Policy responses to Covid-19

Lessons for the global trade and investment regime

Bibliographic Data

ID19535101
AuthorsRachel Thrasher (0000-0001-6649-075X, Boston University, corresponding author), Warren A Kaplan (0000-0001-6127-4820, Boston University), Warren Kaplan (0000-0003-0043-3554), Veronika J Wirtz (0000-0002-0863-8768, Boston University), Louise Clear (Boston University), Shiva Priya Bodduluri (0000-0002-5996-5160, Boston University), Sandra Polaski (0000-0002-7110-5788, Boston University)
Year2023
Volume19
Issue1
Pages66-66
Publication date2023-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueGlobalization and Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1744-8603 • E-ISSN: 1744-8603
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1186/s12992-023-00961-6
PMID37658444
OpenAlexW4386371787
LanguageEN
References cited26

BACKGROUND: During the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has cost millions of lives around the globe, caused major morbidity and provoked widespread economic and social disruption. In response, governments have enacted policies to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic. This research focuses in on policies aimed at increasing access to essential health products and services by comparing them to the global rules governing trade, investment and intellectual property. We have assessed whether these rules have or could have constrained countries in responding to this and future crises. The study identifies the nature and scope of the trade-related health sector policies implemented by our sample group of countries, selected because of their systemic significance: the United States, Germany, France, China, South Africa and India. Each policy is placed into one of five broad categories covered by trade and investment rules so that we could assess their consistency with those rules. RESULTS: We found, among other things, that the types of trade-related health measures were quite diverse. The high-income countries in our study were the most active in the policy space and tended to rely on subsidies-based measures while the middle-income countries relied more heavily on export and import measures. Policies directly relevant to intellectual property protection were virtually non-existent. When evaluating the implemented policies against the global trade and investment rules, we found potential constraints under five different types of rules: those governing subsidies, import and export trade barriers, investment measures, government procurement and trade-related intellectual property. CONCLUSIONS: Given the tension between the global rules and the practices of policymaking during the pandemic, we conclude that the tension must be resolved in favor of governments making policy rather than relying on existing exceptions or pushing national governments to comply more exactly with the rules. Although the pandemic itself does not respect national borders, governance still generally occurs at the national level because national governments are often the only entities with both the legal authority and the practical ability to respond

Business · Commercial policy · Economics · Free trade · General Agreement on Trade in Services · Intellectual property · International economics · International trade · Market economy · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Subsidy · COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts · Global Security and Public Health · Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access