The black market for donkeys is growing, primarily because China is eager to get ahold of donkey skin. The gelatin created from boiling the skin is the key ingredient in ejiao, a traditional Chinese medicine that has historically been used to treat blood diseases and reproductive issues. Though there is no clinical evidence proving the benefits of ejiao, it recently gained popularity as a general wellness supplement and has been added to liquor, desserts, moisturizers and a variety of other commercial products. 

The demand for ejiao has been steadily increasing over the last two decades in China and caused the country’s population of native donkeys to plummet from 11 million in 1990 to 3 million in 2020, a sharp decline of just under 73%. Several estimates predict that the current demand for ejiao in China would require 4 million donkeys per year from a population that can supply just 1.8 million.

The high price of ejiao — almost $400 per kilogram — incentivizes producers to try and meet consumer demand, despite the difficulty of acquiring enough donkeys. To overcome the shortages, manufacturers sought solutions abroad and found an answer to their problem in developing countries, where donkeys are often plentiful and cheap. Chinese manufacturers source their donkey skins from a variety of locations, including Brazil, Pakistan and Colombia, but most of their stock comes from African countries, particularly Kenya, Niger, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Tanzania. 

After over a decade supplying China, these countries are now feeling the strain, and their donkey populations are taking a major hit as they try to accommodate the rising number of exports. In the last 12 years, Kenya’s donkey population has fallen by 33% and Botswana’s by 39%. 

Zimbabwe, Kenya, Niger and Tanzania have tried to rectify the situation by banning the slaughter of donkeys and the export of their hides — but these laws are not strictly enforced. As a result, the number sent abroad remains the same. Additionally, no solutions have been implemented to dissuade illegal poaching, which is the source of a significant portion of exports.

But not only is the donkey trade illegal, but many are concerned about the trade’s ethical considerations. The animals involved are treated inhumanely and often live in atrocious conditions. They are packed onto trucks and driven for days without being given adequate food or water. Several reports document donkeys often arriving at their final destinations on the brink of death, with broken bones or covered in wounds. 

Donkey sellers are not concerned with the condition in which the animals are delivered, since this does not affect the condition of the skin. In fact, sellers are often incentivized to treat these animals harshly in an effort to maximize profit from buyers who will pay less for live donkeys that they have to kill themselves. 

The international black market also makes life difficult for the people who are left without their animals. In the countries that provide the most donkeys, a significant portion of the population relies on the animals for fetching water and firewood, aiding in planting and harvesting crops and providing transportation to school and work. With the current demand for donkeys being as high as it is, families often wake up to find their donkeys missing, often because of looters. 

These same families are then priced out of purchasing a new animal, as stock is low and skin sellers often quickly purchase donkeys that are for sale at higher prices. From 2012 to 2016, the average price of a donkey in Niger shot up from $34 to $145. If a family is unable to procure another donkey, its tasks are typically reassigned to wives or daughters, further increasing the workload of women who already live with a heavy burden of labor.

The donkey trade also presents serious risks for the rest of the world. A 2019 report by The Donkey Sanctuary, a United Kingdom-based nonprofit, found that it “creates a significant biosecurity risk for all countries that donkeys, and their products, are transported through” and that “the spread of disease to the global donkey population, to other animals and to humans is a major threat.” Considering the COVID-19 pandemic and its origins, the risks to global health posed by the donkey trade warrant serious consideration. The report also highlights the massive amounts of ecological pollution generated by the unregulated dumping and improper disposal of donkey carcasses. Harmful by-products of the slaughter process sometimes end up in waterways, contaminating important sources of water for people, animals and crops. 

Despite the many downsides of the donkey trade, not much is currently being done to prevent it. Many of the countries that the donkeys come from have made their slaughter and the sale of their skin illegal, but are unable to enforce these laws. This week, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives urging Congress to halt all sale and importation of donkey-hide gelatin products into the United States. The bill is still in its early introductory stages. Meanwhile, China has made no effort to prevent it; in fact, the country even reduced the import tax on donkeys from 5% to 2% in 2018.

