An interesting note about this assignment was that it was an exam submission and I was in such a rush that I forgot to give it a title back then. I just gave the title now. Do not plagiarise. This is a graded submission. The prompt I chose to answer was:
What does the COVID-19 pandemic reveal about structural inequality,
underdevelopment and neoliberalism? Critically discuss this statement with
examples.
The new additions from the original submission are the sub-headings I have introduced and the picture of the Russian dolls.
Introduction
On 30th January 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Director General declared a novel coronavirus named COVID-19 had emerged in the People’s Republic of China and declared that the outbreak had been classified as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) (World Health Organization, 2020). Within a space of 3 weeks when the first cases were mainly detected in China, the number of infections had risen to over 4,600(Spinelli and Pellino, 2020). By 11th March 2020, an update by the WHO (2020) announced the COVID-19 outbreak as a “pandemic health menace”. On the same day, the WHO Situation Report (2020) recorded over 100,000 cases of infection and death cases exceeding 4,200 from 114 countries. Since then, the pandemic has spread across 220 countries infecting over 50 million people and claiming the lives of more than 1.2 million(Hu et al., 2020). In the wake of the debilitating effects of the virus on human health, many nations declared lockdowns amid other strategies to slow down human movement and interactions- as many as 200 countries were reported to have restricted movement (Business Insider, 2020). This short-term approach to manage the virus had its effects including, pushing 1.6 billion vulnerable workers into deplorable living conditions, exacerbating already weak emergency response systems in healthcare settings across several countries and highlighting the stark inequities of the global trade system (Lenzen et al., 2020; Sparke and Williams, 2021; Das et al., 2022). These described effects shall be discussed further in this paper as critics are of the view that the pandemic revealed pre-existing structural inequalities associated with a highly “neoliberalistic” global economic setting that worsened with the advent of Covid-19 (Šumonja, 2020a; Sparke and Williams, 2021).
This essay shall explore this position further by first briefly defining neoliberalism. Secondly, this essay shall then critically discuss how Covid-19 revealed underdevelopment in the repatriation efforts of the marginalized groups of Filipino seafarers who were severely displaced during the pandemic. Thirdly, this essay shall briefly examine how global finance ‘actor’, the International Monetary Fund contributed to weakened health systems of several nations which set a precedent for what has been described as more deaths and hunger during the pandemic. Lastly, this essay shall examine the emergency response structures in selected Global North countries such as the UK, US and South Korea as well as the emergency response within Africa (Global South). In concluding, this essay shall reveal that much of the response to the pandemic by promoters of neoliberalism has enabled more market driven solutions which are further compounding the effects of COVID-19 on the global community. At its core, neoliberalism professes individualism (Hayek, 1944) and competition as the truest form of liberty for the advancement of economic progress (Friedman, 1962). The advancement of this form of “corporate capitalism” (Adams, 2020) and prioritization of ‘monetarism’ (Flew, 2014) can be likened to ‘economic Darwinism’(Giroux, 2010)which “undermines most forms of solidarity while promoting the logic of unchecked competition and unbridled individualism” (Giroux, 2010, p. 1). Similar to how Nkrumah (1965) puts it, “neo-colonialism [can be assuaged as] the worst form of imperialism” (p. xi), “…where the only people that benefit…from the …economic regime….[are most often] the elite, [a select few]” (Hickel, 2017, p. 110). The effect of the ‘unchecked competition and unbridled individualism’ at the expense of the welfare state can be seen more in the effect of the global emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Adams and Klein, William and Sparke).
The plight of Filipino seafarers during the pandemic
A UN SDGs report indicated that the global progress made on hunger, poverty and improved livelihoods in the last 15 years has been largely eroded by the pandemic(UN DESA, 2021). Vulnerable and marginalized groups experienced more economic difficulty with the onset of the pandemic particularly migrant workers who may earn daily wages, are racially disadvantaged and from nations that have less economic and political strength such as the numerous Filipino seafarers that staff much of the trading ships that move goods across the world(Liao, 2020). The Philippines supplies 25% of the global maritime workforce, playing a crucial role in the shipping industry — much of their workforce are seafarers on merchant and cruise ships (Izumi et al., 2020). During the pandemic, Punay (2020) notes that of 56,000 overseas Filipino workers repatriated from February to June 2020, over 31,000 consisted of sea farers. An estimated 400,000 more were stuck on cruise and merchant ships they worked for during a count in October 2020 (de Beukelaer, 2021).
