The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1742-2043.htm
CPOIB
17,2
188
Received 24 May 2020
Revised 10 November 2020
31 December 2020
Accepted 12 January 2021
critical perspectives on
international business
Vol. 17 No. 2, 2021
pp. 188-209
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1742-2043
DOI 10.1108/cpoib-05-2020-0066
Emerging social and business
trends associated with the
Covid-19 pandemic
Hamid Yeganeh
Business Admin, Winona state University, Winona, Minnesota, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify, classify and study emerging social and business trends associated
with the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Design/methodology/approach – By adopting the meta-synthesis method, the study scrutinizes,
synthesizes and interprets the findings from a pool of publications. This approach results in identifying
53 key ideas that are classified under nine dominant trends.
Findings – The study identifies and examines nine major trends caused and intensified by the Covid-19
pandemic, i.e. the rise of authoritarianism, the new era of corporate welfare, deep imbalances in public
finances, exacerbated inequalities, higher risks of poverty and famine, the dominance of giant corporations,
the increasing influence of big tech, the accelerated innovation and the fluidity of work and organizations. The
paper suggests that these trends are the continuation of the past three decades’ transformations, are
contributing to the rising concentration of power and wealth and are leading to a new type of globalization
marked by high connectivity and low tangibility.
Originality/value – The originality of this paper resides in adopting a multidisciplinary approach to
analyzing various social and business dimensions of a complex phenomenon. While the study should not be
viewed as a comprehensive investigation, it offers a groundwork for further research on Covid-19.
Keywords Inequalities, Coronavirus, Covid-19, Business and social trends, Globalization,
Corporate welfare, Fluidity of work, Big tech
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Covid-19 caused by the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was generated in December 2019 in
Wuhan city in Hubei province of China and rapidly grew to become a deadly pandemic
affecting much of Asia, Europe, America and Africa. The virus enters the body through the
mouth, nose and eyes and may infect a person at a distance of about a 6 ft (1.8 m) radius (Ali
and Alharbi, 2020). At the time of this writing (November 2020), the coronavirus and the
associated disease (Covid-19) are still spreading fast across the world. Many biological
aspects of Covid-19, its symptoms, contagion mechanisms and behavior have not been fully
understood. The most similar occurrence to the Covid-19 pandemic might be the Spanish flu
of 1918. The Covid-19 pandemic often is described as “unprecedented” because it involves
high levels of uncertainty, disruption and risk. The Covid-19 pandemic has caused
interruptions to our societies as multinationals, and their supply chains have been severely
affected. International and domestic flights have been halted, obligatory home confinements
have been enforced and even the fundamental human relations have been restricted. It is
impossible to understand and evaluate all the Covid-19 pandemic’s effects, but from past
experiences, we have learned that pandemics generally cause significant social and
economic transformations (Jorda et al., 2020). We may qualify the Covid-19 pandemic as a
complex and evolving phenomenon set to significantly affect every aspect of social life,
including health, communication, business, management, work, investment, leisure, travel, Covid-19
politics and education. Therefore, understanding the effects of Covid-19 requires an pandemic
exploratory and multidisciplinary scholarship capable of capturing the phenomenon’s
different dimensions (Beech and Anseel, 2020; Budhwar and Cumming, 2020; Jorda et al.,
2020). The Covid-19 pandemic is new and uncertain, and there is a dearth of scholarship
about it, particularly in business and social sciences. As the topic is nascent and the
pandemic is still evolving, it is not suitable to formulate any specific research questions and
inspect narrow causal relations. Therefore, this study takes an exploratory and
189
multidisciplinary approach and aims at understanding several social and business
implications of the Covid-19 pandemic. More specifically, the research questions can be
expressed as the following. What are the emerging social and business trends associated
with the Covid-19 pandemic? What are their underlying causes, antecedents and
implications? To this end, the study adopts a conceptual method. It relies on a wide selection
of publications to explore, identify, classify and discuss nine major trends in society and
business, i.e. the rise of authoritarianism, the new era of corporate welfare, deep imbalances
in public finances, the exacerbated inequalities, higher risks of poverty and famine, the
dominance of giant corporations and the demise of small businesses, the increasing
influence of big tech, the accelerated innovation and the fluidity of work and organizations.
The paper suggests that these trends do not represent a drastic rupture with the past;
instead, they continue the past three decades’ transformations.
Furthermore, the paper suggests that these trends contribute to the rising concentration
of power and wealth in business and society and lead to a new type of globalization marked
by high connectivity and low tangibility. The paper provides valuable insights into the
effects of Covid-19 and offers a groundwork for further empirical studies. This study’s
findings involve significant implications for different business areas, including international
business, entrepreneurship and organization studies.
In the remainder of this paper, first, the method is explained, and then, the nine main social and
business trends associated with the Covid-19 pandemic are analyzed. In the end, an integrative table
is presented, and consequences and suggestions for future research are pointed out.

Design and methods

Considering the study’s exploratory nature and the novelty of the topic, we adopted the
meta-synthesis method. Meta-synthesis is a process that enables researchers to search,
select, appraise, summarize and combine qualitative evidence to address a research question
(Erwin et al., 2011). Meta-synthesis focuses on selecting qualitative studies on a specific
body of knowledge and translating those findings into one interpretation, offering a better
understanding of the phenomenon (Buysse and Wesley, 2006; Erwin et al., 2011; Giangreco
and Taylor, 2003). Meta-synthesis synthesizes the findings from a pool of studies and is a
coherent interpretation of these data. Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) described different
stages in a meta-synthesis, including formulating the research question; searching the
literature, appraisal and inclusion of papers; and applying meta-synthesis techniques and
interpretation. Consistent with Sandelowski and Barroso (2003), we took the following steps
to conduct a meta-synthesis (Figure 1).
 Research question: We formulated the research question as to the following: “to
identify and examine emerging social and business trends associated with the
Covid-19 pandemic.”
 The search of literature: We used Google, Google Scholar, ProQuest and EBSCO
search engines between March 3 and July 17, 2020, to retrieve 363 papers, including
CPOIB Google, Google
17,2 Scholar, ProQuest,
EBSCO

363papers
retrieved

190
52 removed at the 311 papers
included

97 removed at abstract 214 papers

analyzed

Coding and interpretation 53 ideas detected

Figure 1.
9 main themes
Different stages of Extensional classification (trends)
meta-synthesis idenfied

scholarly publications, professional reports, commentaries, viewpoints, market

analyses and news articles. In this phase, the goal was to maximize the number of
retrieved papers by using appropriate keywords.
 Appraisal and inclusion of papers: We included all refereed studies, non-refereed
papers focusing on business and society and relevant articles from credible sources
such as the Financial Times, The Economist and The Foreign Affairs. All papers
were published in English. The publications’ quality was appraised by considering
such criteria as the publishers’ reputation, the clarity of contents and relevance.
From 363 papers, we eliminated 52 articles that seemed repetitive, duplicate or
incomplete. From the remaining 311 papers, we eliminated 97 papers that were
deemed inadequate and substandard in their content, style or origins and kept 214
relevant papers for further analysis.
 Meta-synthesis techniques and findings: By reviewing abstracts and contents of the
214 articles and using NVivo software, we identified 53 main ideas related to the
social and business implications of Covid-19. Then, we performed an extensional
classification to regroup the 53 ideas under nine semantical themes.
 Findings across studies: Table 1 depicts the nine major trends related to various
spheres, including governance, public finances, socio-economic development,
business and competition, society, technology and work. In the following sections,
we present and discuss these nine major trends.