Additionally, although Chinese demand for ejiao is what drove this problem to its extreme, other countries are also complicit. A report by Humane Society International found that 13 other countries import over one million dollars worth of ejiao a year (including the United States, which is the fourth largest importer at $12 million dollars a year), and none have taken steps to regulate the industry. 

One possible solution is for governments to support the application of cellular agriculture to the ejiao industry by funding research in this area or offering incentives to manufacturers who use it. Recent scientific advancements have made the artificial production of animal collagen a viable alternative to the traditional process of boiling donkey skin; lab-grown skin or collagen produced from donkey cells could provide ejiao manufacturers with a constant supply of ethical and hygienic raw material. 

For the welfare of the global donkey population and the people harmed by its decline, animal rights activists and experts believe that the production of ejiao needs to be either entirely revamped to rely on a lab-grown supply of material or closely supervised and controlled by the biggest importers of the product to ensure manufacturers follow strict regulations regarding the treatment of and compensation for donkeys. The system in its current state is unsustainable and will continue to worsen without intervention.

Mexico’s current administration. led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and his party MORENA, has not only been completely negligent of Mexico’s environment and sustainability potential, but it has also implemented several new regulations that threaten the environment and Mexico’s clean energy sector. 

Most recently, on March 3, an initiative to reform the Electric Industry Law was passed by the Mexican Congress. This reform practically monopolizes electricity production under the state owned Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), making it harder for foreign investment to reach the renewable energy sector. 

“[The new reform] threatens the compromises established under international treaties, both commercial agreements as well as protection of investments and the environment, for example the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Mexico’s Council for Business Coordination in a press release addressing the reform. 

By making it harder for private companies to invest in the energy sector, the country’s electricity production will fall into the control of the CFE which only produces around 15% of its electricity with renewable sources. 

This is not the first time Lopez Obrador’s government has threatened clean and renewable energies, as last year he blocked the development of clean energy infrastructure projects citing “issues regarding the pandemic.” In May 2020, the National Centre for Energy Control and Secretary of Energy [NAME], under the guidance of Lopez Obrador’s party, introduced a series of legislative acts that limited the amount of energy that private companies could produce and the number of permits they could acquire. 

This legislation also allowed the administration to stop all of the necessary tests for the new sustainable energy power plants to start production. Lopez Obrador cited “energy security concerns due to the pandemic” as justification for this legislation, even though studies could not find any link between renewables and their effects on national energy insecurity. 

These new regulations became so alarming for Mexico’s environmental commitment, that the UN and several other governments and international institutions shared their concerns with the Mexican government. 

The UN’s environmental organization, the UNEP, reported on its yearly renewable energy investment report that Mexico had a 1.800 billion dollar deficit from its initial investment commitment of 6.1 billion. 

“This shows that there is a lack of political will more than any problem related to Covid-19. Mexico should be equipped with renewable energy sources.” said Dr. Ulf Moslener, head of research for the UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate and Sustainable Energy Finance, in a comment for the EFE.

All of this regulation and legislation are just some of the many logistical obstacles that Lopez Obrador has presented to the development of clean energy sources in the country. The main and most direct attack, however, comes in the shape of his beloved passion projects. These involve the construction and further development of massive infrastructure projects, which include a train that will cut through the Mayan jungle as well as an oil refinery.

The “Tren Maya” is a planned 1,460 km railway project to be built in the Mayan Riviera as well as Obrador’s dream tourism booster. This project however, brought a lot of environmental concerns from experts, activist groups and local indigenous populations. The building of the tracks would cut through an estimated 12,000 individual trees. This not only endangers 178 different types of flora, but also threatens the lives of several species. Among them the Jaguar, from which 1,800 of the 4,000 remaining in the country are found within that region and would have their natural habitat disturbed by the constant movement of people and goods throughout the jungle. 