Crisis response with regards to migration governance has been recognized by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration as an array of ‘policies, institutions and practices that shape state approaches to migration’ (IOM, 2019) especially with regards to ‘emergency response’ (Hendow, 2018).
And although there are existing frameworks and protocols in place, the pandemic presented the unique situation whereby repatriation services usually available to migrant workers such as employment service provision, embassy assistance from their home country or assistance from non-profit organisations or from their welfare organization, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) were unavailable (Liao, 2020). This was largely due to the heavy restrictions on movement within their host countries which were struggling to enforce ‘appropriate’ protocols in managing Covid-19. As one journalist reporting on matter described it, ‘in the response to COVID-19, the Filipino seafarers were at the bottom of the priority list’(DW Planet A, 2021). Furthermore, many stranded seafarers were not included in initial vaccination rollouts extending their isolation on docked ships by as much as 5 additional months (UNCTAD, 2021).
(Liao, 2020) argues that the ‘uneven approach of’ the Filipino government in developing ‘a comprehensive system of labour export, but a less coordinated repatriation system and a less fortified reintegration policy’ was to blame for the stranded seafarers (p. 5). This position indicates that the responsibility of repatriation lies solely with the country of the seafarers. However, the Filipino government has developed welfare assistance in their labour migrations although largely for diplomatic and high tiered blue and white collared foreign positions. Moreover, such reasoning absolves other stakeholders such as employers and regulating bodies such as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and their contributing roles. In addition, complex maritime laws such as the ‘flags of convenience’ that favour private entities in the shipping industries have been identified to complicate the effective management of repatriation efforts(ITF, 2018). It is also worthwhile noting that although there are global rules governing the seas, there is very little enforcement (UNCTAD, 2021).
Nevertheless, it was largely the efforts of the Filipino government that saw the return of seafarer migrants after a year. This is because it is largely argued that large migrant export model of nations such as the Philippines are recognized as a means of economic income as migrant workers send $6 billion worth of remittances home yearly which comprises 10% of national GDP (Izumi et al., 2020). This implies that the onus to protect their own economic income ultimately lies on the Filipino government.
Although ITF, the welfare organisation which includes seafarers wields considerable influence over the labour protection interests of its members, Liao (2020) acknowledges that large scale repatriation is difficult due to limited resources and comparatively limited diplomatic influence — even by nations such as the Filipino government. Interestingly, countries with more economic and political influence were able to repatriate their staff more quickly (Punay, 2020), aggravating the frustration of the Filipino seafarers. There have been calls on more equitable approaches to repatriation to be carried out by the IMO. However not much has been done regarding this proposition prompting the WHO, ILO and global transport associations to implement an action group in efforts to protect workers’ rights and ease supply chain congestion, roles the IMO is mandated to carry out(ITF, 2021). The IMO joined later on, its perceived lagged response suggestive that its interests are mainly concerning the supply of labour but sparse concerning labour protection.
At the moment, although there is no definite and encompassing international labour law protecting migrants under emergency conditions such as pandemics by the IMO — there is an agreement between the ITF and International Maritime Employers’ Committee (IMEC)(Lillie, 2004) but it is largely limited to the bargaining of the provision of the maritime workforce. The responsibility of addressing repatriation has been recognised to ultimately lie with the IMO. Even so, the IMO may be challenged in delivering its mandate as its current structure is perceived to be dominated by ‘free market’ ideologies(DW Planet A, 2021) and manoeuvring a ‘delicate geo-political terrain’ of its influential member states. Representation at the IMO is through the ministers of transport of its member nations who are naturally tasked with promoting economic interests of their countries. Global South nations such as the Philippines have considerably less negotiation influence, a factor which may have contributed to its struggle in accelerating repatriation of its seafarers(Liao, 2020). In addition, businesses consist of a third of representatives at the IMO. This means shipping corporations that have political and socio-economic influence may tend to shape decision making through lobbying to promote policies that are less favourable for other stakeholders such as funding emergency reliefs for repatriation of seafarers.
