ebola, and COVID-19 across borders, posing a significant threat to global health security. The interconnected nature of the global economy has made it difficult for countries to contain outbreaks and prevent the spread of pandemics.

Moreover, globalization has been criticized for its impact on local economies. The influx of cheap imported goods has often led to the decline of small businesses and industries in developing countries, as they struggle to compete with larger multinational corporations. This has resulted in job losses, economic instability, and social unrest in many communities, further exacerbating the cycle of poverty and inequality.

On a political level, globalization has also raised concerns about the erosion of national sovereignty. As international organizations and agreements dictate policies and regulations that govern countries' economies and societies, the power of individual nation-states is diminished, leading to increased dependence on supranational institutions. This loss of autonomy has sparked backlash among nationalist movements seeking to reclaim control over their countries' affairs.

Furthermore, globalization has been associated with the exploitation of workers in developing countries. Sweatshops and unsafe working conditions are common in many industries that cater to the global market, as companies prioritize profits over the well-being of their employees. The lack of labor protections and enforcement mechanisms has allowed these abuses to persist, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and exploitation.

In conclusion, while globalization has brought about many benefits in terms of increased trade, communication, and cultural exchange, it also has its negative aspects that cannot be ignored. From economic inequality to environmental degradation, the impact of globalization on society and economies is far-reaching and complex. It is essential for policymakers, businesses, and individuals to address these negative consequences and work towards a more equitable and sustainable global system.