To top it all off, Obrador had previously stated that the train would run, for the most part, on electricity, however, last year it was confirmed that it would run primarily on diesel fuel that would be imported from abroad. All of this would ultimately contribute to the pollution of the Mayan jungle. 

This never-ending dependency on oil perpetuated by Lopez Obrador’s government is exacerbated by another one of the president’s passion projects, the Dos Bocas oil refinery‒ a 9 billion dollar mega project that would be able to process 340,000 oil barrels a day. 

Starting an oil refinery in the 2020s is just one more nail in the coffin that is Lopez Obrador’s lack of commitment to the environment. This project not only demonstrates that polluting energy sources are prioritized over clean and renewable ones, but it also reveals  his administration’s hypocrisy within their environmental discourse. 

During Lopez Obrador’s campaign in 2018, he rushed to criticize a then-active airport project for being built on top of a “lake,” as it threatened the environment. However, once in office, all of these environmentalist facades have been thrown out the window with Lopez Obrador putting forward even more damaging projects and legislation. 

The core of this hypocrisy lies on the fact that, in the end, his campaign promises were never about the environment ‒ they were simply a ploy to gain popular support. He assured the public of his commitment to environmental protection throughout his campaign with promises such as  “of course we have to save the lake,” referring to an airport built on an already dried up lake bed where construction had already begun. Yet, while once in office, he justified being against eolic energy because wind turbines are “ruining the landscape.”

A country’s economic development can be achieved without severely compromising the environment, as long as appropriate mitigation strategies are implemented. However, in the case of Lopez Obrador’s passion projects, mitigation has not been a part of his primary focus; putting his own reputation, caprice and interests above all else. 

Obrador always prides himself as being against neoliberalism and the previous administration’s corruption and thirst for money, but as it stands today, it seems like he is no different. 

All of his projects are fueled not by a desire to make an impactful change, but to leave his own mark on Mexican history. The evidence of him favoring oil over renewables and his own environmentally damaging projects over those from the previous administration, highlights that this is not a battle between his administration and unsustainability, it is just a way for him to fulfill his whims in whatever way possible. 

This is not a new era for Mexico’s environmentalism, it is just another tantrum-prone and greed driven demagogue trying to leave his mark on the Mexican history books.  

Japan was once an economic powerhouse. Japanese companies were purchasing assets globally at an astronomical rate. In 1989, the Nikkei Stock Average culminated at a record of almost $40,000. This booming economy was met with turmoil as Japan’s asset bubble maxed out, resulting in disastrously low property prices. A significant amount of work migrated abroad to escape Japan’s economic downturn. The 1990s became a dark time for eager graduates awaiting a coveted position at major companies. To cut costs and protect older workers, companies offered a scant amount of jobs, shutting recent graduates out of the workforce. The labor market entered an employment “ice age.” To this day, those shut out of Japan’s job market in the 1990s are still struggling. They make up what is known as the “Lost Generation”. 

The Lost Generation began as a large population of hikikomori, a Japanese term used to describe adolescents who withdraw from society and confine themselves to their bedrooms. Failure to find employment resulted in ⅓ of the now 40-year-old population becoming shut-ins, or hikikomori. Today, there are around 613,000 hikikomori, according to a government survey in March 2019. The Lost Generation also presents the “8050s Problem”, which entails middle-aged, reclusive and unemployed Japanese still dependent on their elderly parents for housing and financial assistance. Social worker Reiko Katsube identified the 8050s Problem and strives to cultivate connections among this community through the Toyonoka Council of Social Welfare. Katsube recognizes that shut-ins deserve acceptance and a place within society. Katsube began reaching out to this community after the 1995 Kobe earthquake that left hundreds of thousands of people displaced. “Since the quake, we have been striving to nurture connections in the community to prevent lonely deaths,” Katsube says. Hikikomori have endured societal isolation and a discouraging labor market for far too long. Unfortunately, the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated these issues. 