A critical review of IMF’s contribution to debilitating healthcare systems
Concerning the role of global economic actors such as the IMF, it is strongly perceived that the IMF influenced a healthcare crisis of several developing countries that set a precedent for disastrous results with the removal of social ‘nets’ within the healthcare sector. A report by Action Aid International (2020) revealed that 57 countries identified by the WHO as facing healthcare shortages were influenced by the IMF to contain ‘wage bills’, meaning reduce public sector wages largely through budget cuts or layoffs. Iturralde (2021) does highlight that although the ‘IMF was careful not to explicitly condition its … loan programme on cuts in social spending’ however it essentially provided its expectations with regards to loan repayment, attaching strict sanctions to its loans. It has been identified that almost every single low-income country, (17 out of 18 countries) that took these loans and suggestions on social spending cuts has been identified by WHO as having nurse-to-population below its recommended 30 per 10,000(Action Aid International, 2020).
An example of a low-income country that took the advice of the IMF and now struggles with maintaining an efficient healthcare system is Ecuador. Iturralde (2021) posits that the healthcare system could have been better prepared for the pandemic leading to fewer deaths had Ecuador not accepted fiscal austerity propositions by the IMF for six years running. Two years leading up to 2019, the Ecuadorian government reduced its investment into healthcare by 64% in order to adequately meet its loan repayment of $17.4 billion to the IMF and its private creditors. During this time, Ecuador was already ranked one of the worst in the world (85th) and yet still in 2021 it has fallen lower on the rankings (89th position) (Tandon et al., 2021).
There is further evidence suggesting the IMF promoted emergency response strategies that further deepened structural inequities and further undercut nations like Ecuador that were underdeveloped in their response and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a claim that it assisted Ecuador with increased spending on public healthcare services in response to COVID-19, the emergency financing loan IMF approved required further ‘fiscal consolidation’ that resulted in 11,820 healthcare workers being fired during the pandemic and concurrently another budget cut to health spending of $217 million in May 2021 (Iturralde, 2020).
Unable to support and respond adequately to the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths, the government quickly launched a temporary emergency assistance program with support from the military that quickly became overwhelmed (Allison Corkery et al., 2020). Reports of hospitals inundated with patients and long queues to bury bodies at cemeteries resulted in bodies being discarded within streets. This created unsanitary conditions as ’liquid flowed from’ some of the abandoned bodies. At the peak of the pandemic in June, there were reports of 300 bodies discarded daily in densely populated and low-income areas such as Guayaqil where access to running water to wash hands ‘is a luxury’ (Natalie Gallon, 2020). It is no surprise (Amnesty International, 2020) reports that Ecuador ranked 8th place among countries that had an increase in healthcare workers contracting and dying of COVID-19.
However, despite criticisms on the IMF’s approach in assisting Ecuador, there is little debt relief as tax reform and elimination of fuel subsidies were being considered by the Ecuadorian government in July 2020(Iturralde, 2020). Moreso, the challenges of debt restructuring, further health budget cuts and associated cases of increased numbers of COVID-19 related deaths are not unique to Ecuador (Stubbs et al., 2016). There is the argument that the promise of austerity cannot be done away with completely as the motivations that fuel its continued use have been suggested by analysts as deeply entrenched to oppose (Nkrumah, 1965; Hickel, 2017; Šumonja, 2020b). (Peck, 2010) describes the overriding nature of neoliberalistic agendas in public governance as a ‘zombie neoliberalism’ as it is preferred almost ‘by default’.
The neoliberalist role and woe on the healthcare systems in developed countries.
A vivid example is in evaluating the preparedness of Global North nations for crisis and the pandemic. Jones and Hameiri (2021) highlight how Britain documented strategies to manage a pandemic ‘on paper’ by setting out general directives and absolving regulatory agencies of responsibility by ‘devolving all key operational decisions to others….[who are] local organisations…emergency planners…comprising local authorities and healthcare services’(p. 6).
