The Globalisation Expert: Ian Goldin

Globalisation is a double-edged sword. Ian Goldin, professor of globalisation and development at the University of Oxford and author of The Butterfly Defect, discusses the systemic risks that have built up as an array of interconnections have spread their wings of influence across the globe.

Ian Goldin

Why did COVID-19 take the majority by surprise?

When I wrote The Butterfly Defect in 2014, I came to see that the super spreaders of ‘good’ globalisation are also super spreaders of the ‘bad’.

The financial crisis demonstrated how systemic risk works in the 21st century. It was inevitable that a pandemic would arise and spread extremely quickly, because the factors that create pandemics – meat (wild meat in particular) being produced so near to human settlements, poor sanitary conditions near airports and so on – were all in place. That we narrowly escaped SARS, Ebola and other potential pandemics in recent years was just luck.

Poor global governance made a pandemic more likely. Governments around the world have not empowered multilateral organisations like the World Health Organisation (WHO) to do what was necessary to stop one.

How are we going to manage pandemic risk better, with WHO in crisis?

WHO, like other global institutions, has been starved of the necessary skills, technology and resources to deal with a global pandemic. It also has its own governance issues and needs to be reformed.

A workable global agreement would need to be in place allowing for fast, accurate and transparent information to be reported

I would like to see a NATO-like equivalent of a rapid-response taskforce able to go to any jurisdiction in the world at short notice and identify the virus, then isolate and seal it off. Effective monitoring capabilities would be required. For this to happen, a workable global agreement would need to be in place allowing for fast, accurate and transparent information to be reported.

None of this has happened, which is one of the reasons why the risks have increased.

Who is responsible for these failings?

Responsibility should be placed firmly at the door of the biggest governments: China, the US, Europe and the UK. We are the main shareholders of these global institutions and have allowed them to wither and become ineffective. We have also prevented them interfering in our national affairs. Governments have not given supranational organisations the power to see what is happening in their kitchens. This is not only true for pandemics, but also for money laundering, tax evasion, cyber risks, climate change and other areas.

Could a breakdown in the US-China relationship exacerbate the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic?

Yes, there is a real danger here. It has escalated the potential risks and could create a new Cold War. However, the one thing this pandemic should have taught us is that there is no wall high enough to keep out the great risks we face; pandemics or climate change or others. The tensions are further undermining our global institutions.

Is it too drastic to say that globalisation could go into reverse?

Yes. While there has been a dramatic slowdown which reflects the slowdown in economic activity globally, COVID-19 is accelerating transformation; it is exacerbating trends that were happening anyway. So, some aspects of globalisation have leapt ahead, like tech and digital. Momentum in other aspects will increase again soon – in finance, for instance, because over 100 countries are embarking on bailouts. Supply chain fragmentation had already reached its peak a few years ago due to other trends, notably technology and automation.

One thing that will change as a result of COVID-19 will be the constraint of business travel in the longer term.

How significant will the outcome of the US elections be for the China-US relationship?

I am not very optimistic. There are very few things that create agreement across the US political spectrum but bashing China is one of them. A Democratic win is unlikely to lead to fundamental change.

What positives do you see from the situation we find ourselves in?

There are several. The pandemic is leading to a massive rethinking of priorities; some sacred cows have been thrown out. Ideas of basic income, of massively increased government expenditures, and a greater recognition of the importance of government have all bubbled to the surface.

We need to recognise the importance of strong global cohesion

At the national level, there is a much healthier recognition of the importance of social cohesion and social welfare. The challenge is international too, as we need to recognise the importance of strong global cohesion to start to resolve some of these issues.

To what extent are you worried about ecological risks?

I am extremely worried. There is a real risk that we take the eye off the ball on climate – particularly given the amount of money being spent could allow a dramatic increase in expenditure toward policies that fail to promote green growth. Of course, one of the big realisations is that pandemic risk is inextricably linked to climate change given the zoonotic nature of many viruses.

In terms of industries and sectors, where do you see the most fragility?

There has been a huge amount of time and effort spent trying to stop another crisis emanating from the finance and banking system, with regulatory intervention including Solvency II and Basel III. But my view is that the financial system is no more robust than it was in 2008. Certainly, we are not going to have the same crisis as we did in 2008 – it never is like that. The potential for the financial system to fall apart as a result of another cause, like an even larger Hurricane Sandy or a pandemic, is greater than ever.

