GLOBALIZATION AND DISEASE - When China sneezes, the world…panics! The SARS crisis (Chapter 9) Return to Unit List
Economists have long used the metaphor of disease to illustrate how the world’s major economies are mutually dependent on each other for their well being. "When America sneezes," some say, "Europe catches cold." But the SARS crisis of 2003 reminds us that the illnesses spread by the networks of globalization are not just metaphorical. SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, is a virus that emerged in southern China’s Guangdong Province in late 2002. Originally carried in animals it somehow made a leap to humans and by February, 2003, over 300 people in Guangdong had been hospitalized with symptoms of severe pneumonia. The virus initially attacks the lungs but spreads rapidly to other vital organs and muscles; it can be fatal without early detection and intensive medical intervention. How it spreads among humans is still not entirely understood, but the fact that the virus managed to very rapidly spread from Guangdong to 29 countries around the world, causing over 8,000 infections and nearly 800 deaths, has made SARS an effective case study in globalization.
For example, the SARS crisis revealed how the scale and speed with which people move about the world today makes containment of disease very difficult. Some two million people cross an international border every day worldwide, and the health of the global economy depends upon that movement being relatively unrestricted. SARS made clear the conflict between keeping global linkages flowing and preventing disease from spreading. When the World Health Organization advised travelers to avoid the city of Toronto in an effort to contain the further spread of the virus, Canada’s economy was estimated to lose $30 million a day as a result. The WHO took some criticism (particularly from Canada) for overreacting to the virus but, in response, claimed that it was responsible for protecting the world from disease rather than protecting the global economy.
In this way, SARS also revealed the extent to which most economies still depend upon the free-flowing movements of people. Rather than travel to places where SARS cases had been found, many businesspeople relied on telecommunications and electronic media to conduct their international business. But given the devastating economic impact that cities like Hong Kong, Beijing, and Toronto suffered, conference calls and email are a poor substitute for face-to-face contact. Still, the crisis was taken up as an opportunity for the governments of Hong Kong and China to promote newly initiated online distance learning programs when schools were closed for several weeks. Internet retail providers also saw a burst of sales in response to the crisis as well.
Finally, SARS also reveals the uneven nature of globalization and the inequalities underlying global linkages. This is seen in two ways: On the one hand, the disease received a tremendous amount of global attention despite its relatively small impact in terms of actual infections and fatalities (SARS took nearly 800 lives over a course of six months, while some 8,500 people die of AIDS every day). For some, SARS captured the world’s attention because it impacted key hubs of globalization—Hong Kong, Toronto, B eijing—whereas the much greater killers AIDS and malaria are endemic in sub-Saharan African regions often thought to be left behind by globalization. On the other hand, the impact of SARS in China brought renewed attention to the striking inequalities that have developed in that country as it engages with the global economy.
Start your exploration of the crisis by reading and looking at the following sites:
The impact of the WHO’s travel restrictions on Hong Kong are evident in this story on
"Hong Kong’s sorrow-tinged celebrations" from the BBC, but by mid-July, 2003 it was becoming apparent that the economic impact of SARS in Asia was not as dire as was being predicted at the height of the outbreak, as reported by the BBC, "Asia shrugs off SARS’ economic impact."It seems that the longer term impact SARS had on places like Hong Kong were more emotional than economic. This can perhaps best be captured by the fact that the 9
th floor of the Metropole Hotel, from where the virus first spread after arriving from Guangdong in the infected body of doctor Liu Jianlun, is now referred to as "ground zero," a term which recalls the atomic blast that leveled Hiroshima Japan at the end of World War II and, of course, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. The comparison becomes almost cosmic when we learn the room number that Dr. Liu stayed in at the Metropole: 911.While China shrugged off the economic damage rather easily, the political implications of SARS are much more serious for the country’s leadership. See this analysis by China scholar Joseph Fewsmith in the Stanford University Hoover Institute’s
China Leadership Monitor .Finally, for a discussion of SARS and inequality, see Harvard Medical School Professor Paul Farmer’s article from The Nation . For a contrast to Farmer’s view, see "The new killer threatening rich and poor alike," by Martin Woollacott , who argues that SARS might succeed in finally convincing the developed world that it is not immune to large scale infectious diseases, often thought to thrive only in poor countries. And, on the ways SARS reveals growing inequalities in China, see Anthony Kuhn’s article in the Los Angeles Times, "China may reap a bitter SARS harvest." Much of Kuhn’s article is also summarized in the July, 2003 edition of Migration News.
Issues for discussion and further exploration:
Additional SARS resources for futher exploration: