The charge that the Covid-19 outbreak will turn out to be China’s Chernobyl has been doing the rounds in recent weeks. Whether the charge ends up sticking will come down to a number of factors: how reliably the international scientific community is able to trace the origins of the virus, how open the Chinese authorities are to admitting their mistakes, and what the final tally of damage to lives and livelihoods across the world turns out to be. In this article, Christopher Lake and Adam Gold offer their own take on whether the parallels with Chernobyl hold good.
ShareIn the debates swirling around Covid-19, some see a trade-off between human life and the economy. We want to call time on this distinction. We think it is getting in the way of clear thinking about the pandemic and the choices it presents. But before we can drop the distinction, we need to understand what it is seeking to capture and the unease it is seeking to express. That is the purpose of this article.
ShareA great deal is currently being written and published about how to survive and even thrive during the current crisis. Important though these questions are, Christopher Lake and his co-author Adam Gold focus is on what will happen once the crisis is over. They examine what is going to become of the assumptions that have underpinned business and society in recent decades - concerning the relation between social value and reward, intergenerational justice, the psychological contract, and globalisation itself - in the months and years to come.