Prior to the pandemic, the Japanese government realized the Lost Generation was in dire need of assistance after a May 2019 knife attack. A middle-aged man who had been without a job and living with his parents committed this brutal attack, killing two, injuring 18 others and subsequently stabbing himself to death. Japanese media alluded that this man had been suffering from the 8050s Problem, indicating that shut-ins may be a “ticking time bomb.”

The 1990’s employment ice age had extended into multiple decades and its consequences prompted the government to finally take action. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government announced plans to create over 300,000 jobs within three years. 

Government action, however, is untimely. Experts predict that another major employment ice age will occur due to the pandemic. 2020’s April to June quarter indicated a 28% dip in the Japanese economy – the most drastic during the postwar period. According to Recruit Works Institute’s statistics, the class of 2021’s ratio of jobs per graduate will drop from 1.83 to 1.53. In an employment system characterized by the saying, “The doors only open once,” graduates may face a futile job market. Japan’s Chamber of Commerce reports that 78% of small to midsize businesses will cut back the number of new hires because of the pandemic. How will the Japanese government save its Lost Generation while preventing another one? 

Government intervention should include not only job creation but also psychological assistance. The government largely ignored psychological disorders until 2004, when a law was passed to support those with developmental disabilities. Many shut-ins struggle with hypersensitivity, compulsive tendencies, and lack of social awareness. If the government had addressed these disabilities earlier on, then the 8050s Problem would not be as pervasive today. Many elderly parents of these middle-aged shut-ins regret treating their children terribly because they were unaware of the psychological inflictions from long-term unemployment. Japan’s social welfare system must pursue efforts towards creating communities for shut-ins to share their experiences and network for employment opportunities, even if the pandemic limits connection to an online platform.  

Approximately 1 million Japanese in their mid-30s to mid-40s are experiencing long-term unemployment. Boosting incomes while meeting the domestic demand for labor requires significant cooperation among local and national governments and companies. Former Prime Minister Abe’s cabinet expressed willingness to use flexible macroeconomic policies, hoping to raise the minimum wage to 1,000  ¥ ($9.20) and create over 300,000 jobs. However, these measures entail real sacrifices. Securing economic stimulus funds requires serious social security reforms, including increasing revenue from wealthier older people and raising the age to receive public pension from 65 to 70yearsold. The new Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is fairly popular among Japanese citizens. In a recent interview with Japan Forward, Abe describes Suga as a “results-oriented politician” who will continue the policies of the previous administration. 

Thousands of people apply for a national public service job, knowing that it provides a steady income. Not just any unemployed Japanese person can be granted a government-created job. To be hired as national public servants, the “ice age” generation must first pass government exams. Those who pass the exam must then undergo interviews. Out of the most recent 5,634 applicants who took the exam, only 157 will be offered a position, signifying a competition rate of 35.9 applicants to one job. This system seems much more cutthroat than the 1990s post-graduate job search, which may not resolve the problem. 

Japan’s ambitious plans for economic revival may flounder given the current circumstances. Emphasis on a flexible macroeconomic policy has entrenched Japan in a debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%. Experts worry that government safety nets will hinder structural reforms from advancing economic development, causing companies to lose profit in the long-term. In order to escape and prevent another employment ice age, Japan must shift its focus to reducing trade barriers, attracting more foreign direct investment, and expanding the labor market. 

As the workforce dwindles due to the aging population, the Lost Generation deserves a second chance to establish a career for themselves and repair Japan’s stagnant economy. 

Through this foreign policy agenda, Duterte has sought to distance the Philippines from the United States. In February, Duterte announced the termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Enacted in 1999, VFA governed the conduct of visiting American soldiers and served as the foundation for joint military exercises and humanitarian work. With the Philippines serving as a buffer against Chinese influence, the treaty’s termination weakens Washington’s’ strategic influence in the region. 

