Health & Families

7° London Hi 11°C / Lo 6°C

Has globalisation made us more catastrophe-prone?

By Andrew Marshall, Reuters

As the world grapples with the worst economic downturn in decades and the possibility of a flu pandemic, a growing body of research suggests the complexity of the modern global economy may make us more vulnerable than ever to catastrophe.

The financial crisis began as turmoil in one small segment of the US mortgage market. Within months it had morphed into a global meltdown affecting almost everyone on earth.

"The speed at which these events unfolded was unprecedented," said the World Economic Forum's 2009 report on global risk.

"It has demonstrated just how tightly interconnected globalisation has made the world and its systems."

Disease, too, can spread faster than ever before. Modern air travel means that any contagious outbreak can be worldwide in a matter of days. In the past, it would have taken months or years.

The more complex and efficient a system, the faster and wider any contagion can spread. Yet this interdependence is by no means always negative. The complexity of the world economy means risk can be more easily distributed, and often more easily mitigated.

Complex systems can often be adaptable - if one part fails, other parts of the network can assume the burden.

Network theory suggests that complex diversified systems can often bring greater stability. But only to a point.

"While this helps the system diversify across small shocks, it also exposes the system to large systemic shocks," Raghuram Rajan, who has been an IMF chief economist and adviser to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, wrote in a 2005 research paper.

"It is possible that these developments...create a greater (albeit still small) probability of a catastrophic meltdown."

One key issue is the so-called "butterfly effect" - in highly complex systems, even a small event can be magnified and transmitted with highly unpredictable results. Edward Lorenz, a pioneer of chaos theory, noted that a butterfly flapping its wings in one corner of the world could cause a tornado far away.

Benoit Mandelbrot, a French mathematician and the father of fractal geometry, applied the theory to markets to show how "wild variability" is intrinsic to the system.

In network theory, one key finding is that complex interconnected systems organise themselves around key nodes. If one of these is hit, the whole house of cards can collapse.

This is one reason the damage done by the subprime crisis to major global investment banks had such a devastating impact.

And while specialisation in global supply chains has brought significant efficiency gains, it has also brought vulnerability. Disruption to a key node in the supply chain can cause dramatic and unpredictable turbulence in the whole system.

This was why global semiconductor prices nearly doubled following an earthquake that hit Taiwan in 1999, and why Hurricane Katrina spread turbulence throughout world markets.

Security analysts also worry that even a single terrorist attack could have a magnified impact if it targets a key point in global supply chains - for example, a major port.

In his book "The Black Swan", which examines the impact of major unexpected events, Nassim Nicholas Taleb noted that the appearance of stability in complex systems can be illusory:

"Random insults to most parts of the network will not be consequential since they are likely to hit a poorly connected spot. But it also makes networks more vulnerable... Just consider what would happen if there is a problem with a major node.

"True, we have fewer failures," he wrote. "But when they occur... I shiver at the thought..."

The complexity that makes financial shocks more potentially dangerous also means that pandemics can wreak greater havoc.

Analysts point out that when the Black Death plague hit Europe in the 14th century, killing around a third of the population, society did not collapse, because economic and social systems were relatively simple and so insulated from shocks.

By contrast, a plague that hit the Roman empire in the 2nd century, with a similar death rate, caused chaos - Roman society was much more complex and economically advanced.

In modern society, if key nodes are taken out by disease, the impact could be magnified exponentially. The "nodes" could be people essential to the functioning of society and the economy - doctors, truck drivers, engineers, port workers.

And just as with financial crisis, herd behaviour, panic and the spread of inaccurate or incomplete information could provide negative feedback loops, making the catastrophe even worse.

"Economic disruptions on the supply side would come directly from high absenteeism... There may also be disruptions to transportation, trade, payment systems and major utilities," the IMF said in a 2006 report on the impact of a global flu pandemic.

And beyond the immediate catastrophe, an overriding risk from both the financial crisis and any pandemic is that it causes a worldwide retreat from globalisation, with profound long-term consequences for the world economy.

In its 2007 report on global risks, the World Economic Forum imagined the consequences of a simultaneous pandemic and global liquidity crisis - a scenario that was purely speculative then but which now seems eerily prescient.

The result, it said, would be "a backlash against globalisation, which in turn compounds the hit on global demand". Across the world, it said, increased militarism and authoritarian tendencies would reshape global geopolitics.

The events of the next few months may show just how accurate such a scenario could be.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Globalisation was done in the abscence of the majority of countries.
[info]djangovsartana wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 08:19 am (UTC)
Globalisation is a Western imposed value on the rest of the world.
Re: Globalisation was done in the abscence of the majority of countries.
[info]joeschm8609532 wrote:
Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)
No, globalization has not made us more catastrophe-prone, the MEDIA has made us more catastrophe-prone.

PC
protectionism
[info]publunch99 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 09:48 am (UTC)
This article does not explicitly mention protectionism, which has for a long time been considered to be anathema to orthodox economics, but that seems to be what the article is preaching.

Well, the orthodoxy got us into this mess, so it does need to be questioned. We also need to ask ourselves what kind of more
robust economy do we want in future.