The rise of authoritarianism and surveillance

The popular belief is that only a strong government can deliver a quick, robust and
comprehensive national response in crisis times. With the outbreak of Covid-19,
governments worldwide took drastic measures and forced businesses to halt their
Spheres Trends Key findings, contributions and implications Consequence: the distribution of power and wealth

Governance 1. The rise of Emboldened autocrats A higher concentration of power in politics as

authoritarianism and Governments’ authoritarianism governments become more authoritarian
surveillance Silencing critics and consolidating power
Undermining checks and balances
Encroaching on citizens’ privacy
Controlling information
Invading individual citizens’ privacy
Abusing of civil liberties
Government, 2. The visible hand and the The largest relief programs and business handout A higher concentration of wealth in corporations
business and new era of corporate welfare Cash stimulus even for lucrative corporations and large investors, as they receive cash stimuli and
public finances Shifting away the cost of recession from corporations special treatment
toward the public
The visible hand of government creates corporate welfare
The taxpayers’ cash is boosting the corporate balance
sheet
3. Deep debts, low rates and Governments are accumulating huge debts A higher concentration of wealth in society because
probably high inflation and Advanced economies run an average deficit of 11% GDP of eventual austerities and public cuts
heavy taxes Rich countries public debt US$66tn (122% of GDP)
Pay or shrink debt may involve high inflation, heavy
taxation, austerity and reduction in public services
Socioeconomic 4. Exacerbated inequalities The wealthiest are largely immune to financial hardship A higher concentration of wealth in the USA and
development Unprotected workers are affected disproportionately across the world as inequalities grow
Covid-19 exacerbates inequalities related to income,
education, employment, gender roles, race and ethnicities
5. Higher risks of poverty High risks in less developed countries in Africa and Asia A higher concentration of wealth, as the poor are
and famine Unprecedented levels of unemployment in a wide range excessively affected
of industries
Social and economic resources are drained
Increasing risks of famine and food shortage
(continued)

Covid-19: emerging

business
Table 1.

trends in society and

191
Covid-19
pandemic
 17,2

192
CPOIB

Table 1.
Spheres Trends Key findings, contributions and implications Consequence: the distribution of power and wealth

Business and 6. Dominance of giant Effective monopoly or duopoly in many sectors A higher concentration of power and wealth, as
competition corporations and the demise A few giant corporations to increase their market shares large corporations become more competitive
of small businesses Giant corporations adopt intensive strategies to acquire
rivals
Crises eliminate smaller and fragile businesses
7. The big win of big tech Big tech innovates and increases market share A higher concentration of power and wealth in big
Big tech adopts lucrative models based on subscriptions, tech companies as they enjoy higher profits and
e-commerce, cloud computing and business infrastructure larger market capitalizations
Conventional businesses fall to the detriment of big tech
Society, 8. The acceleration of Resilient and ad hoc bureaucracies A higher concentration of power and wealth in tech
technology and innovation, digitalization and Stable and reliable supply chains instead of efficient and companies as they become more innovative and
work adaptation fragile ones indispensable
Digitalized consumption
Contactless interfaces and cashless payments
Digital health care and telemedicine
Transformation of education and explosion of college
degrees
9. The fluidity of work and Fluid arrangements of work A higher concentration of power, as organizations
organization Abolishing the constraints of space and time enjoy more managerial control and lower liabilities
New forms of organizations based on electronically toward workers
connected networks. Workplace arrangements not reliant
on a physical space anymore
operations. This move was unparalleled in modern history. The outbreak of Covid-19 and Covid-19
the sense of urgency enhanced the executive branch’s power (Alon, 2020; Van Barneveld pandemic
et al., 2020; Economist, 2020a; Khemani, 2020). Regardless of the economic systems, Covid-
19 empowered governments worldwide to intervene in business operations and even set
prices forcefully. The crises such as Covid-19 tend to embolden autocrats and strongmen
because democracy and participatory decision-making are a luxury that many societies
cannot afford during hard times (Bieber, 2020). Authoritarian governments respond to the
pandemic by consolidating power at home, seeking geopolitical advantage amid the crisis 193
and weakening democracies from within (Van Barneveld et al., 2020; Economist, 2020b). For
the authoritarian governments, the pandemic offers a reasonable cause to silence critics and
consolidate power. The pandemic helps authoritarian governments tighten their grip on
power and advance their agenda (Roth, 2020). From China to Hungary, the Philippines,
Turkey, Russia, Turkmenistan and the USA, autocrats have undermined checks and
balances. In Hungary, the prime minister can rule by decree. In Britain, Israel, Chile and
Bolivia, some extreme measures are useful because of the pandemic (The New York Times,
2020). Covid-19 has created unique circumstances under which large gatherings and
protests are prohibited. Not only public protests are banned, but also elections could be
postponed or rigged. Relief and stimulus cash can be selectively used to influence a few
companies or individuals to the general public’s detriment.
Surveillance is a major characteristic of the modern world and has been growing quietly
for many decades (Bauman, 2013, 2010). However, the Covid-19 pandemic created excellent
opportunities to encroach on citizens’ privacy and individual freedoms. Repressive
governments tend to control information about the pandemic (Holland, 2020). In the absence
of democratic safeguards, many governments may abuse their enhanced authorities and
continue to spy on their dissidents (Economist, 2020a). Because of the outbreak of Covid-19,
governments in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East are banning news outlets and
speech freedom. For similar reasons, many countries have placed the state’s surveillance
mechanisms to track people who may have been infected. Real-time trackers, electronic
bracelets, taxi receipts and credit card records have been used to monitor suspected cases
(Verma and Gustafsson, 2020; Hancox-Li, 2020; Kavanagh, 2020; Kummitha, 2020). Using
data, governments can monitor citizens’ locations and compliance with social distancing
mandates (Chen, 2020). Misusing personal data could lead to abuse of civil liberties (Keegan,
2019). If institutions do not function effectively during the pandemic and populations believe
that authoritarian regimes manage the crisis successfully, then the future of democracy is at
risk (Diamond, 2020). The health crises such as Covid-19 are likely to disappear or wane, but
autocratic governments may be emboldened.

The visible hand and the new era of corporate welfare

To offset the economic devastation of Covid-19, all governments in rich countries, mainly
the US government, have put in place the most extensive relief programs and business
handouts in modern history. More than US$10tn have been allocated to corporations in the
USA and Europe (Economist, 2020c; Federal Reserve Board, 2020). Western economies,
including Britain and France, offered credit and loan programs surpassing 15% of their
gross domestic product (Economist, 2020d). It seems that governments are ready to do
whatever it takes to avoid corporate bankruptcies. Again, like the great recession of 2007–
2008, free enterprise advocates are facing ideological challenges. Central banks print vast
amounts of cash to stimulate pandemic-affected economies and buy undesired assets. The
intervention of governments in businesses during the crisis will set a precedent for the after-
crisis period. This means that the free enterprise and market economy will likely lose their
CPOIB legitimacy long after the Covid-19 pandemic (Economist, 2020d; The Financial Times,
17,2 2020a). Furthermore, government officials in many developed economies have embraced
protectionist and mercantilist policies to protect their businesses (Van Assche and Lundan,
2020; Bown, 2020; Donthu and Gustafsson, 2020; Jorda et al., 2020).
Markets cheer the cash injection because it directly benefits corporations and investors.
Thanks to substantial cash stimuli, even large and lucrative corporations can benefit from
194 cheap taxpayer-financed loans. In March 2020, the Federal Reserve officially announced that
it could buy companies’ short-term debt (Economist, 2020e). Such measures shift the cost of
economic recession from corporations to the general public. In the USA, large corporations
are better positioned to benefit from a wide range of programs, including loan guarantees,
bailout assistance and tax breaks (Choi et al., 2020; Reich, 2008; Ruggie, 2018). Tech giants
such as Amazon.com, Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft are increasingly related to
political power centers and are actively involved in influencing the legislature (Wheelwright,
2016). While the primary goal of governments’ rescue plans is to support pandemic-affected
businesses, the relief cash directly or indirectly ends up in the hands of inefficient
businesses.
Even in regular times, about 8% of the businesses in the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) economies go bankrupt, but the outbreak of Covid-19
has pushed many governments to prevent businesses from bankruptcy at any cost.
Bankruptcies are essentially undesired, but they often help shift resources from less
competitive to more competitive firms and increase overall economic efficiency in the long
run (Economist, 2020f). The exponential growth of infected cases and economic meltdown
speed have created a sense of emergency, preventing governments’ officials from devising
enough control measures. Under such circumstances, the piles of cash are directed to those
wealthy corporations that do not need the bailout money, while the crisis wipes out workers
and small businesses. The government’s visible hand is intervening in markets to create
corporate welfare by the so-called bailout schemes.
Simply put, the taxpayers’ cash is used to boost the corporate balance sheet. The
potential losses of some corporations are so large that they may drain governments’
resources in the future. Boeing, American Airlines and Temasek are some examples of
corporations that so far have benefited from government rescue plans, but the chaos of
Covid-19 is so weighty that there is no guarantee that these businesses can fully recover.
Financial aid to corporations is unjustified and untenable, mainly when the middle-class and
the poor are ignored. The question is where the responsibility of the government ends. If the
bailed-out corporations are healthy and mainly, should the government subsidize them?
And, if they are not, should government waste taxpayers’ cash on rescuing them? Even after
recovery, these corporations may require more cash handouts.

