COVID-19 will reverse both of these trends, increasing the distance both between

countries and among people. Some will laud these changes for increasing safety and

resilience. But a world that is less global and less urban would also be less prosperous,

less stable and less fulfilling.

Less global, more isolated. Even before COVID-19, the decades-long trend toward

ever-more globalization of trade, investment, supply chains and people flows was

beginning to grind to a halt. We began to look closer to home in terms of the products

we produce and consume, the people with whom we interact, and where we get our

energy and our money. The reaction of developed economies to the coronavirus will

only strengthen this consensus, as all things international will be viewed as incurring

unnecessary and dangerous risks. What was a growing “anti-globalization” consensus

is poised to crystalize into a “de-globalization” reality.

We are being told this de-globalization will make us all more resilient. But it will also

make us less prosperous — with less choice and higher prices. It may also make us

less secure, as international cooperation will decrease and the potential for international

conflict will increase.

Less density, more distance. Urbanization is likely to be the other major casualty of the

coronavirus. Unlike globalization, the trend of ever greater-urbanization was unaffected

by the global financial crisis. Even America — the land of all things suburban — joined

the global march into cities. People were attracted to cities not only for economic

opportunity but also for the urban lifestyle.

After coronavirus, people will be more fearful of crowded trains and buses, cafes and

restaurants, theaters and stadiums, supermarkets and offices. Crowded spaces are the

lifeblood of cities. But now crowds are seen as major health risks. People who have the

ability to exit the city will increasingly be tempted to do so. People who cannot leave will

feel at increased risk, hunker down, and reduce their movements and contacts. It is

hard to think about Manhattan without the subway and 10-deep pedestrians on Fifth

Avenue. But that may be the increasing post-COVID reality.

De-urbanization would harm economic growth because cities generate enormous scale

economies and have proved to be remarkably effective incubators of creativity and

innovation. This could be particularly true in developing economies where the

movement of people from rural areas to rapidly expanding cities has been perhaps the

key driver of poverty reduction. But the shrinking of cities will have other adverse effects

too, from reducing cultural vibrancy and cosmopolitanism to exacerbating climate

change. In addition to being more productive, cities also tend to be more

environmentally sustainable.

A world that is less global and less urban would be far less appealing to me, personally.

But it is also a world that would hurt economic prosperity, reduce shared understanding

among disparate people, and increase the prospect of conflict among them.

Our immediate reactions to COVID-19 will lead us to want both to de-globalize and to

de-urbanize. But we must take fully into account the profound longer-term costs of doing

so. Globalization and urbanization generate challenges we must confront, all the more

so in a post-coronavirus world. The solution is to manage them, not to reverse them.