Exploring the Convergence of Resilience Processes and Sustainable Outcomes in Post-COVID, Post-Glasgow Economies

Resilience and sustainability have each offered a path forward for post-COVID economic recovery and a post-Glasgow global financial order. Yet, the relationships between these two concepts are largely unexplored in economic policy and investment strategies. In light of emerging systemic risks and global demands for more resolute investments in resilience and sustainability, this perspective article took the position that policymakers must begin to draw greater conceptual, empirical, and practical linkages between sustainability and resilience. This perspective article provided a simplified framework for understanding the positively reinforcing, negatively conflicting, and neutral relationships between different types of resilience and sustainability consistent with two propositions. The Reinforcement Proposition argues (i) that various resilience processes may drive sustainable outcomes, and/or (ii) that an allocation of sustainable resources may reinforce resilience processes, as well as the transformative adaptation of markets. Conversely, the Conflict Proposition argues (i) that certain resilience processes may perpetuate stability features that may thwart an economic transition toward sustainability, and/or (ii) that certain sustainability outcomes associated with reorganized economic structures and relationships may undermine resources for resilience. This framework provides policymakers with an opportunity to evaluate the convergent and conflicting trade-offs of resilience processes and sustainable outcomes.

Relationship among state reopening policies, health outcomes and economic recovery through first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.

State governments in the U.S. have been facing difficult decisions involving tradeoffs between economic and health-related outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite evidence of the effectiveness of government-mandated restrictions mitigating the spread of contagion, these orders are stigmatized due to undesirable economic consequences. This tradeoff resulted in state governments employing mandates at widely different ways. We compare the different policies states implemented during periods of restriction ("lockdown") and reopening with indicators of COVID-19 spread and consumer card spending at each state during the first "wave" of the pandemic in the U.S. between March and August 2020. We find that while some states enacted reopening decisions when the incidence rate of COVID-19 was minimal or sustained in its relative decline, other states relaxed socioeconomic restrictions near their highest incidence and prevalence rates experienced so far. Nevertheless, all states experienced similar trends in consumer card spending recovery, which was strongly correlated with reopening policies following the lockdowns and relatively independent from COVID-19 incidence rates at the time. Our findings suggest that consumer card spending patterns can be attributed to government mandates rather than COVID-19 incidence in the states. We estimate the recovery in states that reopened in late April was more than the recovery in states that did not reopen in the same period- 15% for consumer card spending and 18% for spending by high income households. This result highlights the important role of state policies in minimizing health impacts while promoting economic recovery and helps planning effective interventions in subsequent waves and immunization efforts.