Soon after the VFA announcement, Duterte announced the creation of a robust, equal, albeit informal, partnership with Russia. This recent partnership highlights a significant juncture in global politics: the departure of a long-standing U.S. ally seeking to align itself amongst a growing bloc led by Russia and China.

Now, the COVID-19 pandemic has created an unexpected opportunity to cement relations between Russia and the Philippines. Russia’s announcement of a vaccine and the Philippines’ recent decision to further develop and manufacture the Russian research institute Gamaleya’s COVID-19 vaccine demonstrates the two nations’ strengthening partnership. Clinical trials for the vaccine are slated to begin in the Philippines by mid-October and potentially run until March 2021. Russia already granted regulatory approval for its COVID-19 vaccine in early August, allowing for limited use of the vaccine outside of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Russia will be conducting the first two phases of clinical trials in September, with the Philippines overseeing the last round of trials in the following month. If Russia and the Philippines’ corner-cutting clinical trial strategy works, the two nations will have a marketable vaccine well before others. If not, their international status will likely suffer due to the duo’s failure to follow rigorous public health standards.

In addition to supporting Russia’s vaccine development, Duterte has declared that the Philippines will “give preference” to vaccines developed by Russia or China. The Philippines President even volunteered himself as a trial subject, stating, “When the vaccine arrives, I will inject it publicly…If it works on me, it will work on everyone.” 

To Russia and China, the Philippines possesses significant strategic importance, especially considering its geopolitical value to United States security. Since the signing of the mutual defense treaty between the United States and the Philippines in 1951, relations between the two countries have been guided by a similar strategic outlook. In the 21st century, this was seen through Chinese military containment. A strong relationship with the Philippines meant the United States could maintain a presence in the South China Sea and limit China’s regional influence at a time when the country’s economic power was growing. For China, this meant a strong relationship with the Philippines translated to a weakening of U.S. influence in its own neighborhood.

Similarly, Russia’s partnership with the Philippines is based off of zero-sum grounds: a weaker United States makes for a stronger Russia. In no realm is this notion clearer than with the pandemic and the race to develop a vaccine. First place guarantees national pride and international prestige, much akin to a victory in the Olympics. Thus, it is no surprise Russia named the vaccine Sputnik V — a reference to Russia’s 1957 space race victory over the United States. 

Prior to Duterte’s election, the two nations have slowly improved relations and worked together in a bilateral manner with less of a global audience. In 2008, the Philippine Embassy in Moscow developed regulations to support the immigration of Filipino nationals working in the Russian household services sector. The move was a response to an increase in Russian desire for service workers and provided a way for the Philippines to display its culture abroad.  

After Duterte’s election, the two nations have added economic and security relations to their roster. In 2017, Russia signed a Memorandum of Agreement to increase the purchase of Philippine agricultural products from 46 million USD to 2.5 billion USD. The Philippines has in turn opened up its market to certain Russian automobile firms. Furthermore, in 2017, the Russian navy made a port call in Manila, docking its ships in an effort to improve military relations. The Philippines returned the gesture in 2018, docking the BRP Tarlac in Vladivostok, Russia.

For China, a partnership with the Philippines will significantly increase the likelihood of its claims in the South China Sea being recognized. As China’s relations with neighboring Vietnam deteriorate, the Philippines would serve as an essential ally in the region. In the years following Duterte’s election, Chinese efforts to improve bilateral relations have increased significantly. China pledged to invest in the nation through the Belt and Road Initiative and enhance economic cooperation in infrastructure, agriculture, and other areas. The two also attempted to cooperate in joint oil exploration of the region, but sovereignty disputes stalled any progress.

In June, however, the Philippines suspended the termination of VFA, yet did not renounce its public partnership with Russia or China, proving Duterte can have his cake and eat it too. Pausing plans to terminate the agreement dealt a blow to both Russian and Chinese efforts to push U.S. influence to the sidelines. Given its faltering relationship with the U.S., the Philippines could prove to be a soft power battleground with both nations attempting to strengthen their relationship with the Philippines vis-a-vis the United States.

