Name: KAREN DIANE C.

RIVERA Program: MBA 1Y2-2

Course: Master in Business Administration Date: May 31, 2022

Course Intended Learning Outcomes:

The general objective of this paper is to discuss International Trade resilience in
times of Covid-19 Pandemic. Its specific objective is to:

● Describe how Covid-19 pandemic affect the trading system around the world;
● Determine factors combined to strengthen (or weaken) international trade
resilience, contributing to a holistic understanding of the impact of the pandemic
on international trade.

Introduction:
One of the most severe crises in the world is the Covid-19 pandemic time. The
crisis has had a terrible socio-economic impact, and the consequences will still be felt
for years to come. Without question, the most tragic result of the pandemic has been
death, although the financial impact has also been enormous. According to The
Economist, several publications have Covid-19, which will ultimately end globalization.
Others predict that it will at least change course (The Economist 2020; Yip, 2021), while
others argue that it will not (2020, Altman). What is apparent is that globalization has
brought numerous benefits to the global economy. Still, it has also exposed nations,
corporations, and individuals to systemic supply chain risks (Goldin & Mariathasan,
2015; Scheibe & Blackhurst, 2018). This risk is associated with specific events resulting
in a widespread and long-term scarcity of a commodity or service for which there are
no alternatives or substitutes (Sheffi & Lynn, 2014). The Covid-19 problem is a prime
illustration of this type of threat. Globalization appears to be on the decline.

It is probably unsurprising that highly globalized countries, such as the United

States, The United Kingdom, Italy, and France were hammered hard and fast
(Ahluwalia, 2020). Globalization was fueled by economic and social linkages that have
also strengthened interdependencies that allowed the virus to spread pathogens (Mas-
Coma, Jones, & Marty, 2020). Many countries have responded in kind. Borders were
closed, and complex behavior became the norm. Governments contended access to
limited resources like oil, vaccines, personal protective equipment (PPE), and
ventilators (New York Times, 2020; Chowdhury et al., 2020). Due to this position, this
competition for additional ripple effects has occurred across global supply networks.
While globalization may have had a negative impact, highly globalized countries were
also affected in the early pandemic and have significant resources, trade connections,
logistics capabilities, and healthcare facilities that could have aided in their quick
recovery restoration (New York Times, 2020).

However, the study showed the international trading system’s resiliency, in

which companies’ ability to operate supply networks and countries has been weak. This
disparity is remarkable; given that global trade resilience appears to be strongly related
to, the resilience of governments, supply chains, and enterprises in today has
globalized economy. Countries exchange goods and services through imports and
exports within the international trading system. In this context, we define global trade
resilience as “a country’s ability to both resist and recover from disruptions in
international commerce” (cf. Melnyk et al., 2014: 36). This concept is helpful because it
incorporates two distinct characteristics of resilience: the ability to withstand a
disturbance, adapt to change, and bounce back from it.

In the context of the Covid-19 epidemic, researchers inductively develop

configurations of elements that contribute to international commerce resilience, setting
the groundwork for a medium theory (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988; Hoffman & Ocasio,
2001; Crilly, 2011; Craighead, Ketchen, & Cheng, 2016). Perspective midrange thinking
 unique conceptualizations produce theoretically grounded findings that can apply to a
specific empirical environment (Craighead et al., 2016). Furthermore, intermediate
theories established causal process narratives and the conditions under which such
processes produce outcomes (Russo, Pellathy, & Omar, 2021). Because of these traits,
midrange theorizing is an excel.

In numerous ways, we contribute to the literature. First, the study shows that
no element is necessary or sufficient for trade resilience during a large-scale disruption;
instead, complex combinations of (high or low levels of) those factors boost or decrease
stability. Second, it explains why certain countries remained relatively trade resilient
throughout the pandemic’s first wave while others did not. Finally, it employs a macro-
level viewpoint and uses the country as the unit of study to supplement research on
resilience at the company, bilateral, and network levels. This macro approach provides
a foundation for understanding the strength of cross-border enterprises and supply
chains.

Lesson Proper/Content:

Methodology
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on global trade has never been seen
before, making classic risk and resilience theories useless. This study used an
inductive technique to create a moderate theory of trade resilience in unusual
conditions. The researchers use a bottom-up approach to midrange thinking, in
which evidence is the driving force for theory formation (Craighead et al., 2016).
Because it depends heavily on induction to detect patterns in the data, this technique
is considered suited for exploratory research (Craighead et al., 2016). As a result,
we use the existing literature to motivate the selection of various conditions that,
when taken together, could foster trade resilience. Researchers then use fsQCA to
 analyze the data (e.g., Beynon et al., 2016; Crilly, 2011; Pajunen, 2008; Park, Fiss,
& El Sawy, 2020; Woodside, 2014).

