A global health crisis' opportunities and challenges: 

The management and business implications of COVID-19 from an Asian perspective Yipeng Liu, Jong Min Lee, Celia Lee3, and the corresponding author1 Jong Min Lee3 Author Information Disclaimer

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic on March 11, 2020. 

We hypothesize that examining the experiences and Public Health strategic responses of Asian nations may shed light on ways the rest of the world can combat COVID-19 because the COVID-19 crisis's evolution and implications are still unfolding. In the context of the fight against COVID-19, we first articulate the significance of resilience, strategic agility, and entrepreneurship. The effects of COVID-19 on economies and businesses, government support for businesses and societies, and implications for disruptions in global supply chains are then discussed with a focus on China, South Korea, and Singapore. Finally, we hope that science (including social science), industry, and governments will work together to revitalize the global economy and quickly recover the global health system.

Keywords: COVID-19, the global health crisis, China, South Korea, and Singapore, the impact on businesses and economies, support from the government, and the global value chain

Introduction On March 11, 2020, the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak was classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Worldwide, COVID-19 has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, presented urgent challenges to healthcare professionals, and revealed the flaws in national health systems. In addition, economies and societies have been significantly disrupted on an unprecedented scale by its rapidity (Gibson, 2020). We believe that examining the experiences and strategic responses of Asian nations may shed some helpful light on how the rest of the world can combat COVID-19 because the COVID-19 crisis's evolution and implications are still unfolding. We trust that the worldwide well-being framework will recuperate rapidly. The world economy will be revived with the commitments and cooperation of science (counting sociology), industry, and state-run administrations (Pereira et al., 2020).

A global health crisis requires complex management.

 Individual, institutional, and organizational responses are required, as is large-scale coordination employing multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. The Chinese word for "crisis" (wij) conveys its concept particularly well; It is composed of the two words "crisis" and "opportunity," which refer to the favorable aspect of recognizing and responding to a crisis. Resilience is necessary for dealing with a crisis effectively. We need appropriate organizational capabilities, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit to take advantage of the opportunities it presents effectively. These capabilities are frequently novel. In the context of the fight against COVID-19, we first briefly explain the implications of resilience, strategic agility, and entrepreneurship in this paper. Then, we talk about the effects that COVID-19 is having on economies and businesses, government support for businesses and societies, and disruptions in the global supply chain, focusing on China, Global Health Issues South Korea (hereafter Korea), and Singapore. In conclusion, we talk about two future trends brought on by COVID-19: the consequences for businesses and society of strategic manufacturing operations being relocated outside of China and their detachment from China's supply chains.

Go to:

Resilience for and from all unanticipated global health challenges and large-scale shocks. When they occur, resilience is in high demand. This includes entrepreneurship, strategic agility, and resilience in the fight against a global health crisis. Individuals, organizations, and society must survive and thrive in the face of the virus fight and the associated economic and social shocks. Resilience necessitates psychological preparedness for dealing with a global health crisis, support from the organization, and preparation at the system level. According to Liu et al.'s research, occupational contexts can help both individuals and organizations build resilience and develop effective coping strategies. 2019). When it comes to providing patients with medical care, healthcare professionals are on the front lines and under tremendous pressure; As a result, it is necessary to train these professionals to cultivate resilience in their interactions with patients and other stakeholders. In addition, any interventions that foster resilience in individuals, organizations, and society should consider and incorporate the significance of cultural differences (Liu, 2020). Collectively, we must "bounce back"; fighting COVID-19 and establishing "new norms" for our organizations and societies will strengthen us all. To paraphrase Winston Churchill's inspirational words, "Success is not final, failure is not fatal; We need the courage, willingness, and ability to build and amplify resilience and rebuild our confidence and trust in global health systems.

 "It is the courage to continue that count."

The organization's capabilities and strategic agility are necessary for businesses and organizations to face this enormous societal challenge successfully. In order to deal with a global health crisis, they must develop the capabilities and skills necessary to transform their management and business practices swiftly. In order to support their swift adaptation to the global value chain changes brought about by the disruption of transportation, logistics, and the mobility of people and resources (Kano et al.), large corporations need to quickly reinvent themselves and focus on creating value for both business and society. 2020). By quickly adjusting their production base, small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) can use their flexibility and agility to respond to market needs and societal demands, such as the production of personal protective equipment (PPE). 2020). In addition, the manufacturing and service sectors of the industrial sector ought to respond quickly by capitalizing on the strengths of their particular characteristics. They need to work with governments to get the most out of the various stimulus Public Health packages and crisis rescue plans. According to Li et al., the current crisis may present manufacturing companies with opportunities to shift their focus to providing services in response to consumer behavior shifts and take advantage of the shifting dynamics of global export markets. 2019). It is important to note that strategic agility's organizational capabilities go beyond resource readiness and allocation; According to Liu and Huang (2018), they need coordination mechanisms in place in order to activate and materialize both knowledge bases and resources. For instance, the novel idea of Fangcang shelter hospitals requires Asian nations to have the organizational skills necessary to construct and run them in response to public health emergencies (Chen et al.). 2020).