In the USA, healthcare response was similarly fragmented as “each state, city, county and medical institution decided on its own what and how to implement security guidelines” (Adams, 2020). What became apparent quickly was that “all had virtually no way to enforce any of these recommendations”. This was due to a lack of coordination and structure creating efforts that were often conflicting in operation and management (Adams, 2020; Jones and Hameiri, 2021)
Despite the responsibility placed on grassroot levels of healthcare within Britain and USA that failed, this approached was described as successful elsewhere. In Africa, health care responses have been strengthened over the previous years by frequent health care crisis such as ebola, cholera, malaria(McMahonid et al., 2020). A WHO report suggests that there was comparatively better cross-continent coordination and collaboration at national and local levels(The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness, 2021). Evidence of this reflected in simultaneous pronouncement of lockdowns across African states and within selected areas as well. This situation avoided what occurred in several parts of Europe as people tried to move way from infected areas(Spinelli and Pellino, 2020).
Moreover, Jones and Hameiri (2020) indicate there is a gradual reduction in funds in public healthcare systems within the UK ‘entailing serious service-level deterioration’ similarly described in Ecuador’s case. Likewise, the USA has been decreasing public healthcare spending since 2000, resulting in what has been described as ‘health departments … battling 21st-century health threats with 20th century resources’ (Trust For America’s Health, 2021) The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness (2021) also makes a case that the USA and UK delayed in its initial response to the pandemic suggestive that there was preference for ‘a wait and see what happens’ in order to delay travel restrictions as much as possible(House of Commons, 2021).
On the other hand, South Korea is described to have adopted swift emergency response and more importantly state regulatory approach in its emergency response management, applauded as exemplary example to the derision of neoliberal promoters(The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness, 2021; Jones and Hameiri, 2021). With 52 million people, Korea as of November 2021 reported 2709 deaths (1 death per 20,000 people) while the USA reported 732,000 deaths among 329 million people (1 death per 450 people)(Robinson, 2021)
In America, the promotion of healthcare provision through privatized providers and insurance propped by legislation, worsened the plight of infected patients requiring further intensive care (Maani and Galea, 2020). An estimated 46,000 people faced ‘exorbitant’ healthcare bills. In the words of Adams (2020), ‘who pays for the cost of COVID-19’ becomes apparent as he notes that as much as 40% of the stimulus checks by the government were used to pay off debt(NBER, 2020).
Within this discussion, COVID-19 has been in exacerbating pre-existing neoliberalistic structural inequities and underdevelopment has been argued and evidenced.
It has been discovered that promoters of capitalism are pushing more open market policies as a response to COVID-19 despite evidence from the WHO global report indicating such a unitary approach may not be enough to stop the pandemic or alleviate it’s effects (The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness, 2021).
In the case of the Filipino migrant seafarers, they were repatriated after over a year of being restricted on docked ships around the world, as their government struggled to exert much influence to hasten their repatriation. It remains to be seen if any official legislation regarding such labour protection and repatriation of migrants in specific conditions such as a pandemic will be proposed.
Concerning IMF, after proving the evidence their economic propositions decimated healthcare systems in the Global South and in the case of Ecuador, their emergency response strategy to COVID-19 was short-lived, there has been evidence of more efforts by the IMF in removing social nets outside Ecuador.
It can be concluded that the failure of diffuse healthcare management in Britain and the USA were not singularly related to incoordination but by systematic defunding for local government spending as well as preference for a largely privatised healthcare system in the case of the USA that had finances cut annually.
References
Action Aid International 2020. Covid-19 crisis: IMF told countries facing critical health worker shortages to cut public sector wages. Who cares for the Future: Finance Gender-responsive Public Services. [Online]. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://actionaid.org/news/2020/covid-19-crisis-imf-told-countriesfacing-critical-health-worker-shortages-cut-public.
Adams, V. 2020. Disasters and capitalism…and COVID-19. | Somatosphere. Online blog. [Online]. [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Available from: http://somatosphere.net/2020/disaster-capitalism-covid19.html/.
Allison Corkery, Andrés Chiriboga-Tejada, Jayati Ghosh, Demba Moussa and Adrian Falco 2020. Austerity is killing Ecuador. The IMF must help end this disaster. The Guardian. [Online]. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/29/ecuador-austerity-imfdisaster.