Due to its ability to address causal complexity, FsQCA has quickly established
itself as a practical and systematic approach to comparative social study. Set theory
and Boolean algebra allow for the conception of a case as a complicated mixture of
theoretical attributes and the identification of facts (and their configurations) necessary
and sufficient for a given conclusion. (Misangyi et al., 2016; Ragin & Rubinson, 2009).
In addition, the calibration stage allows for the incorporation of substantive knowledge
to be captured. The variance between examples essential to the given study topic and
defined sets is displayed in a Truth Table by grouping instances (based on their shared
set membership scores) (Ragin, 2008). It allows for alternative analysis, which is a
deliberate assessment of whether an unknown configuration would provide the same
result if it were present in the experiment. (Ragin & Sonnett, 2004; Soda & Furnari,
2012).

The authors follow the growing number of fsQCA applications in business

research that use the country as the unit of analysis (Estevao, Lopes, Penela, & Soares,
2020; Pineiro-Chousa, ̃ Vizcaíno-Gonzalez, & Caby, 2019; Tekic & Tekic, 2021) and
seek to identify configurations of factors that might have helped countries achieve trade
resilience over the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–July 2020).

Results and Discussion

How Covid-19 Pandemic Affects the Trading System around the World
Foreign Literature
The Covid-19 pandemic has had far-reaching consequences in all aspects of
human life (Verma & Gustafsson, 2020), upsetting businesses and decimating
international trade (Verbeke & Yuan, 2021). Complexity and ambiguity describe the
Covid-19 phenomena, which influences (and is influenced by) government policies,
health systems, corporate conduct, and individual actions and decisions (Bratianu,
2020; Pappas & Glyptou, 2021). Some authors have adopted the term ‘chaordic’ (a
term combining the words “Chaos” and “Order”) to emphasize the phenomenon has
chaotically organized nature (Pappas, 2021). While the ambiguity and complexity of the
Covid-19 pandemic have affected the worldwide business environment, the
repercussions have not been uniform across countries. Some countries experienced
significant commercial disruptions, while others remained virtually unaffected. It is this
resilience, in the face of a highly complex and uncertain environment, that the authors
investigate in this research.
Resilience is a construct that can be applied at multiple levels. From a personal
level (micro) (e.g., Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000); through to large-scale systems
like economies (macro) (e.g., Rose, 2007; Rose & Liao, 2005); and societies (e.g.,
Cacioppo, Reis, & Zautra, 2011); researchers have tried to understand what makes a
system resilient. While there are differences in the conceptualization of resilience at
various levels, they refer to a system’s ability to contend with a disruption.
Researchers have identified two separate sets of capabilities of a robust
system (Melnyk et al., 2014; Valikangas, 2010; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013). A resilient
system, on the one hand, can endure a disruption. This capability is known as
robustness, defined as a system’s ability to retain its operation despite internal or
external interruptions (Bode et al., 2014). On the other hand, a resilient system must
respond to disruption and restore to its original state.
The system’s responsiveness is its ability to change state or migrate to a new, more
desirable state (Christopher & Peck, 2004).
 This study examines significant elements that can affect the international trade
system’s robustness and responsiveness and the countries that trade commodities and
services within it. In addition, it will discuss some aspects that can affect a country’s
ability to participate in international trade and the enterprises that make up global supply
chains.