Deep debts, low rate and probably high inflation and heavy taxes
In the fight against the pandemic, all governments worldwide, particularly those in rich
countries, are quickly accumulating vast amounts of debts that could have lasting
implications. As of April 2020, Japan and the USA have offered fiscal packages that already
exceed 10% of their annual gross domestic products (Elgin et al., 2020). Public finances in
many advanced economies are deteriorating. In comparison with the financial crisis of
2007–2008, the amounts of debt are massive. Based on the International Monterrey Fund’s
(IMF’s) estimates, advanced economies may run an average deficit of 11% of their gross
domestic product (GDP) in 2020 (Economist, 2020g). According to the same reports, rich
countries’ public debt may rise to US$66tn or almost 122% of the GDP by the end of 2020
(Beine et al., 2020; Economist, 2020g). The US government may run a deficit of 15% of GDP
this year. The USA can keep the cost of borrowing low for an extended period because it Covid-19
enjoys the “exorbitant advantage” of the dollar as the world reserve currency (Eichengreen, pandemic
2011), but other advanced economies will face increasing pressures on their public finances.
Furthermore, many western countries have aging populations and naturally respond to
health-care and nursing services’ rising demands. Therefore, it will be more expensive to
maintain or improve public services in the future.
These enormous debt burdens may be paid back or diminished by many strategies,
including taxation, austerity, reduction in public services, or a combination of economic 195
growth, low rates and inflation. Higher tax rates and reductions in public services are
unpopular in many western democracies and are, in some cases, impossible because, after
the financial crisis of 2007–2008, debt levels increased in advanced economies by almost
30%. Many advanced economies reduced their public spending after 2008. The western
economies’ citizens are increasingly concerned about public services, including public health
care, education and unemployment insurance. Therefore, to reduce the debt ratio over time,
the post-Covid governments should keep real economic growth and inflation above the
interest rates. Simply put, governments will need higher inflation to wash away some of
their debt (Beine et al., 2020; Economist, 2020g; Obstfeld and Posen, 2020).
If we view inflation as the natural consequence of too much money buying too few
products and services, then we can say that the post-Covid era will create the right
conditions for the advent of inflation (Ehrmann et al., 2020; Fornaro and Wolf, 2020;
Guerrieri et al., 2020). On the one hand, the number of available products and services
available on the market is falling because of the coronavirus disruptions. On the other hand,
the amount of available money increases because of governments’ relief handouts and
generous cash stimuli. As governments worldwide are printing large sums to support
workers and businesses, it is likely to see inflationary pressures on the horizon. The
consequence of inflation will be a new distribution of wealth to the advantage of the rich and
workers’ detriment. For instance, the rich are more likely to have investments such as real
estate and equities that rise in value with inflation, while workers and those who live
paycheck by paycheck will see their wages eroded by inflationary pressures. For example,
higher inflation rates will shrink the mortgages of homeowners over time. Similarly, the
leveraged businesses will benefit from higher inflation rates, as they can reduce the real
burden of their financial obligations in the long run.

Exacerbated inequalities
Past experiences have revealed that the most vulnerable, such as the old, low-income
households, people with disabilities and informal workers without social protection, are
disproportionately affected by pandemics (Wang and Tang, 2020). Based on the existing
evidence from New York City, Chicago, New Orleans and many other states and cities, black
and Hispanic residents are much more likely to die from Covid-19 than white residents. The
effects of Covid-19 are severe on economically disadvantaged groups because of their
limited savings and educational and occupational backgrounds (Canilang et al., 2020). The
virus could be particularly devastating among poor Americans, as most of them are not
covered by health insurance and do not have access to essential health-care services. While
Covid-19 is affecting all, the wealthiest are mostly immune to financial hardship. The rich,
highly educated couples, high-salary professionals and managers who can carry out their
tasks remotely can resist the hardship and financial pressure inflicted by Covid-19, as most
of them continue to receive their steady income (Politico Magazine, 2020). By contrast,
unprotected workers such as self-employed, freelance, casual and gig workers are affected
excessively by the virus, as they do not have access to paid or sick leave options (ILO, 2020).
CPOIB Covid-19 has massively disrupted education at all levels. Schools’ closures impede parents’
17,2 economic productivity and hamper the younger generations’ learning and socio-cognitive
development. While schools’ closures affect all kids, their effects on the underprivileged
children will be much more significant, as they have limited access to computers, the
internet, nurturing environments and educated parents.
Furthermore, the younger students may leave schools with lower achievements because
196 of schools’ closures than previous cohorts (Eyles et al., 2020). The effects of schools’ closures
will be translated to disparity and underperformance in income and professional success
that could be translated into conflict and crime (Murshed, 2020). In recent months, there has
been an increase in riots, domestic violence, quarrels among neighbors and an increase in
firearms sales (Donthu and Gustafsson, 2020; Campbell, 2020).
According to the OECD, a club of mainly rich countries, the USA is already marked by
an economic inequality at the levels not seen since the late 1920s (Littrell et al., 2010; Piketty
and Saez, 2003; Reich, 2008). Despite a decade of economic growth, many middle-class
families have not recovered from the great financial recession of 2007–2008 (Bahn, 2019).
The global economic decline due to the pandemic forecasts an annual GDP growth below
2.5% and an impact on global income of at least US$1tn (UNCTAD, 2019, 2020). Under these
circumstances, the pandemic can prolong high unemployment rates and weaken many
people’s welfare safety nets. The devastating effects of the job losses on low-income and
under-employed Americans could be translated into higher socio-economic inequality levels
in the future decades. Indeed, the pandemic reveals neoliberalism’s failure to deal with rising
global inequality (Van Barneveld et al., 2020).
According to the IMF, the global economy is expected to contract 4.4% in 2020, pushing
millions into poverty, but the world’s billionaires have grown much wealthier than in 2019.
This trend is observed in the USA and countries such as Brazil and China and Germany.
Similar to the great recession of 2007–2008, the super-rich has hugely benefited from the
pandemic. For instance, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos’s net worth has risen by US
$73bn between March and September. Over the same period, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon
Musk enjoyed a net worth increase of more than US$45bn. Many empirical studies confirm
that pandemics lead to a persistent and significant increase in the net Gini coefficient of
inequality, and that the rich are the primary beneficiaries of such crises (JCT – Joint
Committee on Taxation, 2020; Jorda et al., 2020). The Covid-19 pandemic will exacerbate
inequalities related to income, education, employment, gender roles, race and ethnicities
(Baldwin and Weder di Mauro, 2020; Bapuji et al., 2020; Corak, 2020; ILO, 2020; Lee and Cho,
2016).