Moving forward, the Philippines can be expected to continue shifting away from the United States and closer to Russia and China. And, as a result, U.S. rivalry with China and Russia will likely intensify. Offering concessions to prevent the dissolution of VFA and maintaining a strategic alliance with the Philippines will be essential for a U.S. presence in the South China Sea throughout the coming decade. If the Philippines continues on its current trajectory, however, American leadership in the region under Pax Americana will be significantly hampered, while Chinese and Russian influence will continue to grow.

As personal and face-to-face services have declined in favor of digital user engagement, online purchases have grown exponentially — contributing to the growth of one company in particular: Amazon, a tech giant that has already altered the way countries engage with global markets.

Amazon’s model perfectly aligns with the conditions set by the pandemic. As an e-commerce corporation, Amazon has managed to dominate industries ranging from electronics and books to movies and video games — and recently, groceries. Today, Amazon boasts a 38% share of the e-commerce market but only retains a 5% share of total retail. However, with the pandemic and a growing number of consumers who are reluctant to commute to stores, it is predicted that company revenue in 2023 will be at $88 billion — double what it is now in 2020. 

As a primarily data-driven company that has relied heavily on a digital shopping base and the extensive transportation of its products, Amazon’s success has only been accelerated by a pandemic that has forced millions of individuals to rely on e-commerce as an expedient and trustworthy method of purchasing products. 

Additionally, if we take a magnifying glass to Amazon’s business model, we can further understand how this company thrives amid the pandemic. The company is built as a conglomerate of separate independent units. Each unit makes its own decisions and has enough latitude to operate without the need for a rigid central base. Although Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, makes executive decisions, the company’s decentralized structure allows units to conduct their own operations and achieve success independently.

To the outsider, it may seem that this company would face difficulty functioning at such a transnational level. However, Bezos provided the business units with three key principles to operate under: long-term management, intense innovation and a specified focus on customer satisfaction. Amazon uses these principles to ensure its employees integrate customer approval as the number one priority — a key standout from other e-commerce competitors. Additionally, Amazon’s lower costs help drive user traffic, which attracts more independent sellers and further contributes to the company’s growing revenue. As more revenue is generated with output increasing on a growing scale of production, costs decrease over time. This leads to a downward push on the prices of products and services, which attracts more customers and propels Amazon’s optimization of business and customer satisfaction.  

However, the company must continuously innovate in order to further attract customers. Technological innovations, such as the Alexa artificial intelligence assistant and the Kindle, as well as lower membership subscription costs, have driven Amazon to the top of the e-commerce market. Even when these innovations don’t succeed, they serve as valuable lessons that often benefit the company in the long term. For example, the failed Amazon Fire Phone Product ultimately paved the way for Amazon Echo, one of Amazon’s most successful and popular products. 

Additionally, an area of Amazon’s success to note is the company’s global expansion strategy. Amazon has just built a new office in Hyderabad, India, a region that is cleverly nicknamed Asia’s Silicon Valley. This office will serve as the base of operations in India, a country with the world’s fastest-growing pool of internet users. Aiming to take advantage of the rich software technology mecca in Hyderabad, Amazon has entered this gigantic market on the front line of this developing country’s flourishing technology sector. However, there have been several setbacks created by Indian officials and local politicians, including an antitrust lawsuit charged by Indian trade regulators. Nevertheless, after four years of planning and negotiation, Amazon’s new office has finally come to life.

Despite concerns of India’s attachment to foreign investment, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has worked to increase the attractiveness of India as a lucrative place for business, allowing Bezos to invest $1 billion in small and medium-sized businesses. In fact, many Indian businesses are collaborating with major e-commerce companies such as Amazon and Flipkart, which is India’s largest online retailer. With the devastating effects of the ongoing pandemic, e-commerce has become the only option for many small and medium-sized businesses.