By pooling the knowledge and wisdom of entrepreneurs and innovators across geographical boundaries, entrepreneurship can provide creative solutions in this age of uncertainty associated with the current global health crisis.

 Entrepreneurs can specifically find and create new opportunities across multiple sectors—commercial, social, and governmental—to address the grave issues that societies worldwide face to snatch opportunity (Ji) from the jaws of the crisis. As a hybrid organization, for instance, hospitals in China must accommodate multiple institutional logics, whereas cross-sector collaboration and partnerships can aid in Chinese healthcare reform (Xing et al.). 2018) to achieve sustainable regional development and economic transformation in an inclusive manner that draws on the beauty and power of entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2020). To stop the virus's spread and eventually wipe it out, international organizations are racing against time to find practical solutions. In order to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects, the United Nations is calling for novel, scientific, and technological solutions. The COVID-19 crisis offers unique opportunities for entrepreneurs to create innovative disruption for the benefit of individuals, organizations, and society, despite its adverse effects. For instance, returnee entrepreneurship in China is advantageous for fostering a mass entrepreneurship and innovation movement, given the urgent need for indigenous innovation and industry transformation (Froese et al.). 2019).

Making the most of an opportunity, Korea was facing at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak. 

Regarding the number of confirmed cases, it was once the second-largest nation. This was partly because of its proximity to China and a widespread community infection. On the other hand, Korea was able to slow down the spread and is working hard to stop a second round of infections. Korea is also taking proactive steps to turn this crisis into an opportunity. Drive-through testing, for example, and the Korean government and businesses developed products like testing kits that can be used anywhere in the world as part of their fight against the virus. In order to improve their sustainability, numerous Korean manufacturers also took advantage of the opportunity to reconsider and restructure their global supply chains. Non-contact industries like telecommunication, online education, and remote support solutions present clear growth opportunities for the government and business sectors. Through implementing corporate social responsibility initiatives, businesses can improve both their reputation and their contribution to reducing the adverse effects of the global health crisis. Numerous Korean multinationals, for instance, have set out to offer help to get the stockpile of clinical gadgets and safeguarding representatives in non-industrial nations with feeble clinical foundations. To put it succinctly, resilience, strategic apprehension, and entrepreneurial spirit will continue to play a significant role in maximizing these opportunities and overcoming the crisis.

Go to:

The COVID-19 outbreak is causing significant economic disruption, particularly in the highly connected modern world, where trade and foreign investments are increasingly globalized, and the majority of the population is urbanized, in addition to the terrible human losses it has caused. Theoretical models suitable for analyzing Global Health Issues potential influenza pandemic events have been the subject of previous economic epidemiology studies (Geoffard & Philipson, 1996); (Hammer & Gersovitz, 2004). According to Brahmbhatt and Dutta (2008), these studies have examined the connections between a disease's epidemiology and dynamics, people's behavioral responses to an outbreak, and the economic effects of these behavioral responses and the disease. Typically, infectious disease outbreaks result in costs that are both direct and indirect. The first concerns the resources needed to deal with the disease, like money spent on treatment and medical care. 

The latter concerns the social costs of disability and morbidity both now and in the future; specifically, output losses brought on by decreases in productivity or workforce availability.

Experience with infectious diseases like SARS and MERS over the past few decades has shown that the majority of economic costs can be attributed to individuals' preventive actions and governments' transmission control policies, while direct medical activities and the actual illness have relatively few costs (Brahmbhatt & Dutta, 2008). Even though the COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on direct and indirect costs, this is consistent with what has been observed. Numerous nations have prevented the virus from spreading internationally by imposing social isolation or physical distance restrictions. Most, if not all, of the businesses in several countries, including those with the largest economies in the world, have been asked to close down, limiting people's opportunities for grouping and mobility. According to Maliszewska et al., these preventative measures have had an immediate and significant impact on domestic and global economies. 2020).

Both production and consumption were immediately reduced due to the widespread lockdowns and distancing measures implemented in several nations.

 Countries have also partially or wholly closed their borders to stop the virus from spreading, making it harder for people, money, and goods to move around. This has disrupted global supply chains simultaneously with a significant decrease in the international flow of goods and services. Due to these measures, the pandemic has already begun to harm the macroeconomic situation in most nations. As a result, economists have agreed that the world has entered a global recession less than three months into the COVID-19 crisis (Giles et al.). 2020).

It is still too early to determine how COVID-19 might ultimately affect the economies of individual nations and the global economy.