Higher risks of poverty and famine

Coronavirus started in China and quickly spread to other countries, particularly to western
countries in Europe. While Covid-19 has been very virulent in countries such as Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Iran and the USA, the most significant risks lie in less developed countries in
Africa and Asia such as India, Bangladesh, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and Tanzania. Such
countries are marked by poor infrastructures and lack of medical resources, including
hospital beds, health-care providers and equipment. Air pollution, lack of sanitation,
overcrowded homes and workplaces and pre-existing conditions such as asthma,
pneumonia and people with diabetes could multiply the fatality rate of Covid-19 in
developing countries in the coming years. For instance, Indians account for almost 50% of
the world’s diabetics. In general, developing countries have more social interactions and are
prone to the spread of the coronavirus. Even washing hands and disinfecting public places
are not practical in some developing countries.
 The pandemic has brought up unprecedented unemployment levels in multiple Covid-19
industries, especially accommodations and food services, construction, retail and health care pandemic
(Bartik et al., 2020). By May 2020, the US unemployment rate has surged to the levels never
seen since the great depression (The Financial Times, 2020c). In addition to its virulence, the
Covid-19 pandemic is rapidly creating poverty and famine because it drains social and
economic resources and ruins businesses. Even in the rich and developed world, the effects
of Covid-19 are distressing. Covid-19 could cost the world more than US$10tn (Ahmed et al.,
2020; International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020). For each per centage point 197
reduction in the global economy, more than ten million people are plunged into poverty
worldwide. Based on some estimates, over 140 million people could fall into extreme poverty
or less than US$1.90 per day in the next year (Laborde et al., 2020). In developing countries, a
decline of 3.6% in the GDP is expected, but Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin
America could suffer more as they are highly dependent on trade and primary commodity
exports (Laborde et al., 2020).
With the Covid-19 pandemic, many countries face increasing risks of famine and food
shortage. According to the United Nations World Food Program, the number of acutely
hungry people could double in 2020 (Torero, 2020; World Food Program, 2020). Similarly,
based on the World Bank studies, agricultural production in Sub-Saharan Africa may fall by
3 to 7% in 2020. As Africa is a net importer of its cereals, a food production disruption in
other countries may result in a severe shortage of food and a significant price hike. The
World Bank estimates reveal that in 2020, 80 million more Africans could see their incomes
drop below the equivalent of US$1.90 a day (The World Bank, 2020). African countries may
face double pressure resulting from the declining prices of their commodities on the one
hand and the surging prices of food staples on the other hand.

The dominance of giant corporations and the demise of small businesses

In the past three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War,
large corporations have been relying on their vast financial, technological and managerial
resources to develop sophisticated competitive advantages to the detriment of smaller rivals
(Yeganeh, 2019). Effective monopoly or duopoly is a characteristic of many sectors of the US
economy, including digital economy and high tech, retail, banks and finance, food, media
and transport (Allen, 2017; Yeganeh, 2019). In the past four decades, the number of small
businesses has continued to fall, as large corporations’ power and market shares have
surged. There are signs that this trend is going to intensify with the outbreak of Covid-19. In
the middle of the pandemic, a few giant companies are poised to increase their market shares
and become even more powerful. Giant corporations gain in both regular times and crises
because they are anchors of financial stability. Giant corporations can take advantage of
their lower cost of capital, lower bargaining powers of suppliers and buyers and their vast
market shares to outperform other smaller rivals. Because of the pandemic, capital becomes
more valuable; therefore, giant corporations may adopt intensive strategies to vertically and
horizontally increase their operations. For instance, Apple is sitting on more than US$200bn
that could be used to acquire smaller businesses. Some giant corporations are weightier than
many mid-size national economies. Ironically, the cost of Johnson and Johnson’s debt is
lower than the cost of Canada’s debt (Economist, 2020i). Like earthquakes, recessions and
crises shake the market and eliminate smaller and fragile businesses but spare large
corporations with strong balance sheets. Empirical studies show that in the past recessions,
larger corporations have outperformed mid-size and small businesses in market share, sales
and stock price (Economist, 2020i). With the advent of Covid-19, small business activity has
fallen sharply in all major industries, including construction, restaurants, hospitality,
CPOIB transportation and personal services. In the USA, the number of active business owners
17,2 dropped from 15 to 11.7 million in two months from February to April 2020 (Fairlie, 2020).
Such a massive decline in small business activity is unprecedented. For instance, during the
great recession of 2007–2008, the number of business owners declined by 730,000, or only a
5% reduction (Fairlie, 2020). Some active businesses remained open because of public health
concerns but reduced their working days/hours substantially. Several studies show that a
198 large proportion of small businesses could run out of cash (Cowling et al., 2020).
Many small and even mid-sized businesses face bankruptcy or reduce their production
capacity (Verma and Gustafsson, 2020; Bofinger et al., 2020). For now, the government is
responding to concerns over the decline of small business activity through several stimuli
and assistance programs. Small businesses differ from their larger counterparts, as they
have limited financial, technological and human resources (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2020).
Furthermore, small businesses are often at a disadvantage in e-commerce, as they have
traditionally been developed as brick-and-mortar businesses (Zahra, 2020). As a result, they
face an unprecedented existential threat (Carracedo et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Sheth,
2020). It seems that small businesses are embracing a long-term decline that could continue
for the next few years. A wave of creative destruction may replace traditional small
businesses with other innovative and agile business models (Albonico et al., 2020).

The big win of big tech

The Covid-19 pandemic has drastically discouraged start-ups and their potential for
innovation (Kuckertz et al., 2020). Many tech start-ups are under pressure, as their capital
and revenue are quickly drying up (Bofinger et al., 2020). During crises, human relations,
social contracts and values change, and new norms and rules are established. As such,
every crisis redistributes wealth in society and creates losers and winners. The crisis
caused by the outbreak of Covid-19 has already erased some businesses, and probably
some doors will never open again. Because of the pandemic, entertainment, aviation and
traditional brick-and-mortar retailers have suffered very much, but big tech is poised to
come out of this crisis even more significant and more robust. Big tech corporations such
as Alphabet, Facebook, Amazon.com, Microsoft and Apple may capitalize on their vast
technological resources to innovate, increase market share and prosper. The tech sector
moves away from the past decade’s business models toward more sophisticated and
lucrative models based on subscriptions, e-commerce, big data, cloud computing and
business infrastructure (Economist, 2020j). While traditional businesses such as Ford
Motors, General Electric and Boeing have been faltering because of Covid-19, big tech has
been relishing higher profitability levels. For instance, Ford and Boeing projected US
$5bn and US$4.7bn in losses for the 2020 first quarter. By contrast, Alphabet (Google)
reported sales rise by 13% in the first quarter and US$7bn in profits (Economist, 2020j).
Facebook has reported a 50% increase in messaging activity as the pandemic hit more
countries worldwide. As traditional retailers are suffering from the effects of lockdowns,
Amazon has reported surging sales. Other mid-size tech corporations such as Twitter,
Slack and Zoom are reporting surging demands for their online services. At the same
time, the signs of trouble are appearing among small tech firms and those unicorns that
have been relying on losing-money and growing-at-loss business models for a while
(Economist, 2020k). Regulators may intervene by imposing antitrust sanctions, but
considering the increasing weight of big tech and the severity of Covid-19, the
administrators are likely to become more complacent than ever.
The acceleration of innovation, digitalization and adaptation Covid-19
The Covid-19 pandemic is similar to a full-fledged war that entices creativity. People are pandemic
quickly trying to normalize their activities and adapt to the new circumstances in a wide
range of areas, from government bureaucracies to supply chain management, education and
business.
Resilient bureaucracies: With the outbreak of Covid-19, governments across the world are
creatively streamlining their decision-making procedures and, on some occasions, are
showing incredible dynamism and effectiveness. For instance, China, South Korea, the 199
European governments, Canada and many States in America moved swiftly to enhance
public health by conducting massive testing, using technology to identify and track infected
people and developing and enforcing social distancing and lockdown measures.
Supply chains: In the past three decades, multinational corporations have increasingly
prioritized efficiency and, for that reason, have dispersed their supply chain activities across
the world. While this hyper-optimization has led to substantial cost savings, it has caused an
increasing fragility of operations, particularly in the face of geopolitical risks, trade war and
pandemics. The outburst of Covid-19 may encourage managers to reflect on highly
optimized and efficient operations’ inherent fragility. Multiple creative techniques may be
used to enhance the stability of supply chains, including resilient and well-coordinated
supply chains equipped with artificial intelligence, robotics, industrial internet and
blockchain.
The digitalization of consumption: E-commerce has been growing steadily since the late
1990s, but the pandemic definitively proved the superiority of online shopping. Even
traditional businesses are focusing on developing their e-commerce divisions and are
enhancing their logistics and delivery systems. Consumers are increasingly gaining control
over their interactions with businesses, as speed and convenience are becoming more critical
(Van Bommel et al., 2014). To adapt themselves to the new business environment, marketers
take advantage of virtual events and gatherings to promote their products and services.
There are signs that such virtual gatherings are going mainstream. Facebook, Google and
YouTube are hosting such virtual conferences.
Along with online shopping and cashless payments, there will be a substantial rise in
online banking, as banks’ branches will lose much of their usefulness. Therefore, banks may
reduce the activities associated with their branches and instead focus on their customer
services, call centers and digital operations. As consumers are spending more time on TV
and the internet, they are consuming products and services related to entertainment,
education and self-development. Furthermore, online media habits, mainly social media,
video streaming and gaming, are becoming more popular. Many of these habits may
continue long after Covid-19.
Contactless interfaces and cashless payments: Covid-19 may encourage innovations such
as voice and contactless interfaces to replace the current touchable screens. Some contactless
interfaces are in the early stages of development. We can expect the growth and acceptance
of voice and machine vision interfaces very soon. Likewise, cash and credit card payments
are likely to be replaced by alternative contactless payment options through mobile devices.
The contactless measures are originally intended to enhance public hygiene during the
outbreak of Covid-19, but they will become permanent as they will involve more control and
efficiency.
Digital infrastructure and big data: The pandemic made people adapt to working,
learning, shopping, meeting and communicating from home digitally. All of these activities
require robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Therefore, digital infrastructure
development will become a high priority for national and local governments across the
CPOIB world. As the reliance on digital infrastructure grows, so does the importance of
17,2 cybersecurity and big data.
Digital health care, telemedicine: With the outbreak of Covid-19 and the need for social
distancing, many hospitals and clinics implement practices to offer their patients virtual
consultations via video conferencing. In addition to substantial cost savings, technology can
be used to triage and diagnose patients. Considering the advantages of telemedicine,
200 government officials are paving the way for removing regulatory barriers. It seems that the
outbreak of Covid-19 is creating a rare opportunity for the long-term growth of telemedicine.
The spread of coronavirus has led to collaborations between cloud developers, researchers
and pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines or treatments. Scientists and health-care
professionals capitalize on artificial intelligence to quickly develop an effective and safe
drug to treat diseases. Simultaneously, natural language processing and computer vision
applications could be used to analyze big data to diagnose, predict and contain infections
(Broad, 2020; Hollister, 2020; Naudé, 2020). Overall, the Covid-19 pandemic is likely to use a
range of digital technologies, like the internet of things, artificial intelligence, big data
analytics and drones (Donthu and Gustafsson, 2020).
Virtual events: Very likely, the trend toward digitalization of events, conferences and all
sorts of gatherings will keep momentum. People and organizations will increasingly figure
out that they can avoid huge expenses and risks involved in travel and logistics to attend or
organize an event. Therefore, it is plausible to suggest that there will be a drastic shift to
virtual and hybrid events even far after the pandemic. Virtual events are not limited to
academia and business; they may include sporting events, music and entertainment.
The transformation of education: The outbreak of Covid-19 has blown violent winds that
are forcefully changing the well-established education traditions. Digital classrooms and
video-conferencing meetings and lectures are quickly adopted at all levels, from elementary
and high schools to colleges. Those teachers who had resisted technology for long are
suddenly succumbing to the existential pressures of the pandemic. As this transition to
virtual education was unplanned, it broke most resistance to online learning and justified
the absence of human contact. These transformations may involve drastic changes in the
cost and availability of education. For instance, in virtual teaching, the marginal cost will be
zero, and in theory, there is no limitation to enrollments’ capacity. In online teaching,
enrollments of 30 and 300 students involve almost the same expenses for educational
institutions. Therefore, schools and colleges may become more lenient in their admissions
requirements and open their doors to less qualified applicants. The higher education may
undergo a radical technology-led transformation (Krishnamurthy, 2020) involving the use of
algorithms as professors, viewing universities as services and assessment centers,
personalization and diversification of education and solving problems.