However, in a comparative approach to the e-commerce boom, the European Union, and countries like Sweden, may not be able to successfully adopt this model of lowering costs and prices. Though Amazon plans to launch its Swedish website within a year, Sweden’s strict worker protection laws present a significant challenge for the tech giant. Sweden possesses an attractive market for internet retailers such as Amazon, as it lacks heavy competition in the e-commerce sector. And, like India, Sweden’s local businesses must adapt to incorporate internet retailing because of the ongoing pandemic. Thus, the current socially-distanced climate could serve to facilitate the rise of e-commerce in Sweden and further cement Amazon’s entrance into the Swedish marketplace. 

But, as a country, Sweden has a strategic focus on sustainability and has strong labor unions, which both pose a challenge because of Amazon’s rap for its controversial anti-union work environment and culture. Therefore, if Amazon decides to fully commit, it has to successfully negotiate a compromise that conforms with Sweden’s workplace regulations and political culture.

Amazon’s global strategy does not flourish everywhere. Amazon has suffered from the curse of quality control as European consumer rights groups have criticized the tech giant for selling illegal items and not providing enough information about sellers. Additionally, Amazon is already in trouble with EU officials as the company faces antitrust charges for abusing its growing control over domestic markets to drive out smaller companies or rivals. Even though Amazon, along with other tech giants like Google and Apple, promises to work with the EU’s lawmakers, their lobbying efforts have fallen short. European officials are currently drafting new regulations that would prevent preferential treatment for Amazon products over European ones in an attempt to stem the anti-competitive agenda of these tech and e-commerce corporations.

While Amazon has faced incredible growth and expanded into several new countries, its global engagement model is not a path to victory void of opposition. The e-commerce giant will have to transform the very essence of its anti-union work culture and learn how to control its own growth before it completely overshadows domestic industries resulting in strict governmental regulations. The future of Amazon rests in the hands of the company’s ability to amend its business practices, as well as governments’ tech reform and antitrust policies.

Amazon continues to utilize its innovation and expansion agenda as its main tool to maintain relevancy and acquire power. Meanwhile, other companies struggling in the face of COVID-19 must develop their own unique strategies to prevent their services from being rendered obsolete by this new reality. While it is obvious that tech companies have benefitted from the pandemic, it is not clear whether this economic growth will continue after the pandemic ends. In particular, the fate of video chat and messaging companies might not fare well when human interaction resumes, especially in the education and business sectors. Only time will tell once the situation improves, restrictions end, and the global community gradually reverts back to their pre-pandemic lifestyles. 

The Global Economic Prospects report released in 2020 displayed both the short-term and long-term effects of the pandemic, as well as the damage done to the economy’s potential for growth. The report estimates that global domestic product will contract by 5.2 percent by the end of 2020, causing one of the worst global recessions in years.

Despite efforts to stem this, economists further predict that because of the pandemic, long-term damage will persist in the form of erosion of public education, decrease in confidence in government institutions, disruptions in the global trade cycle and a decrease in foreign investments. These challenges are further complicated as confidence in other economies and the world market falters. 

Another important outcome to consider is the effect of the pandemic on the oil market, a fundamental aspect of the global transportation industry, and bilateral and multilateral trade relationships. The fall in the demand for oil, accompanied by the plunge in oil prices, has crippled the once thriving market. 

While the pandemic has caused shortages of various resources, it has also resulted in an abundance of oil due to the aforementioned lack of demand for the product, as millions of individuals have been quarantining and not traveling or commuting. As a result, Russia and Saudi Arabia have engaged in a dangerous price war that has allowed the oil price to plunge and has overwhelmed the market with cheap oil that inevitably hurts both countries. 