Globalization and resilience

Over the past decades, global supply chains have expanded in line with
increasing levels of globalization, leading to higher interconnectedness and
interdependence among firms (Blackhurst *, Craighead, Elkins, & Handfield, 2005;
Christopher & Holweg, 2011). While the interdependence has enhanced supply chain
efficiency with practices of lean manufacturing, concurrent engineering, and “just-in-
time” deliveries (Soni & Jain, 2011), it has also introduced supply chain vulnerabilities
(World Economic Forum, 2019). The Covid-19 pandemic prompted an unprecedented
global stock-out of highly demanded life-saving medical equipment and PPE (Burki,
2020). The crisis has highlighted the vulnerability of interdependent economies and
subsequent risks to supply chains. For example, approximately 97% of antibiotics used
in the United States are imported from China (MSCI, 2020), while 40–50% of generic
drugs come from India, with nearly 70% of those drugs’ active pharmaceutical
ingredients (APIs) originating from China (CNBC, 2020). In turn, Chinese
manufacturers of ventilators experienced critical production delays due to shutdowns
of European sub-suppliers production units. While the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted
the vulnerability of healthcare supply chains, many other sectors experienced the flip
side of globalization, with global demand plummeting.
Globalization was initially driven by relocating subsidiaries or by outsourcing to
foreign suppliers. As globalized business models matured, companies gradually
offshored more critical business processes through integrated networks of
interdependent subsidiaries and suppliers (Contractor et al., 2010). This process of
globalization has, in turn, increased the impact of potential disruptions (Christopher,
Mena, Khan, & Yurt, 2011) since countries have become increasingly dependent upon
each other for goods and services. However, globalization is a multi-dimensional
construct. In the DHL Global Connectedness Index, economic indicators of
globalization (trade and capital flows) showed steady growth until the 2008–09 global
financial crisis and have since fluctuated below their pre-crisis peaks.
In contrast, the social aspects of globalization (information and people flows)
have been setting new records (Steven & Philip, 2020). In a pandemic involving human-
to-human contagion, this broad view of globalization is a critical country-level factor for
determining vulnerability and exposure. As the WEF Global Risk Report (2006: 4), “the
vulnerabilities of our interconnected global system would intensify the human and
economic impact” (of a pandemic).

Logistics performance and resilience

The performance of a country’s logistics and transport system is central to
international trade (Martí, Puertas, & García, 2014; Ekici, Kabak, & Ülengin, 2016) and
the smooth functioning of global supply chains (Closs & Mollenkopf, 2004). The quality
of commerce and transportation infrastructure (e.g., ports, roads, airports), customs
efficiency (ease and speed of clearance), and technology adoption are all factors that
influence logistics performance at a country level. As a result, these factors can affect
a country or region’s economic outcomes and the performance of all supply chains in
and out of the country (Kurth et al., 2020 & Arvis et al., 2018; Closs & Mollenkopf, 2004).
Thus, in the face of global disruption, weak logistics infrastructure and competencies
can undermine a country’s robustness in terms of international trade.
The performance of a country's logistics and transport system is central to
international trade. Various aspects contribute to logistics performance at a country
level, including the quality of trade and transport infrastructure. A survey of port
authorities and operators worldwide investigating the impact of Covid- 19 indicates that
many ports have been affected by changes in demand and capacity constraints.
Conversely, a robust logistics system at a country level can also help in recovery,
bringing products to the right places at the right time.

Income level, healthcare preparedness, and resilience

The concept of healthcare preparedness has gained special attention in the
Covid-19 pandemic. Governments were forced to lockdown economies to reduce case
numbers and subsequent hospitalizations to avoid the collapse of overwhelmed
healthcare systems.
The preventive measures of governments and the associated economic trade-
offs highlight the linkage between the preparedness of healthcare infrastructure and
economic activity (Jovanovic ́c et al., 2020).
Wealthier countries are also better positioned to secure access to critical
resources, such as PPE, medical equipment, and vaccines.
The crisis revealed that obtaining access to scarce global healthcare production
capabilities for many low-income economies was almost impossible without political
influence or spending power.
Due to the lack of equity in access to affordable healthcare products, the
pandemic had a disproportionate impact across countries (New York Times, 2020).
On this basis, a country's financial strength is considered a critical factor in
enabling international trade resilience.

National response and resilience

National governments responded to the Covid-19 pandemic using different
approaches, such as containment measures (e.g., lockdowns, workplace closures, and
travel bans), health measures (testing, contact tracing, vaccines), economic measures
(e.g., income and debt support, workforce retention), and social measures (e.g.,
strengthening social dialogue) (Hale, Petherick, Phillips, & Webster, 2020a) as the
pandemic unfolded in different countries, the scope and stringency of these measures
adapted to balance healthcare, economic, and social outcomes.
The biggest challenge for governments is that trade-offs exist between
desirable results.
Lockdowns and travel bans, for example, have been effective in containing the
spread of the virus and allowed healthcare systems to cope, particularly in nations like
New Zealand, Vietnam, and Taiwan (Frieden, 2021).
Undoubtedly, this has affected employment, income, and the supply and
demand for many products, undermining international trade.
Hence, it is vital to understand how the stringency and scope of government
responses have affected international trade in different countries.