 The pandemic is an ongoing issue, and the appraisals given by global establishments like the Worldwide Financial Assets (IMF) and the World Bank are being overhauled consistently to reflect consistent data. However, previous experience suggests that a country's economic structures and trade networks may vary from country to country, resulting in distinct outcomes. For instance, a recent simulation study by the World Bank suggests that the pandemic's effects on GDP may be more severe in nations that rely the most on trade and where tourism plays a significant economic role (Maliszewska et al.). 2020). While Asia's growth is expected to slow in 2020, the IMF predicts that there will be significant downward revisions. These revisions range from 3.5 percent for Korea, which appears to have slowed the spread while minimizing prolonged Public Health production shutdowns, to over 9 percent for Thailand, New Zealand, and Australia, which is affected by the global tourism slowdown (Rhee, 2020).

In addition to their sizes and populations, China, Korea, and Singapore have distinct economic and trade structures, as shown in Table Table1,1. Even though the economic effects of COVID-19 are anticipated to be unprecedentedly severe in all three nations, the primary challenges each faces may significantly differ based on the unique characteristics of their respective contexts. The decline in industrial production caused by factory closures is primarily affecting China. It is common knowledge that China has long been the world's largest exporter and workshop. As a result, supply chain disruptions caused by national factory closures significantly impact global trade and production. For instance, due to a lack of supply, electronic component prices skyrocketed immediately following the Chinese factory shutdowns; This, in turn, has had a negative impact on the electronics manufacturing industry worldwide (more information can be found in the following section). In addition, China invests more than 40% of its GDP in fixed capital—total business spending on fixed assets like factories, machinery, equipment, property, and raw material inventories—which serves as the foundation for future production and is crucial to the global economy. 

This suggests that China's slowdown due to COVID-19 will likely have long-term and far-reaching effects on the global economy, particularly the global value chain.

Table 1: A comparison of China, Korea, and Singapore's economic and trade structures Land area (km2) 9,326,410 96,920 709.2 Population (estimated for 2020) GDP (by end-use) Household consumption 39.1% 48.1% 35.6% Government consumption 14.5% 15.3% 10.9% Investment in fixed capital 42.7% 31.1% 24.8% Investment in inventories 1.7% 0.0% 2.8% Exports of goods and services 20.4% 43.1% 173.3% Imports of goods and services  18.4%  37.7%  149.1% Workforce (by occupation) Agriculture 27.7% 4.8% 0.7% Industry 28.8% 24.6% 25.6% Services 43. based on the World Factbook and the CIA, Farming, fishing, and forestry are all examples of agriculture. Mining, manufacturing, energy production, and construction are all industry examples. Services include government operations, communications, transportation, finance, and other private businesses that do not produce tangible goods. Household spending accounts for almost half of Korea's GDP, a significant component of the country's overall demand. The pandemic is significantly impacting household spending, as it has in other nations worldwide. In most nations, there has been a sharp decline in employment and household spending due to the government's strict distancing measures and business shutdowns. Although Korea has avoided a complete shutdown thus far, it is still experiencing a sharp decline in household spending as many consumers anticipate a decrease in income and savings (Ho et al.). 2020). While this decrease in household spending has resulted in a local shock, the disruption of global value chains and international trade poses a significant threat to the Korean economy.

 China is Korea's largest trade partner in imports and exports, and the Korean economy heavily depends on exports. China accounts for more than 25% of Korea's exports, making it the fifth-largest export economy in the world. Although it varies by industry, many Korean manufacturers export intermediate goods that require much technology to China. They are assembled into finished goods and shipped to their final destinations worldwide. The global pandemic has reduced demand for final destinations (such as the United States and Europe). However, the disruption in Korea's exports of value-added intermediate goods to China would be linked to the substantial potential impact of COVID-19 on the Korean economy.

Supply chain disruptions would also severely affect Singapore. Additionally, the nation exports highly differentiated intermediate goods to China, making it difficult for its exporters to shift their trade elsewhere. However, the effects of the manufacturing-supply chain disruption may be partially mitigated due to Singapore's relatively low added value from gross exports and industrial sector share of GDP. Singapore's high reliance on its services sector, which accounts for more than 75% of its GDP, may be its most pressing economic challenge. The pandemic has had the most severe effects on travel, tourism, and aviation, which comprise a large portion of Singapore's economy. Already, this impact is quite apparent; According to MTI 2020, Singapore's GDP decreased by 10.6% in the first quarter of 2020, a significant decline from the 0.6% growth seen in the preceding quarter. The national Ministry of Trade and Industry also downgraded Singapore's GDP growth forecast to between 0.5 and 1.5 percent. The manufacturing, service, and construction industries are expected to contract for the first time since the Asian financial crisis in 1998, making this the worst GDP contraction forecast since the 2008 global financial crisis. Furthermore, the Singaporean economy cannot be sustained solely by the country's domestic Workforce, as evidenced by its high GDP spending on goods and services exported and imported; It requires non-resident foreign workers, of which 300,000 are being isolated and forbidden from working as a result of outbreaks in dormitories and construction sites. 