While oil supply increases by 2 million barrels per day, oil demand drops by 10 million per day. Even though this leads to decreased oil prices for consumers, the downward trend in consumption could continue with the implementation of travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders. Despite these events, in recent months the oil market has been slowly resurging, especially with Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, predicting that the rise of oil demand levels in Asia will eventually return to pre-pandemic highs. 

A new peak has been reached as oil gains have made a comeback and prices are gradually increasing. West Texas Intermediate Crude, for example, has jumped price-wise by 1.8% and is now $41.96 per barrel. Even with huge decreases in profit, there seems to be a gradual return in the overall productivity as oil producers attempt to slash supply and force prices to rise.

Additionally, as the world’s hot spots begin their recovery from the pandemic, there is no denying that the demand for oil will rise as consumers become more confident in learning how to tackle the virus and live in this new reality.

Developing countries, however, have been hit the hardest by the pandemic, and key businesses and industries that have relied on foreign tourism are struggling to recover. The loss of local economies and tourism, as destination travel becomes a public health concern, is coupled with the loss of key domestic industries that thrive on the production of exports and services to wealthier countries. 

For example, small island developing countries such as the Bahamas face an unprecedented risk of food insecurity, health concerns, and economic collapse caused by COVID-19. These countries have faced mortality rates that rival those of the hardest-hit European countries, such as Italy. Pair that with the inability to detain and treat patients effectively, and the virus inevitably causes significant damage to these small island populations. These small islands depend on developed countries such as the United States and several European countries for their income, as tourism accounts for 30% of their GDPs and Western travelers account for about 65-75% of foreign visitors to these countries. 

A chain effect is thus produced: as foreign tourism decreases, hotel, airline and transport services decrease, which causes increased unemployment, leading to adverse effects on the construction and agriculture industries, and ultimately, decreasing tax revenue. All of these effects combined lower the government’s fiscal capabilities.

To add to these burdens, developing countries have suffered a loss of financial business, as the cost to manage government-controlled institutions increases and the issuing of credit, among other financial tools, is becoming more difficult to process. Therefore, these countries’ foreign reserves are undergoing a massive depletion — pulling them close to liquidity crises.

The pandemic has also exacerbated the existing global trade finance gap, which has accumulated to $1.5 trillion and has severely impacted small and medium enterprises in developing countries. Despite the pandemic’s negative impact, it is important to note the potentially positive alternatives COVID-19 has encouraged in both the short and long term for the global economy. For example, various initiatives have been established to rectify this concerning trade finance gap. These efforts have included amendments in economic policy and technological advancement initiatives that enhance people’s quality of life as well as maintain what industries can be salvaged in these disastrous times. Multilateral development banks have also released more than $200 million in aid to help poorer countries. 

Another example of this financial support is the International Islamic Trade Finance Corporation, which pledged $300 million in financial aid to benefit the planning of food distribution, public health, and trade flows, in addition to funding existing grants to establish more medical facilities and laboratories. Technology has also proved to be of great assistance as multiple pilot programs, such as the ones created by the ITFC and the International Chamber of Commerce, provide digital support to developed countries’ financial institutions, enhance trade finance and improve grants for certain projects in agriculture, education and advisory services. 

As the economy adapts to the pandemic and shifts to online services and digital consumerism, people need to develop more sustainable industries that will keep the economy afloat throughout this pandemic. Corporations, in particular, must learn how to diversify their products and businesses in order to adapt to the new pandemic landscape. This transformation should satisfy health guidelines as well as produce greater economic efficiency and productivity. 

Developing countries, especially those crippled from previous calamities, struggle to retain foundation and grapple with how to deal with the ongoing pandemic with their limited fiscal resources. However, organizations such as the United Nations could serve as potential driving forces to not only help bolster food supplies and medical treatments but also better equip for future disruptions in the global food supply chain and further public health concerns.

Ultimately, financial assistance and stimulus is not enough — even industry leaders of the most affected countries must adapt to the different economic conditions and financial restrictions in the age of COVID-19.