The fluidity of work and organizations

The pandemic is accelerating workplace transformations (Carnevale and Hatak, 2020). With
Covid-19, even traditional brick-and-mortar organizations have embraced the idea of remote
work as a reliable alternative. Businesses are quickly shifting to a work-from-home model,
keeping the workforce productive, setting up control mechanisms and keeping track of
essential workers (IBM Reports, 2020). Many workers are not necessarily moved out of
employment; instead, they are absent from work for a few days per week (Lemieux et al.,
2020). Remote working tools and technologies are mushrooming: Tencent’s WeChat Work,
DingTalk, Google Hangouts Meet, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar
and Cisco’s WebEx. Twitter, Google and JPMorgan have made remote working policies for
their future needs. Many companies have quickly adopted the required technological
infrastructure to switch their operation to an online mode. The global workplace is Covid-19
becoming a virtual place or a “non-space” where the constraints of space, social organization pandemic
and local institutional arrangements are eliminated or weakened. This may result in a
tempo-spatial compression, implying that the world is experienced socially and materially
as a smaller place (Huebener et al., 2016; Oke, 2009). The new forms of organizations could
be based on electronically connected networks of contractors, freelancers and semi-
autonomous entities (Kantor, 2014; Riain, 2006; Reich, 2008; Waddoups, 2016). Thus, the
focus of work is gradually shifting from stable organizational structures to flexible and 201
project-based operations. Employers are increasingly turning to part-time, contingent and
contract workers to meet their business goals. Those employees who stay with their
organizations may have to work under part-time and other flexible work arrangements.
Furthermore, the pandemic could accelerate the widespread use of robots in many
industries, even those that benefit from cheap, abundant and available workforce. Assembly
lines, meat processing facilities, deliveries, manufacturing, health care and even educational
institutions may rely on robots to carry out their tasks and support their operations.
Because of these transformations, the organization of work is set to move toward a fluid
configuration. Unlike the traditional workplace, the new workplace arrangements are not
reliant on a physical space. The workplace’s new concept means that a geographic place
gradually becomes less relevant and cities lose their importance as economic activity
centers. Work from home provides high degrees of flexibility and is valued by a majority of
workers. At the same time, organizations realize that remote work provides them multiple
advantages such as lower overhead expenses, higher managerial control, more sound
information systems and fast-tracking digital decision-making. Despite the ongoing
technological transformations, maximizing efficiency and productivity from office space
and the tight control over associated costs remain the first priority of employers (Parker,
2020). Work arrangements’ fluidity does not equate with the employee’s freedom, as many
employers can rely on new data-driven tools to control and monitor their off-site workers.
Furthermore, as organizations move to telework and remote business, new problems
associated with distance management arise, and aptitudes in managing uncertainty and
facilitating global work become more critical (Caligiuri et al., 2020).