In answering this I suggest we need to think more in terms of localization than globalization in future. Localities should strive to produce most things, such as most of their food, for themselves, but there may still be room for a global market in such things as electronic components. The existence of a mass international trade in clothes, rather than being a sign of success of globalized economics should be seen as a sign of imbalance. This imbalance will be corrected, but the correction won't be an easy process.
House of cards
[info]americanhothead wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 02:22 pm (UTC)
The financial crisis may have spread farther because of globalization, but the big problem was that there was a whole lot of capital all dressed up with no productive place to go. Financial "geniuses" created a host of spooky investments to soak up this capital. When the subprime mortgage crisis caused the whole house of cards to fall, all these creative investments came to be called "toxic" because they are so complex that hardly anybody understands them.
GLobalisation Backlash
[info]elwood1635 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 02:30 pm (UTC)
Despite the constant drone in the media extolling the "infinite virtues" of Globalisation. People are instinctively growing increasingly wary of "Free Trade Agreements" that completely disregard national will and sovereignty. Rightly so, I say.
Global
[info]jackkinch1uncle wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 10:41 pm (UTC)
Yes, of course. More people, more danger,crime,virus, more bad. We are way overpopulated.
Has globalization made............vulnerable
[info]texasslim wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 11:39 pm (UTC)
Jeeze, no kidding. Seems a no-brainer to me, and should be also for a genius reporter. Here we are trying to stop an outbreak and Napolitano is driving the monkey to the airport!
Connections 1978
[info]robert_wells wrote:
Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC)
This was discussed back in 1978 in the BBC 10 part TV series Connections (1). The program starts with a small failure that cascades into a major power outage and results of that one system failing. The following program shows how human society got to this point. Well, the world is way more complex than it was in 1978 and the "Tigger Effect" is more of a risk today than in 1978 and will continue to increase into the future. The question the program asks, "are there to many people alive on the planet to live without the complex technological systems humans have developed?"; has been asnwered: No humans can't. But what happens when that system fails? I guess everyone can get a plow and be farmers and life will get a lot more local.
Globalization is the ultimate catastrophe
[info]trishg wrote:
Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 05:31 pm (UTC)
Globalization in itself is the problem whether it's economics ,disease, or freedom . The quality of life in the U.S. has declined more rapidly due to the "global community" concept which places commerce and power ahead of our democratic system that at one time represented the citizens of the U.S. Now, there are even those , and at least one Supreme Court judge that is embracing international law and ruling on precedents set by other countries . Overriding state laws and even federal laws for the benefit of the "global community" seems perfectly acceptable to the leftwing liberals. Mindless doesn't begin to describe it.
globalization has just sped up the pace
[info]dpkelly wrote:
Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 05:42 pm (UTC)
As someone who works for a public health regulatory agency and who is studying for a Doctorate in Public Health focusing on how globalization effects public health, globalization has just made the pace of events quicken. We've been dealing with cross-border spread of infectious disease since the 1500s. Distress caused by global financial events has an equally long history. What is important now, in the swine flu case, is for governments, NGOs, corporations and other groups to work together to quell the epidemic. As for the financial liquidity crisis, a lack of regulation of mortgage deriviative securities (a decision made by the U.S. Congress) and the subsequent global selling of these securities is what led us to the global financial crisis. Again, countries need to work together to develop prudent regulation and foster transparency. On balance, I believe that globalization's benefits outweight the deteriments. Left unchecked, however, globalization disproportionately negatively affects the poor.
[info]susuru wrote:
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 at 05:40 pm (UTC)
I never liked globalization in the first place. Only when a big node goes down and chaos ensues,(an inevitability, I think, eventually) will we create a new, intelligent, horizontal system of simple solutions arrived at locally. This would be very resilient indeed.
no different than the tomatoe samonilla scare...
[info]rdewireman wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 05:41 pm (UTC)
So 50 or so people die of samonella infected tomatoes so we trash the tomatoe industry by billions of dollars...

1000 people get the flu and how many died? less than 100... Same thing... Media hype and government scare tactics.


There are WAY too many people on this planet, we have no where to go but down in life quality from this point forward. Call it globablization if you will, I call it air travel and business...

It is about time for a catastrophe like the Spanish flu to reduce the polpulation to the levels that are sustainable - it is just mother natures way of getting rid of this virus called HUMANS...


Population Growth
[info]tmaxb2006 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 06:06 pm (UTC)

World Population (From Wikipedia)


1900 1,650,000


1965 3,334,874


2008 6,706,993

Makes you think, doesn't it!

ABSOLUTELY
[info]fantazamaraz wrote:
Sunday, 17 May 2009 at 03:08 am (UTC)

RIGHT ON THERE MATE
REASON FOR US TO ISOLATE
STOP THE BACTERIA VIRUS
BEING IMPORTED AMONG US
NOT ALL COUNTRIES ARE CLEAN
SOME ARE FILTHY KNOW WHAT I MEAN
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROTECT GREAT BRITAIN
BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND WE ARE ALL SMITTEN.!

Most popular in Life & Style


Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date