Amnesty International 2020. Global: Health workers silenced, exposed and attacked. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/health-workers-rights-covidreport/.
de Beukelaer, C. 2021. COVID-19 border closures cause humanitarian crew change crisis at sea. Marine Policy. 132, p.104661.
Business Insider 2020. A third of the global population is on coronavirus lockdown — here’s our constantly updated list of countries and restrictions . [Accessed 27 November 2021]. Available from: A third of the global population is on coronavirus lockdown — here’s our constantly updated list of countries and restrictions.
Das, K., Behera, R.L. and Paital, B. 2022. Socio-economic impact of COVID-19. COVID-19 in the Environment., pp.153–190.
DW Planet A 2021. The true cost of shipping everything [Online]. Germany: Youtube. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pyIdqfpuR0.
Flew, T. 2014. Six theories of neoliberalism: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0725513614535965. 122(1), pp.49–71.
Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Giroux, H.A. 2010. Public Values, Higher Education and the Scourge of Neoliberalism: Politics at the Limits of the Social. Culture Machine.
Hayek, F. 1944. The Road to Serfdom.
Hendow, M. 2018. When disaster strikes: Responding to migrants caught in crises. Migration Information Source. [Online]. [Accessed 12 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/when-disaster-strikes-respondingmigrants-caught-crises.
Hickel, J. 2017. The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and Its Solutions.
House of Commons 2021. Coronavirus: lessons learned to date [Online]. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: www.parliament.uk/hsccom.
Hu, Y., Sun, J., Dai, Z., Deng, H., Li, X., Huang, Q., Wu, Y., Sun, L. and Xu, Y. 2020. Prevalence and severity of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Virology. 127.
IOM 2019. Migration governance indicators: A global perspective [Online]. [Accessed 12 January 2022]. Available from: https://publications.iom.int/books/migrationgovernance-indicators-global-perspective.
ITF 2018. Flags of convenience. https://www.itfglobal.org/en/sector/seafarers/flags-ofconvenience.
ITF 2021. WHO and ILO form Action Group with global transport bodies to protect workers’ rights and ease supply chain congestion. International Transport Workers’ Federation.
Iturralde, P. 2020. The IMF’s role in the devastating impacts of Covid-19 — the case of Ecuador. Bretton Woods Project. [Online]. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2020/07/the-imfs-role-in-thedevastating-impacts-of-covid-19-the-case-of-ecuador/.
Izumi, C., Shinya, I. and Maragtas, S.V.A. 2020. Filipino seafarers: How the Philippines Emerged as the Largest Supplier of Seafarers in the World.[Online] [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.ide.go.jp/English/Research/Project/2018/2018240023.html.
Jebril, N.M.T. 2020. BIOREACTORE View project Mutagenesis View project. Article in International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation.
Jones, L. and Hameiri, S. 2021. COVID-19 and the failure of the neoliberal regulatory state. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2021.1892798.
Lenzen, M., Li, M., Malik, A., Pomponi, F., Sun, Y.Y., Wiedmann, T., Faturay, F., Fry, J., Gallego, B., Geschke, A., Gómez-Paredes, J., Kanemoto, K., Kenway, S., Nansai, K., Prokopenko, M., Wakiyama, T., Wang, Y. and Yousefzadeh, M. 2020. Global socio-economic losses and environmental gains from the coronavirus pandemic. PLoS ONE. 15(7 July).
Liao, K.A.S. 2020. Operation ‘Bring Them Home’: learning from the large-scale repatriation of overseas Filipino workers in times of crisis. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2020.1811511. 16(3), pp.310–330.
Lillie, N. 2004. Global Collective Bargaining on Flag of Convenience Shipping. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 42(1), pp.47–67.
Maani, N. and Galea, S. 2020. COVID-19 and Underinvestment in the Public Health Infrastructure of the United States. The Milbank Quarterly. 98(2), pp.250–259.
McMahonid, D.E., Peters, G.A., Iversid, L.C. and Freemanid, E.E. 2020. Global resource shortages during covid-19: Bad news for low-income countries. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 14(7), pp.1–3.
NBER 2020. Most Stimulus Payments Were Saved or Applied to Debt. National Bureau of Economic Research. [Online]. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct20/most-stimulus-payments-were-saved-or-applieddebt.
Nkrumah, K. 1965. Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism.