Discussion and conclusion

Table 1 summarizes the nine emerging trends associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, their
respective spheres, as well as the key findings, contributions and implications. Despite the
apparent diversity, the nine trends share three significant features. First, they contribute to
the rising concentration of power and wealth in business and society. Second, they are not a
rupture with the past; instead, they are considered the continuation of the global
transformations in the past three decades. Third, they are unlikely to undo globalization;
instead, they may lead to a new type of globalization marked by high connectivity and low
tangibility.
The rising concentration of power and wealth: In general, these nine trends imply a higher
concentration of power and wealth in different spheres of society and business. The first
trend (the rise of authoritarianism and surveillance) involves more centralized and less
participatory decision-making. The second trend (corporate welfare) indicates that
corporations, particularly well-connected ones, receive bailout and cash stimuli from the
government and avoid bankruptcies to the detriment of taxpayers. In other words, this trend
means a transfer of public wealth (taxpayers’ dollar) to certain corporations. The third trend
is closely associated with the second trend because as corporations receive more cash, public
coffers get empty. The rising levels of public debt may lead to a combination of high
CPOIB inflation, heavy taxation and cuts in public services. As of Trends 4 and 5, we can see the
17,2 manifestations of higher concentrations of wealth in the USA and worldwide. As
inequalities grow, famine and poverty strike many regions and the poor are
disproportionately affected. The sixth and seventh trends concern business competitiveness
and include the increasing dominance of giant corporations and big tech. These two trends
indicate that power and wealth are highly concentrated in a few corporations, while small-
202 and mid-size businesses are losing ground. The eight trends or accelerated innovation
implies that the prominent innovators will gain more control as they become indispensable
in all aspects of our lives. Finally, the ninth trend reveals that fluid work arrangements lead
to more managerial control and fewer workers’ benefits.
The continuation of the past transformations: While the nine trends are mainly caused
and intensified by the pandemic, many of them existed before the outbreak of Covid-19. For
instance, the move toward authoritarianism, popularism and appreciation of strongmen
started in many countries long before the pandemic with Russia’s Putin, Hungary’s Orb
an,
Turkey’s Erdog an, Philippines’ Duterte, Brazil’s Bolsonaro and America’s Trump. Likewise,
corporate welfare and government deficits have been sources of concern in the past four
decades, particularly since the financial crisis of 2007–2008 (Reich, 2008; Stiglitz, 2012). In
the same way, the USA and much of the rich world have witnessed rising income inequality
levels since the 1970s (Reich, 2008; Stiglitz, 2012). As for business competitiveness, the two
trends, namely, the dominance of giant corporations and big tech win, have shaped the
global business environment in the past decade (Allen, 2017; Khanna and Francis, 2016). For
instance, the S&P 500 that used to be a broad representation of the US economy is
increasingly occupied by a few large tech corporations. The five largest tech companies,
namely, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook, account for more than 20% of
the market value of the S&P 500. The outbreak of Covid-19 intensified work and
organization’s fluidity, but many organizations have been moving toward flexible work
arrangements for the past few years (Waddoups, 2016). Therefore, we may suggest that
while the nine trends are associated with the outbreak of Covid-19, they are essentially the
continuation of the past three decades’ developments.
A new type of globalization? There is a prevalent view maintaining that the outbreak of
Covid-19 could impede globalization as international trade, travel, transport and foreign
direct investment have been hugely restricted (Barua, 2020; Economist, 2020n; The
Financial Times, 2020b). Some had suggested that even before the Covid-19 pandemic,
business globalization was facing serious hurdles (Diamond, 2018; O’Sullivan, 2019). We
argue that while the outbreak of Covid-19 is creating a backlash to globalization and its open
international exchange system, certain aspects of the pandemic may indeed promote
globalization, at least in a new format. Some transformations such as the development of
digital infrastructure, digitalization of consumption, telemedicine, distance education and
work-from-home arrangements are likely to create more global connectivity and thus
intensify the spatiotemporal compression, which is the main characteristic of globalization
(Appadurai, 1996; Castells, 1996; Giddens, 1990; Harvey, 1989). Telemedicine, distance
education and work-from-home arrangements will allow clinics, colleges and companies to
hire patients, students and workers in their own home countries immediately, efficiently and
without any type of transport or travel. Therefore, the Covid-19 pandemic may bring about a
new type of globalization based on increasing connectivity levels in the virtual space and an
economic production marked by more digital and intangible assets.
The findings of this study may involve significant implications for different areas of
business. Surveillance and authoritarianism in conjunction with big tech and big data imply
that personalized and smart business could transform how management and organizations
are currently functioning. The outbreak of Covid-19 enables corporations to more effectively Covid-19
commodifying citizens’ private information, time, attention and thoughts. In a highly pandemic
volatile, intangible and connected world, information is becoming the hottest commodity.
From an international business perspective, we may suggest that as globalization continues
with high connectivity and low tangibility, the importance of managing all types of distance,
including cultural, linguistic, geographic and institutional distance, continue to grow
(Verbeke, 2020). The new era of corporate welfare triggered by the pandemic will have
lasting effects on competition as the concept of competition is changing. The uncertainty 203
inherent in the pandemic and higher concentration of power and wealth at the societal and
corporate levels means that small- and mid-size businesses should focus on key competitive
advantages to survive and prosper. Future entrepreneurs should be incredibly agile in
coping with uncertainty. The rising inequalities imply that marketers, managers and
investors may seek better opportunities and returns at the top of the pyramid where the big
cash resides. Governments in many developed countries are injecting cash in their
economies, creating massive public deficits and probably inflation and higher tax rates.
Under such circumstances, citizens and businesses should expect higher retirement ages
and lower public services in the future. A major fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic is the quick
obsolescence of conventional business models and the rise of tech-centered companies that
rely increasingly on intangible assets and fewer employees. Because of their intangible
assets and their digitalized services, these businesses often can effectively overcome the
national borders and run their operations globally. Such businesses benefit from fluid
arrangements of work and liberation from space and time constraints and become highly
lucrative.
The Covid-19 contagion is still ongoing, and its features are not known yet. The literature
on the topic is proliferating but remains meager and disconcerted. This paper’s originality
resides in adopting a multidisciplinary approach to analyzing various social and business
dimensions of this complex phenomenon. The paper has a limited scope and identifies only a
few emerging trends. While the study should not be viewed as a comprehensive
investigation, it offers a groundwork for further research on Covid-19. Future studies may
build on this study’s findings and propositions to conduct more in-depth analyses in
different business settings.