A renaissance approach to trade resilience at a country level

Given the intricacy of the Covid-19 pandemic, the range of repercussions on
other countries, differing levels of preparedness, and the variety of techniques taken to
battle it should not be considered in isolation.
Instead, they should be thought of as fundamental parts of complex
constellations, or country 'profiles,' as part of which each dimension's role will depend
on the role of others.
The Covid-19 pandemic calls for configurational approaches that allow
researchers to investigate the complex interactions of various conditions (Pappas &
Glyptou, 2021).
In this research, authors argue that some of the configurations of the theorized
conditions will be more effective in ensuring robustness and fostering the
responsiveness of international trade, and they aim to identify them.
The set of 'tenets' was codified by Woodside (2014) and adopted in several
business research publications (e.g., Olya & Altinay, 2016; Pappas, 2021);
 Researchers expect that:
● There is no country-level factor that is singlehandedly sufficient for the presence
of trade resilience (Tenet 1).
● Instead, there is (more than one) configuration of consistently enough (but not
necessary) factors for the presence of trade resilience (Tenet 2 & 3 - the recipe
and equifinality principles).
● The sufficient configurations for the negation of the outcome (i.e., absence of
stability) will not be mirror opposites of the structures enough for the presence of
trade resilience (Tenet 4 - the causal asymmetry principle).
● The company and the absence of a factor can contribute to trade resilience as
part of different recipes, depending on the presence or absence of other factors
in those recipes (Tenet 5).
● No configuration of factors leading to trade resilience will be relevant for all trade-
resilient countries (i.e., coverage < 1.00 for any single configuration – Tenet 6),
while there might be countries with high membership in a sufficient configuration
that do not exhibit trade resilience (i.e., deviant cases – Tenet 7).

Factors Combined to Strengthen/Weaken International Trade Resilience,

Contributing to
A Holistic Understanding of the Impact of the Pandemic on International Trade.

The sufficiency analysis for the presence and absence of trade performance
yielded the most significant findings. The results are shown in this section.
Table 4 shows the cost-effective and intermediate solutions for each month.
The latter contains additional information such as scores for consistency and coverage,
usual cases, and expected directions. The most striking finding is that, while the
absence of a "strong government reaction" (GOV) was not formally required for the
outcome in any month; it emerges as a key condition in all but two sufficient
 combinations. (a ‘false necessary’ condition – see Schneider & Wagemann, 2012). This
shows that maintaining a trade-friendly climate is critical; countries that imposed few
restrictions and prioritized commercial continuity (or rapid recovery), possibly at the
sacrifice of human lives, were relatively more robust and responsive.
However, the lack of a strong government reaction (GOV) should not be read
in isolation because it was nearly always accompanied by high national income (GNI)
and a well-prepared healthcare system (GHS). This suggests that countries that took a
loose containment policy (GOV) were only able to withstand a pandemic because of
their relatively high wealth levels (and available resources) and high levels of pandemic
preparedness. The fact that GHS is present in all but two configurations is telling;
healthcare infrastructure is critical for maintaining economic activity and international
trade during such a crisis.

Ethical Considerations
The researchers claim that they have no known competing financial interests
or personal ties that could have influenced the research presented in this study.

Conclusion
Most businesses are involved in global supply networks either directly or
indirectly and are connected with the global economy (Goldin & Mariathasan, 2015).
They must follow international trade norms, make use of infrastructure in the countries
where they operate or source, and rely on local suppliers and customers. As a result,
every practitioner, whether commercial or public, should be interested in the variables
that support the international trading system's resilience (Goldin & Mariathasan, 2015).
The macro approach used in this study broadens the scope of most supply chain
resilience research, which often focuses on dyads or networks, and provides a more
comprehensive explanation for resilience. The findings are important for sourcing
decision-makers who are now examining their global supply chain structure and risk
exposure in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and planning for the next catastrophe. By
giving insights into the intricate relationships between globalization, healthcare
infrastructure, logistics capabilities, and international trade, this research can help lead
the restructuring process. Managers making global sourcing decisions, for example,
might utilize this data to build supplier portfolios in multiple regions with varied risk
profiles to better manage total disruption risk.

While the Covid-19 outbreak has sparked worries about supply chain
vulnerability, particularly in essential industries, as well as speculations about probable
reshoring and nearshoring, this research adds to the awareness of specific country-
level vulnerabilities (The Economist, 2020; Yip, 2021; Altman, 2020). This enables for
more targeted risk management and the corresponding aspects that contribute to the
international trade system's resilience. The findings enable a balanced and educated
approach towards mitigation and policy actions.
This study uncovers a set of equifinal combinations of macrolevel, country-
specific elements that help (or hamper) international trade resilience. While it is the
combined effect of these factors that determines whether a positive or negative
outcome occurs, some key insights into each factor's role emerge: globalization
(economic and social), logistics and healthcare preparedness, and high-income levels
all played a significant role in obtaining trade resilience. A robust government response,
on the other hand, and a huge number of deaths had a mostly negative impact,
highlighting how difficult it is to balance and reconcile health-related and economic
outcomes.

