• Publicationsclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2013-2022close
• CH close
• English close
• LSE Research Online close
• COVID-19 close

Systematic and persistent discrimination against Indigenous Peoples translates into differential health outcomes when analysed through ethnicity and/or mother tongue.1 In Peru, morbidity and mortality rates among Indigenous Peoples for COVID-19 appear to confirm this.2 The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the historical structural violence against Indigenous Peoples that currently takes a disproportionate toll in the Peruvian Amazon. This equally applies to Indigenous Andean Peoples and Afro Peruvians. Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation and those in initial contact are at highest health risk in this pandemic as they have no previous immunity against common infectious diseases, and lack access to public healthcare services. The Peruvian government introduced a state of emergency early on, but it did not work as theoretically expected because of the deeply rooted inequalities in Peru. Public policies focused on reducing health inequities affecting Indigenous Peoples in peri-urban Amazonian contexts are urgently needed.3 Essentially, Indigenous Peoples (through their legitimate representatives) ought to be incorporated in the planning, monitoring, implementation and evaluation of those public policies to ensure sustainability, equity and inclusion in the short, medium and long run. It is also urgently necessary to rethink Peru’s health system to ensure it has an intercultural approach, designed for and with Indigenous Peoples in terms of prevention, treatment and access during and beyond the pandemic. An intercultural approach to healthcare implies that health services not only respects indigenous medical practices but promotes and enables joint and complementary interactions between biomedical and indigenous medical approaches to prevent and treat healthcare problems.4 In the last 15 years, Peru has produced more than 10 official documents on intercultural health, but very little of this has turned into practice. The problem is not the lack of an approach, as such, but the incapacity to turn it into practice. Transforming the current …

Revised August 2020. Global value chains are highly fragmented across countries and dominated by a few large multinational firms. But the challenges of an increasingly difficult international business environment are raising the question of how these patterns will change. I study the role of international Just-in-Time (JIT) supply chains in how global production is organized and what the future may hold. Using survey and administrative data for a large panel of French manufacturers, I first document that JIT is widespread across all industries and accounts for roughly two thirds of aggregate employment and trade. Next, I establish two novel stylized facts about the structure of international JIT supply chains: (1) They are more concentrated in space and (2) more vertically integrated than their ‘traditional’ counterparts. I rationalize these patterns in a framework of sequential production where failure to coordinate adaptation decisions in an uncertain environment leads to inventory holding. In JIT supply chains, information about downstream demand conditions is relayed upstream, which facilitates coordination. The associated inventory saving effect is stronger when firms are close to each other, so that the supply chain reacts quickly to changes in demand. This also applies when they are part of the same company and incentives for adaptation are aligned. I validate this model by supporting empirical evidence for further predictions and discuss potential long term implications of Brexit and COVID-19 for the structure of international supply chains.

Less economic integration would make it difficult for the ECB to stabilise the euro area economies. Symmetric monetary policy cannot do anything about this and individual countries would need to use fiscal policy tools.

Non-technical summary Many countries are committed to emerge from COVID 19 on a more sustainable environmental footing. Here we explore what such a structurally transformative recovery would mean for the manufacturing sector of 14 major economies. We find that all countries have zero-carbon growth opportunities post-COVID and comparative advantages in some sectors, but industrialised countries and the East Asian economies, especially South Korea, appear best positioned, thanks a push in low-carbon innovation that predates the pandemic.