References
Ahmed, F., Ahmed, N.E., Pissarides, C. and Stiglitz, J. (2020), “Why inequality could spread COVID-19”,
The Lancet Public Health, Vol. 5 No. 5, p. e240.
Albonico, M., Mladenov, Z. and Sharma, R. (2020), How the COVID-19 Crisis is Affecting U.K. small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises, McKinsey and Company.
Ali, I. and Alharbi, O.M. (2020), “COVID-19: disease, management, treatment, and social impact”,
Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 138861.
Allen, J.P. (2017), “Information technology and wealth concentration”, Technology and Inequality,
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 25-41.
Alon, I. (2020), “COVID-19 and international business: a viewpoint”, FIIB Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 2,
p. 2319714520923579.
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z. and Wood, G. (2020), “COVID-19 and business failures: the paradoxes
of experience, scale, and scope for theory and practice”, European Management Journal.
Appadurai, A. (1996), Modernity al Large: cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Vol. 1, U of MN Press.
Bahn, K. (2019), ‘OK, boomer’: how millennials have been left behind in the recovery from the
great recession,” Washington center for equitable growth blog, November 20, 2019’,
CPOIB available at: https://equitablegrowth.org/ok-boomer-how-millennials-have-been-left-
behind-in-the-recovery-from-the-great-recession/
17,2
Baldwin, R. and Weder di Mauro, B. (2020), Mitigating the COVID Economic Crisis: act Fast and Do
Whatever It Takes, CEPR Press VoxEU.org eBook.
Bapuji, H. Patel, C. Ertug, G. and Allen, D.G. (2020), “Corona crisis and inequality: Why management
research needs a societal turn”.
204 Bartik, A.W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z.B., Glaeser, E.L., Luca, M. and Stanton, C.T. (2020), How are small
businesses adjusting to covid-19? Early evidence from a survey (No. w26989), National Bureau
of Economic Research.
Barua, S. (2020), “Understanding coronanomics: the economic implications of the coronavirus (COVID-
19) pandemic”, SSRN Electronic Journal, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3566477.
Bauman, Z. (2013), Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, John Wiley and Sons.
Bauman, Z. (2010), “Privacy, secrecy, intimacy, human bonds, utopia – and other collateral casualties of
liquid modernity”, Modern Privacy, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 7-22.
Beech, N. and Anseel, F. (2020), “COVID-19 and its impact on management research and education:
threats, opportunities, and a manifesto”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 918.
Beine, M. Bertoli, S. Chen, S. D’Ambrosio, C. Docquier, F. Dupuy, A. . . . Koulovatianos, C. (2020),
“Economic effects of covid-19 in Luxembourg”.
Bieber, F. (2020), “Global nationalism in times of the COVID pandemic”, Nationalities Papers, 1-19.
Bofinger, P., Dullien, S., Felbermayr, G., Fuest, C., Hüther, M., Südekum, J. and Weder di Mauro, B.
(2020), “Economic implications of the corona crisis and economic policy measures”,
Wirtschaftsdienst, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 259-265.
Bown, C. (2020), “Covid-19 could bring down the trading system”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 28.
Broad, W.J. (2020), “A.I. Versus the coronavirus. The New York times, march 26”, available at: www.
nytimes.com/2020/03/26/science/ai-versus-the-coronavirus.html
Budhwar, P. and Cumming, D. (2020), “New directions in management research and
communication: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, p. 441.
Buysse, V. and Wesley, P.W. (2006), “Evidence-based practice: how did it emerge and what does it
mean for the early childhood field?”, Zero to Three (J), Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 50-55.
Caligiuri, P., De Cieri, H., Minbaeva, D., Verbeke, A. and Zimmermann, A. (2020), “International HRM
insights for navigating the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for future research and practice”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 1.
Campbell, A.M. (2020), “An increasing risk of family violence during the Covid-19 pandemic:
Strengthening community collaborations to save lives”, Forensic Science International: Reports,
Vol. 100089.
Canilang, S., Duchan, C., Kreiss, K., Larrimore, J., Merry, E., Troland, E. and Zabek, M. (2020), Report on
Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2019, Featuring Supplemental Data from April 2020,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Carnevale, J.B. and Hatak, I. (2020), “Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19:
implications for human resource management”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116.
Carracedo, P., Medina, R.P. and Selva, M.L.M. (2020), “Research lines on the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on business. A text mining analysis”, Journal of Business Research.
Castells, M. (1996), “The rise of the network society”, Volume I, The Information Age: Economy. Society
and Culture, Oxford, Blackwell.
Chen, Z. (2020), “COVID-19: a revelation – a reply to Ian Mitroff”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 156, p. 120072.
Choi, J. Penciakova, V. and Saffie, F. (2020), “Political connections, allocation of stimulus spending, and Covid-19
the fiscal multiplier”.
pandemic
Corak, M. (2020), “Covid-19 is not the great leveler, it’s the great revealer. Economics for public policy.
April 13, 2020”, available at: https://milescorak.com/2020/04/13/covid-19-is-not-the-great-
leveller-its-the-great-revealer/ (accessed 2 May 2020).
Cowling, M., Brown, R. and Rocha, A. (2020), “<? Covid19?> did you save some cash for a rainy
COVID-19 day? The crisis and SMEs”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 38 No. 7,
pp. 593-604. 205
Diamond, L. (2020), “America’s Covid-19 disaster is a setback for democracy, the Atlantic, April 16,
2020”, available at: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americas-covid-19-disaster-
setback-democracy/610102/ (accessed 25 April 2020).
Diamond, P. (Ed.) (2018), The Crisis of Globalization: Democracy, Capitalism, and Inequality in the
Twenty-First Century, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Donthu, N. and Gustafsson, A. (2020), “Effects of COVID-19 on business and research”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 117, p. 284.
Economist, T. (2020a), “A pandemic of power grabs: autocrats see opportunity in disaster. April 23,
2020”, available at: www.economist.com/leaders/2020/04/23/autocrats-see-opportunity-in-
disaster. (accessed 29 April 29 2020).
Economist, T. (2020b), “The politics of pandemics”, March 12, 2020, available at: www.economist.com/
leaders/2020/03/12/the-politics-of-pandemics. (accessed 26 April 2020).
Economist, T. (2020c), “April 4, 2020, edition, bailouts are inevitable – and toxic”, available at: www.
economist.com/leaders/2020/04/04/bail-outs-are-inevitable-and-toxic (accessed 16 April 2020).
Economist, T. (2020d), “March 26, 2020, edition the state in the time of Covid-19”, available at: www.
economist.com/leaders/2020/03/26/the-state-in-the-time-of-covid-19 (accessed 10 April 2020).
Economist, T. (2020e), “March 26, 2020, edition, America’s emergency stimulus is imperfect but
necessary”, available at: www.economist.com/leaders/2020/03/26/americas-emergency-stimulus-
is-imperfect-but-necessary (accessed 10 April 2020).
Economist, T. (2020f), “March 26, 2020, edition, rich countries try radical economic policies to counter
covid-19”, available at: www.economist.com/briefing/2020/03/26/rich-countries-try-radical-
economic-policies-to-counter-covid-19 (accessed 17 April 2020).
Economist, T. (2020g), “April 23, 2020, edition the pandemic will leave the rich world deep in debt, and
force some hard choices”, available at: www.economist.com/briefing/2020/04/23/the-pandemic-
will-leave-the-rich-world-deep-in-debt-and-force-some-hard-choices (accessed 25 April 2020).
Economist, T. (2020i), “The pandemic shock will make big, powerful firms even mightier March 26,
2020 edition”, available at: www.economist.com/business/2020/03/26/the-pandemic-shock-will-
make-big-powerful-firms-even-mightier (accessed 25 April 2020).
Economist, T. (2020j), “May 2, 2020, edition big tech is thriving amid the recession”, available at: www.
economist.com/leaders/2020/05/02/big-tech-is-thriving-in-the-midst-of-the-recession (accessed 5
May 2020).
Economist, T. (2020k), “April 4, 2020, edition big tech’s Covid-19 opportunity”, available at: www.
economist.com/leaders/2020/04/04/big-techs-covid-19-opportunity (accessed 5 April 2020).
Economist, T. (2020n), “May 14, 2020, edition has Covid-19 killed globalization?”, available at:
www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/14/has-covid-19-killed-globalisation (accessed on
May 19, 2020).
Ehrmann, M. Jaroci
nski, M. Nickel, C. Osbat, C. and Sokol, A. (2020), “Inflation in a changing economic
environment”.
Eichengreen, B. (2011), Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the
International Monetary System, Oxford University Press.
CPOIB Elgin, C., Basbug, G. and Yalaman, A. (2020), “Economic policy responses to a pandemic: developing
the COVID-19 economic stimulus index”, Covid Economics, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 40-53.
17,2
Erwin, E.J., Brotherson, M.J. and Summers, J.A. (2011), “Understanding qualitative metasynthesis:
issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research”, Journal of Early Intervention,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 186-200.
Eyles, A., Gibbons, S. and Montebruno, P. (2020), covid-19 school shutdowns: what will they do to our
children’s education? (No. cepcovid-19-001). Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
206
Fairlie, R.W. (2020), The impact of Covid-19 on small business owners: evidence of early-stage losses
from the April 2020 current population survey (No. w27309). National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Federal Reserve Board (2020), “Federal reserve announces extensive new measures to support the
economy”, March 29”, available at: www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/
monetary20200323b.htm
Fornaro, L. and Wolf, M. (2020), “Covid-19 coronavirus and macroeconomic policy”,
Giangreco, M.F. and Taylor, S.J. (2003), “‘Scientifically based research’ and qualitative inquiry”,
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 133-137.
Giddens, A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.
Guerrieri, V., Lorenzoni, G., Straub, L. and Werning, I. (2020), Macroeconomic implications of Covid-19:
Can Negative Supply Shocks Cause Demand Shortages? (No. w26918), National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Hancox-Li, L. (2020), “Robustness in machine learning explanations: does it matter?”, Proceedings of the
2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 640-647.
Harvey, D. (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Holland, K. (2020), “ABC news, authoritarian governments crackdown on press freedoms amid covid-
19 pandemic”, available at: https://abcnews.go.com/International/authoritarian-governments-
crack-press-freedoms-amid-covid-19/story?id=70374659 (accessed 10 May 2020).
Hollister, M. (2020), A.I. can Help with the Covid-19 Crisis – But the Right Human Input is Key, World