In terms of the internet, there has been some growth in resilience – more networks and alternative routes, for example. But given the limited number of cables between the UK and the US, that situation could soon change. Likewise, there are few cables running from the Mediterranean through to Asia, so there are clearly vulnerabilities in the system. We are also overly dependent on Russia for oil and gas, particularly gas.

We cannot change the incentives facing managers, both in the private sector and the corporatized public sector

The MBA mentality of ‘just-in-time’ efficiency is being challenged as well. But the inference we will move from this model to a ‘just-in-case’ one is a bit of stretch, because unless you change mark-to-market accounting and quarterly reporting and the way managers are incentivised, you cannot change the basic ethos based on stocks held or spare capacity in working capital tied up that is ‘wasted’. Until spare capacity is seen as an asset not a liability, we cannot change the incentives facing managers, both in the private sector and the corporatized public sector, like hospital trusts.

So, this is going to require system-wide change, not simply saying we need more spare parts to guard against system fragility. I do not see this changing as a result of the pandemic; the change will come as a result of the other factors instead – like automation, technology and politics, as well as changes in accounting practices, regulations and shareholder behaviour.

Would you like to read the whole of AIQ: The Risk Edition?

Subscribe to download a PDF copy or get a printed edition delivered directly to you.

Subscribe today

Important information

Except where stated as otherwise, the source of all information is Aviva Investors Global Services Limited (AIGSL). Unless stated otherwise any views and opinions are those of Aviva Investors. They should not be viewed as indicating any guarantee of return from an investment managed by Aviva Investors nor as advice of any nature. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but has not been independently verified by Aviva Investors and is not guaranteed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guide to the future. The value of an investment and any income from it may go down as well as up and the investor may not get back the original amount invested. Nothing in this material, including any references to specific securities, assets classes and financial markets is intended to or should be construed as advice or recommendations of any nature. This material is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment.

In Europe this document is issued by Aviva Investors Luxembourg S.A. Registered Office: 2 rue du Fort Bourbon, 1st Floor, 1249 Luxembourg. Supervised by Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. An Aviva company. In the UK Issued by Aviva Investors Global Services Limited. Registered in England No. 1151805. Registered Office: St Helens, 1 Undershaft, London EC3P 3DQ. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm Reference No. 119178. In France, Aviva Investors France is a portfolio management company approved by the French Authority “Autorité des Marchés Financiers”, under n° GP 97-114, a limited liability company with Board of Directors and Supervisory Board, having a share capital of 17 793 700 euros, whose registered office is located at 14 rue Roquépine, 75008 Paris and registered in the Paris Company Register under n° 335 133 229. In Switzerland, this document is issued by Aviva Investors Schweiz GmbH.

In Singapore, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited (AIAPL) for distribution to institutional investors only. Please note that AIAPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIAPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIAPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore with registration number 200813519W, holds a valid Capital Markets Services Licence to carry out fund management activities issued under the Securities and Futures Act (Singapore Statute Cap. 289) and Asian Exempt Financial Adviser for the purposes of the Financial Advisers Act (Singapore Statute Cap.110). Registered Office: 1Raffles Quay, #27-13 South Tower, Singapore 048583. In Australia, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd (AIPPL) for distribution to wholesale investors only. Please note that AIPPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIPPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIPPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Australia with Australian Business No. 87 153 200 278 and Australian Company No. 153 200 278, holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 411458) issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Business Address: Level 30, Collins Place, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000, Australia.

The name “Aviva Investors” as used in this material refers to the global organization of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. Each Aviva investors’ affiliate is a subsidiary of Aviva plc, a publicly- traded multi-national financial services company headquartered in the United Kingdom. Aviva Investors Canada, Inc. (“AIC”) is located in Toronto and is registered with the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) as a Portfolio Manager, an Exempt Market Dealer, and a Commodity Trading Manager. Aviva Investors Americas LLC is a federally registered investment advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Aviva Investors Americas is also a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), and is a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). AIA’s Form ADV Part 2A, which provides background information about the firm and its business practices, is available upon written request to: Compliance Department, 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2250, Chicago, IL 60606.

Related views