This research lays the groundwork for a moderate theory of international trade
resilience by providing a more sophisticated view of a causally complex, 'chaordic'
event. Researchers were able to investigate the relevance of several causal factors
 (such as social and economic globalization, logistics performance, healthcare
preparedness, national government response, and income level) using the adopted
neoconfigurational lens, and offer several plausible explanations for how these factors
can promote (or suppress) international trade resilience. The foundations of a moderate
theory of international trade resilience are presented in this work. The authors believe
that the method will inspire future research on the impact of globalization and the
strength of national logistics systems on the robustness and responsiveness of
international trade.

The study has important strategy implications for policymakers, particularly

those concerned with international trade policy, because it emphasizes the importance
of key factors that can strengthen export economies' resilience and, as a result, guide
host government investment priorities in support of national economic development
strategies. The Covid-19 problem has been a serious setback for most countries' global
development goals, with a particularly devastating socioeconomic impact on vulnerable
communities (New York Times, 2020), the findings show that a sustainable international
trading system, equal access to health care, and livelihood protection are all linked. As
a result, a credible and robust export-oriented national development strategy must
include the development of a strong healthcare competency as well as an effective and
efficient logistics infrastructure.

Assessment:
Multiple Choice Questions:

1. Market in which currencies buy and sell and their prices settle on is called
the
A. International bond market
B. International capital market
C. Foreign exchange market
D. Eurocurrency market
Answer: C

2. Govt. policy about exports and imports is called:

A. Commercial policy
B. Fiscal policy
C. Monetary policy
D. Finance policy
Answer: A

3. Which of the following is international trade?

A. Trade between countries
B. Trade between regions
C. Trade between provinces
D. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: A

4. Govt. policy about exports and imports is called:

A. Commercial policy
B. Fiscal policy
C. Monetary policy
D. Finance policy
Answer: A

5. International trade and domestic trade differ because of:

A. Different government policies
B. Immobility of factors
 C. Trade restrictions
D. All of the above
Answer: D

References

Ahluwalia, S. (2020, November 11). Italy surpasses the 1 million COVID mark, joins top 10
worst-hit countries: Reuters tally. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-
coronavirus-italy-tally/italy-surpasses-the-1-million-covid-mark-joins-top-10-worst-hit-
countries-reuters-tally-idUSKBN27R2C1

Altman, S. (2020, May 20). Will Covid-19 Have a Lasting Impact on Globalization? Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/05/will-covid-19-have-a-lasting-impact-on-
globalization

Asian Development Bank. (2021). Digitalizing Trade in Asia Needs Legislative Reform. In
www.adb.org. Asian Development Bank. https://www.adb.org/publications/digitalizing-
trade-asia-legislative-reform#:~:text=This%20report%20is%20the%20first

Beynon, M. J., Jones, P., & Pickernell, D. (2016). Country-based comparison analysis using
fsQCA investigating entrepreneurial attitudes and activity. Journal of Business
Research, 69(4), 1271–1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.091

Bradley, J. (2020). Developing nations in Latin America and Africa cannot find enough
materials and equipment to test for coronavirus, partly because the United States and
Europe are outspending them. https://www.globalchildrenssurgery.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/102-In-Scramble-for-Coronavirus-Supplies-Rich-Countries-
Push-Poor-Aside-The-New-York-Times.pdf

Chowdhury, R., Luhar, S., Khan, N., Choudhury, S. R., Matin, I., & Franco, O. H. (2020).
Long-term strategies to control COVID-19 in low and middle-income countries: an
options overview of community-based, non-pharmacological interventions. European
Journal of Epidemiology, 35(8), 743–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00660-1

Craighead, C., Ketchen, D., & Cheng, L. (2016). “Goldilocks” Theorizing in Supply Chain
Research: Balancing Scientific and Practical Utility via Middle-Range Theory.
Transportation Journal, 55(3), 241. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.55.3.0241
DHL, Steven, A., & Philip, B. (2020). Why the Global Connectedness Index is crucial for
decision-making. DHL Spotlight. https://www.dhl.com/global-
en/spotlight/globalization/global-connectedness-index.html

Estevão, J., Lopes, J. D., Penela, D., & Soares, J. M. (2020). The Doing Business ranking
and the GDP. A qualitative study. Journal of Business Research, 115, 435–442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.067

Frieden, T. (2021, January 1). Which Countries Have Responded Best to Covid-19? Wall
Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-countries-have-responded-best-to-
covid-19-11609516800

Goldin, I., & Mariathasan, M. (2016). The butterfly defect : how globalization creates systemic
risks, and what to do about it. Princeton University Press.

