Democracies that failed the Covid test will struggle on climate change

Efforts to address both issues are hampered by externalities and behavioural biases

The second wave of the pandemic continues to gather pace in Europe and the United States, but the optimistic news about vaccines has trumped these worries in the minds of investors.

Because they see the global boost to economic activity from the vaccine as potentially larger than any loss of fiscal stimulus in 2021, the markets have interpreted the news as a demand shock, raising bond yields and damaging the relative performance of technology stocks versus cyclicals.

For now, this seems to be a rational response. But the persistent failure of governments in the major western democracies to control the pandemic has lessons for the future, particularly for our efforts to tackle climate change.

Public resistance to lockdown measures made early and strict restrictions, accompanied by effective test, trace and isolation policies, politically infeasible in most of Europe and the US all year. But aggressive restrictions and testing regimes have worked well in Asia and the Pacific.

The comparative results are stark. The cumulative Covid-19 death rate per million of the population is nearly 740 in the US, and 760 in the UK, compared with 3 in China and 15 in Japan, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Opposition to enforced lockdowns in the major western countries is to some extent based on a libertarian belief in economic freedom. This is a legitimate political choice that is usually fully justified but has proved costly in current circumstances. Furthermore, public support for strict measures has been eroded by serious operational failings.

Political opinion has also been moulded by the epidemiological and economic characteristics of this pandemic, which are particularly challenging.

Infectious diseases in their initial stages tend to grow at exponential rates. For example, if they double every three days, they will increase 1,000-fold within a month, unless slowed down by social distancing or herd immunity. But human beings struggle to grasp that idea, and instead tend to assume that the number of cases will grow by the same absolute number each day, leading them to underestimate the danger.

This exponential growth fallacy is a well known feature of human behaviour, including in people who are trained to avoid it. The natural time lag between cases, hospitalisations and then deaths further exacerbates the tendency to wait too long before announcing policy restrictions.

Another issue, very familiar to economists, is the pervasive role that externalities have played in the spread of coronavirus. When an infectious person fails to self-isolate, many other people are placed at risk of disease and thus bear the costs of this individual’s decision.

This should present a watertight case for public intervention to enforce social distancing and isolation, especially after positive tests.

Further complicating the response for democracies has been the argument over how to weigh the health benefits of lockdowns and social distancing against the economic costs. Over short periods, the two do conflict, but economist Simon Wren-Lewis has persuasively argued that this is not true in the longer term.

That’s because a decision to avoid lockdowns today is likely to lead to exponential growth in cases in the future, resulting in more stringent restrictions, and greater damage to businesses. Considered dynamically, both health and the economy eventually benefit from early and decisive virus control.

The failure of most western democracies to accept these arguments for early restrictions demonstrates the potency of the behavioural biases involved and their fundamental political belief in free markets.

The arrival of effective vaccines might mean that US president-elect Joe Biden will soon be able to focus beyond the virus. But it is obvious that the problems of market failure that plagued responses to Covid-19 also apply to his other big international focus, climate change.

The effects of climate change also increase exponentially, albeit over a much longer period than a pandemic. Time lags between cause and effect are very lengthy, making interpretation obscure to the public. Externalities are unavoidable, and apply across international borders, making them even harder to address. Human biases leave us systematically underprepared to address serious but remote risks.

The climate problem is therefore even less suited to free market solutions than Covid-19.

America’s promised return to the Paris accord is the first and necessary step on a very long road. No one has thought of a magic bullet for global warming, equivalent to a vaccine against Covid-19. This problem will have to be solved the hard way.


Source: This note is based on material which appeared in an article by Gavyn Davies published in the Financial Times on 15 November 2020.

This material is for your information only and is not intended to be used by anyone other than you. It is directed at professional clients and eligible counterparties only and is not intended for retail clients. The information contained herein should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial products, including an interest in a fund, or an official confirmation of any transaction. Any such offer or solicitation will be made to qualified investors only by means of an offering memorandum and related subscription agreement. The material is intended only to facilitate your discussions with Fulcrum Asset Management as to the opportunities available to our clients. The given material is subject to change and, although based upon information which we consider reliable, it is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness and it should not be relied upon as such. The material is not intended to be used as a general guide to investing, or as a source of any specific investment recommendations, and makes no implied or express recommendations concerning the manner in which any client’s account should or would be handled, as appropriate investment strategies depend upon client’s investment objectives. Funds managed by Fulcrum Asset Management LLP are in general managed using quantitative models though, where this is the case, Fulcrum Asset Management LLP can and do make discretionary decisions on a frequent basis and reserves the right to do so at any point. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Future returns are not guaranteed and a loss of principal may occur. Fulcrum Asset Management LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority of the United Kingdom (No: 230683) and incorporated as a Limited Liability Partnership in England and Wales (No: OC306401) with its registered office at Marble Arch House, 66 Seymour Street, London, W1H 5BT. Fulcrum Asset Management LP is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fulcrum Asset Management LLP incorporated in the State of Delaware, operating from 350 Park Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022.