The economy of Singapore will undoubtedly suffer significantly as a result of this.

In a nutshell, although it will be difficult to assess the actual economic impact of COVID-19 until the pandemic is over, each nation will undoubtedly be affected uniquely, depending on its economic and trade structure. Furthermore, the severity of the pandemic varies from country to country, and a lot of it depends on how governments respond to the virus's spread. For example, while many other countries continue to maintain tighter lockdowns, China's economy is beginning to recover. On the other hand, Singapore is encountering a second flood of infectious diseases because of the massive scope of local area contamination transmitted from the unfamiliar specialists' dorms. Korea has been able to slow the spread, but it still enforces strict social distance rules to prevent a second wave of infections. As a result, policymakers and managers of businesses face the challenge of coming up with strategies and policies suitable for various scenarios. They also need to remember that the global economy's various markets, agents, and industries are all interdependent so that they may exchange knock-on effects in different countries over time.

Go to:

Support from the government for business and society So far, the pandemic has immediately disrupted global economic activities, as evidenced by a decline in tourism, a virtual halt to air travel, and a decline in consumer and business confidence. Most nations have imposed lockdowns, community quarantines, stay-at-home orders, temporary business closures, travel restrictions, and other measures to contain the virus. A wide range of emergency measures and relief packages have been enacted by governments and central banks around the world to alleviate the financial burden on businesses and support industries that have been severely impacted. These measures include employee safeguards, substantial financial stimulus, and tax breaks. The United States of America, which has the largest economy in the world, has passed a $2 trillion economic stimulus package—the largest in the country's history—to lessen the financial impact of COVID-19. Other governments, from Singapore to Japan, are also implementing billion-dollar rounds of fiscal stimulus to lessen the impact on businesses and households.

Fig. 1 demonstrates that the IMF anticipates no growth in Asia in 2020. This would be the worst performance in nearly 60 years, including during the Asian and Global financial crises, when 4.7% and 1.3% were recorded, respectively. The outlook for Asia is being shaped primarily by the global and Chinese slowdowns. In 2020, it was anticipated that the global economy would shrink by 3%, while Asia's primary trading partners, the United States and the EU (European Union), would shrink by 6% and 6.6%, respectively. However, according to Rhee 2020, China's growth will decrease from 6.1 percent to 1.2 percent.

A picture, illustration, or another external file.

The image is called 41291_2020_119_Fig1_HTML.jpg. 1 Growth in Asia from 1963 to 21

Source: adapted from IMF, Rhee (2020) Even before the WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, Asia-Pacific policymakers had already begun providing fiscal stimulus to bail out the aviation industry, which has become a virtual standstill due to the numerous closed borders and travel restrictions. According to Lee 2020, global airlines are responsible for US$35 billion in refunds for unused tickets, escalating a cash crunch that will likely put some airlines out of business. Korea announced that it would make low-cost loans worth US$240 million available to airlines when the crisis that resulted in a lockdown in Wuhan and movement controls in many areas of China first broke (MLIT 2020). Although the government of Singapore has pledged $525 million to support its grounded aviation sector through two programs, China, on the other hand, provides subsidies (US$0.0025 per seat kilometer for shared flights and US$0.007 per seat kilometer for solo flights) only to those airlines that have not suspended or resumed international flights. This is in contrast to the United States, which has a job scheme to subsidize the workers' monthly wages and an enhanced aviation support package designed to provide relief to businesses in the sector. According to MFPRC 2020, air carriers that operate critical emergency flights will also receive special subsidies to cover their expenses.

Both the Korean government and the government of Singapore have been determined to contain the virus. 

They have acted quickly since the first confirmed cases occurred in late January or early February. More stringent measures, such as enhanced social distancing measures, stringent inbound and outbound travel restrictions, school closures, massive testing and contact tracing campaigns, self-isolation, and quarantine orders, Global Health Issues have been implemented as a result of the increases in imported cases and local transmission—in Korea, which spiked to more than 2300 cases in just ten days. Even though Singapore was praised at first for its practical approach to containing the outbreak, it has seen an increase in infections, with clusters among migrant workers. As a result, it has announced partial lockdown/circuit breaker measures from April 6 to May 4, 2020 (then extended to June 1, 2020) to combat the increase in unlinked community transmission. In addition, Korean and Singaporean governments have unveiled urgent stimulus packages to address healthcare costs, household expenditures, unemployment, small and medium-sized businesses, childcare, and other issues, summarized in Table Table2,2.