Peck, J. 2010. Zombie neoliberalism and the ambidextrous state. Theoretical Criminology. 14(1), pp.104–110.
Punay, E. 2020. DFA set to repatriate 37,000 more OFWs. The Philippine Star. [Online]. [Accessed 12 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/06/28/2024084/dfa-set-repatriate-37000- more-ofws.
Robinson, T. 2021. Autopsy of a Failed State: What South Korea’s Successful COVID Response Teaches Us About America’s Broken Politics Political Science. Lecture — CU Denver College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
Sparke, M. and Williams, O.D. 2021. Neoliberal disease: COVID-19, co-pathogenesis and global health insecurities: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X211048905. 54(1), pp.15–32.
Spinelli, A. and Pellino, G. 2020. COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives on an unfolding crisis. Oxford University Press Public Health Emergency Collection. 107(7), pp.785–787.
Stubbs, T., Kentikelenis, A., Stuckler, D., Mckee, M. and King, L. 2016. The impact of IMF conditionality on government health expenditure: A cross-national analysis of 16 West African nations. Social Science & Medicine.
Šumonja, M. 2020a. Neoliberalism is not dead — On political implications of Covid-19: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816820982381. 45(2), pp.215–227.
Šumonja, M. 2020b. Neoliberalism is not dead — On political implications of Covid-19: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816820982381. 45(2), pp.215–227.
Tandon, A., Murray, C.J., Lauer, J.A. and Evans, D.B. 2021. Measuring overall Health Systems Performance for 191 Countries.
The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness 2021. COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic [Online]. [Accessed 7 January 2022]. Available from: https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-Make-itthe-Last-Pandemic_final.pdf.
Trust For America’s Health 2021. The Impact of Chronic Underfunding on America’s Public Health System: Trends, Risks, and Recommendations. Webpage. [Online]. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.tfah.org/reportdetails/publichealthfunding2020/.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2021. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021.
UNCTAD 2021. Review of Maritime Transport 2021 [Online]. [Accessed 13 January 2022]. Available from: https://unctad.org/webflyer/review-maritime-transport-2021.
WHO 2020. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak webpage.
World Health Organization n.d. Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) [Online]. [Accessed 25 November 2021]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-public-health-emergency-ofinternational-concern-(pheic)-global-research-and-innovation-forum.
Grade: 68
Word count: 2,892
Instructors comments
Overall this is a good achievement at this level. You used the example of the Filipinos seafarers and the IMF to discuss what does the COVID-19 pandemic reveal about structural inequality, underdevelopment and neoliberalism. In the first example the link to neo-liberalism and structural inequality could have been explained more clearly. The arguments in the final (cross-country/ region comparison) could have been made stronger more convincingly. in terms of structure this could be stronger with titles and indications of transition from one section to the next. You should also include a cover page with your essays. Overall, this is a good essay that delivers a sound and advanced understanding of key ideas with evidence of a sufficient range of relevant reading. The essay question is fully answered with convincing use of sources to support points made. Sufficiently critical analysis and application of concepts and word choice and grammar are largely accurate. Citations and bibliography are complete.
My reflective comments
Honestly, I was overwhelmed and had spent so much time reading a lot of information and wondering how to filter out what I needed to effectively write down what was required. My method was to usually break down the question and have an essay structure that attempted to answer all the question’s prompts. What I would have done differently is to look for essay examples and find essays that explained further why neoliberalism was a challenge in the first place.
Also the insert about neocolonialism was unnecessary as the focus of this essay was neoliberalism. I believe if I had a better understanding of how deep neoliberalism was in the fabric of society, I could better explain the connection to structural inequality (through institutions) and underdevelopment. I could have included a diagram to depict my perception of the interactions between three (structural inequality, neoliberalism and underdevelopment) and covid. At the time, the only useful article I had come across was one written by my instructor on the intersection of covid, neoliberalism and global health systems. It was a really detailed piece. It is listed amongst the references under Sparke et al if you are interested.
Update: this great piece by Bernard Avle highlights the role of IMF in promoting neoliberalism: https://citinewsroom.com/2023/05/bernard-avle-writes-breaking-the-17-alternatives-to-imf-conditionalities-for-economic-development-in-ghana/