Gopinath, G. (2020, April 14). The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn Since the
Great Depression. IMF Blog. https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/the-great-lockdown-
worst-economic-downturn-since-the-great-depression/

Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2018). Studying configurations
with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization
research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786487

Hale, T., Angrist, N., Cameron-Blake, E., Hallas, L., Kira, B., Majumdar, S., Petherick, A.,
Phillips, T., Tatlow, H., & Webster, S. (2020). Variation in government responses to
COVID-19 BSG Working Paper Series Providing access to the latest policy-relevant
research. https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-09/BSG-WP-2020-032-
v7.0.pdf

Hale, T., Webster, S., Petherick, A., Phillips, T., & Kira, B. (2020). COVID-19 Government
Response Tracker. Www.bsg.ox.ac.uk. https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-
projects/covid-19-government-response-tracker

Insights, I. B. (2021, January 8). Does COVID-19 Mean The End For Globalization? Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/imperialinsights/2021/01/08/does-covid-19-mean-the-
end-for-globalization/?sh=160ba1a6671e.

Jovanović, A., Klimek, P., Renn, O., Schneider, R., Øien, K., Brown, J., DiGennaro, M., Liu,
Y., Pfau, V., Jelić, M., Rosen, T., Caillard, B., Chakravarty, S., & Chhantyal, P. (2020).
Assessing resilience of healthcare infrastructure exposed to COVID-19: emerging risks,
 resilience indicators, interdependencies and international standards. Environment
Systems and Decisions, 40(2), 252–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-020-09779-8

Kurth, M., Kozlowski, W., Ganin, A., Mersky, A., Leung, B., Dykes, J., Kitsak, M., & Linkov,
I. (2020). Lack of resilience in transportation networks: Economic implications.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 86, 102419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102419

Lynn, B., & Sheffi, Y. (2014). Systemic supply chain risk, The Bridge (Fall), 22.
https://sheffi.mit.edu/sites/sheffi.mit.edu/files/2017-06/Sheffi-
Lynn_Bridge44(3)%5b2%5d.pdf

Mas-Coma, S., Jones, M. K., & Marty, A. M. (2020). COVID-19 and globalization. One Health,
9(Volume 9), 100132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100132

Mayer, J. D., & Lewis, N. D. (2020). An inevitable pandemic: geographic insights into the
COVID-19 global health emergency. Eurasian Geography and Economics, Volume 61,
2020(Volume 61), Pages 404-422.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2020.1786425

Mena, C., Karatzas, A., & Hansen, C. (2022). International trade resilience and the Covid-19
pandemic. Journal of Business Research, 138(Volume 138), 77–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.064

Pallis, T. (2020). IAPH-WPSP Port Economic Impact Barometer Half Year Report: A survey-
based analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on world ports in the.
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8675723/file/8675725

Pappas, N. (2021). COVID19: Holiday intentions during a pandemic. Tourism Management,

84, 104287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104287

Pappas, N., & Glyptou, K. (2020). Accommodation decision-making during the COVID-19
pandemic: Complexity insights from Greece. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 93, 102767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102767

Russo, I., Pellathy, D., & Omar, A. (2020). Managing outsourced reverse supply chain
operations: Middle‐range theory development. Journal of Supply Chain Management,
57(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12244

Scheibe, K. P., & Blackhurst, J. (2017). Supply chain disruption propagation: a systemic risk
and normal accident theory perspective. International Journal of Production Research,
56(1-2), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1355123
Tekic, A., & Tekic, Z. (2021). Culture as antecedent of national innovation performance:
Evidence from neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Business Research, 125,
385–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.014

The Economist. (2020, May 14). Has covid-19 killed globalisation? The Economist.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/14/has-covid-19-killed-globalisation

Verbeke, A., & Yuan, W. (2020). A Few Implications of the COVID‐19 Pandemic for
International Business Strategy Research. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2).
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12665

Verma, S., & 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, 118, 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.057

Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace•perform•model: Complexity theory, contrarian case

analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.006