Economic Forum, March 30.
Huebener, P., O’Brien, S., Porter, T., Stockdale, L. and Zhou, Y.R. (2016), “Exploring the intersection of
time and globalization”, Globalizations, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 243-255.
IBM Reports (2020), “IBM institute for business value, in collaboration with SurveyMonkey”, Series of
weekly pulse surveys of U.S. consumers and employees. March-April 2020.
ILO (2020), “Covid-19 and the world of work: Impact and policy responses”, International Labor Organization
Note. Version: March 18, 2020, available at: www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/–-dgreports/–-dcomm/
docu-ments/briefingnote/wcms_738753.pdf
International Food Policy Research Institute (2020), “How much will poverty increase because of Covid-
19?”, available at: www.ifpri.org/blog/how-much-willglobal-poverty-increase-because-covid-19.
(Accessed May 2, 2020).
JCT – Joint Committee on Taxation (2020), “Estimated revenue effects of the revenue provisions
contained in an amendment like a substitute to H.R. 748”, The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, And
Economic Security (‘CARES’), April.
Jorda, O., Singh, S.R. and Taylor, A.M. (2020), Longer-run economic consequences of pandemics (No.
w26934), National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kantor, J. (2014), “Working anything but 9 to 5. New York times, August 13, 2016”, available at:
nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-workers-scheduling-hours.html
Kavanagh, M. (2020), “Transparency and testing work better than coercion in coronavirus battle”,
available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/16/coronavirus-what-works-transparency-testing-
coercion/ (accessed 26 April 2020).
Keegan, M. (2019), “Big brother is watching: Chinese city with 2.6m cameras is the world’s most heavily Covid-19
surveilled the guardian (2019)”, available at: www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/dec/02/big-brother-is-
watching-chinese-city-with-26m-cameras-is-worlds-most-heavily-surveilled/ (accessed 20 April 2020). pandemic
Khanna, P. and Francis, D. (2016), “These 25 companies are more powerful than many countries”,
Foreign Policy, p. 15.
Khemani, S. (2020), “An opportunity to build legitimacy and trust in public institutions in the time of
COVID-19”.
Krishnamurthy, S. (2020), “The future of business education: a commentary in the shadow of the Covid-
207
19 pandemic”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117.
Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C.A.M., Prochotta, A., . . . Berger, E.S. (2020),
“Startups in times of crisis – a rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic”, Journal of Business
Venturing Insights, Vol. 13, p. e00169.
Kummitha, R.K.R. (2020), “Smart technologies for fighting pandemics: the techno-and human-driven
approaches in controlling the virus transmission”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 37
No. 3, p. 101481.
Laborde, D., Martin, W. and Vos, R. (2020), Poverty and Food Insecurity Could Grow Dramatically as
COVID-19 Spreads, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
Lee, A. and Cho, J. (2016), “The impact of epidemics on the labor market: identifying victims of the
Middle east respiratory syndrome in the Korean labor market”, International Journal for Equity
in Health, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 196.
Lemieux, T., Milligan, K., Schirle, T. and Skuterud, M. (2020), “Initial impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic on the Canadian labour market”, Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 46, pp. S55-S65.
Littrell, J., Brooks, F., Ivery, J. and Ohmer, M.L. (2010), “Why you should care about the threatened
middle class”, J. Soc. and Soc. Welfare, Vol. 37, p. 87.
Murshed, S.M. (2020), “Capitalism and COVID-19: crisis at the crossroads”, Peace Economics, Peace
Science and Public Policy, Vol. 26 No. 3.
Naudé, W. (2020), “Artificial intelligence against COVID-19: an early review”.
Obstfeld, M. and Posen, A.S. (2020), “How the G20 can hasten recovery from COVID-19”.
Oke, N. (2009), “Globalizing time and space: temporal and spatial considerations in discourses of
globalization”, International Political Sociology, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 310-326.
O’Sullivan, M. (2019), Leveling: What’s Next after Globalization, Public Affairs, London.
Parker, L.D. (2020), “The COVID-19 office in transition: cost, efficiency and the social responsibility
business case”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 8.
Piketty, T. and Saez, E. (2003), “Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998”, The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 1-41.
Politico Magazine (2020), “Coronavirus will change the world permanently. here ‘show’”, available at:
www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/19/coronavirus-effect-economy-life-society-analysis-
covid-135579
Reich, R. (2008), “Supercapitalism. The transformation of business, democracy and everyday life”,
Society and Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 3.
Riain, S.Ó. (2006), “Time-space intensification: Karl Polanyi, the double movement, and global
informational capitalism”, Theory and Society, Vol. 35 Nos 5/6, pp. 507-528.
Roth, K. (2020), “Authoritarian leaders use Covid-19 to consolidate power and silence critics to advance
their political and economic agendas, human rights watch, published on April 8, 2020”, available
at: www.business-humanrights.org/en/authoritarian-leaders-use-covid-19-to-consolidate-power-
silence-critics-to-advance-their-political-economic-agendas (accessed 2 May 2020).
Ruggie, J.G. (2018), “Multinationals as a global institution: power, authority, and relative autonomy”,
Regulation and Governance, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 317-333.
CPOIB Sandelowski, M. and Barroso, J. (2003), “Classifying the findings in qualitative studies”, Qualitative
Health Research, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 905-923.
17,2
Sheth, J. (2020), “Impact of covid-19 on consumer behavior: will the old habits return or die?”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 280-283, doi: 10.1016/j. jbusres.2020.05.059.
Stiglitz, J.E. (2012), The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future, WW
Norton and Company.
208 The Financial Times (2020a), “Hong Kong offers cash handouts to ease coronavirus impact”,
available at: www.com/content/e170894c-5866-11ea-a528-dd0f971febbc (accessed 28
February 2020).
The Financial Times (2020b), “Is it time to declare the end of globalization?”, available at: www.ft.com/
content/70bc7566-9bf2-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb (accessed May 18, 2020).
The Financial Times (2020c), “London MAY 9 2020 few precedents for grim U.S. jobless numbers”,
available at: www.ft.com/content/e2833ccb-b9ae-48dc-9c0a-a58b7182d8d3 (accessed 18 May
2020).
The New York Times (2020), “For autocrats, and others, coronavirus is a chance to grab even more
power”, available at: www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/world/europe/coronavirus-governments-
power.html (accessed, 3 May 2020).
The World Bank (2020), “Year in review”, available at: www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/12/
20/year-in-review-2019-in-charts (Accessed 3 March 2020).
Torero, M. (2020), “Without food, there can be no exit from the pandemic”.
UNCTAD (2019), “The coronavirus shock: a story of another global crisis foretold and what
policymakers should be doing about it”.
UNCTAD (2020), “Briefing note: the economic impacts of Covid-19 and gender inequality,
recommendations for policymakers”, available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/
resources/PNUD_GENERO_COVID19__ENG_FINAL_3.pdf
Van Assche, A. and Lundan, S. (2020), “From the editor: COVID-19 and international business
policy”.
Van Barneveld, K., Quinlan, M., Kriesler, P., Junor, A., Baum, F., Chowdhury, A., . . . Friel, S. (2020),
“The COVID-19 pandemic: lessons on building more equal and sustainable societies”, The
Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 133-157.
Van Bommel, E. Edelman, D. and Ungerman, K. (2014), “Digitizing the consumer decision journey”,
McKinsey Quarterly, (June).
Verbeke, A. (2020), “Will the COVID-19 pandemic really change the governance of global value
chains?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 444-446.
Verma, S. and Gustafsson, A. (2020), “Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field
of business and management: a bibliometric analysis approach”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 118, pp. 253-261.
Waddoups, C.J. (2016), “Did employers in the United States back away from skills training during the
early 2000s?”, ILR Review, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 405-434.
Wang, Z. and Tang, K. (2020), “Combating covid-19: health equity matters”, Nature Medicine, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 458-458.
Wang, Y., Hong, A., Li, X. and Gao, J. (2020), “Marketing innovations during a global crisis: a study of
China firms’ response to COVID-19”, Journal of Business Research., Vol. 116.
Wheelwright, G. (2016), “What is the big tech companies lobbying for this election?”, The Guardian
Website, available at: https://theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/26/tech-news-lobby-
election-taxes-tpp-national-security
World Food Program (2020), available at: www.wfp.org/news/covid-19-will-double-number-people-
facing-food-crises-unless-swift-action-taken (accessed 10 May 2020).
Yeganeh, H. (2019), “A critical examination of the social impacts of large multinational corporations in Covid-19
the age of globalization”, Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 3 No. 16,
pp. 193-208. pandemic
Zahra, S.A. (2020), “International entrepreneurship in the post Covid world”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 56 No. 1, p. 101143.

Further reading
Harvey, D. (2012), “From space to place and back again: reflections on the condition of postmodernity”,
209
Mapping the Futures, Routledge, pp. 17-44.

About the author

Hamid Yeganeh is a Professor of International Management at Winona State University in
Minnesota. His research focuses on international business and cross-cultural management. His
research has appeared in various journals such as Journal of International Management (JIM),
International Journal of Human Resource Management, International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, International Journal of Conflict Management, Critical Perspectives on International
Business, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, International Journal of Commerce and Management, European Business Review, Personnel
Review, Cross Cultural Management: an International Journal, International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy, The Journal of East-West Business, Competitiveness Review: An International Business
Journal, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Society and Business Review, Gender in
Management: An International Journal, International Journal of Development Issues and Journal of
Strategy and Management. Hamid Yeganeh can be contacted at: hyeganeh@winona.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com