If we don’t learn from history, we’re doomed to repeat it

How can governments use the lessons of the past to reframe the future?

Last year, while the COVID-19 pandemic was at its height, I blogged about the broader impacts it may have on key areas of government, and how they could respond.

My thesis was that by taking the pace of digital transformation up a gear, the pandemic was turning the government of the future into the government of today.

by taking the pace of digital transformation up a gear, the pandemic was turning the government of the future into the government of today

Nearly two years on, as governments begin taking a tentative look beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, the question is: what’s next?

If we don’t learn from history, we’re doomed to repeat it

In my view, the answer lies in a 1948 quote by the British statesman Winston Churchill: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

how can governments use the lessons of the past...to solve the challenges of today and tomorrow?  

Admittedly, he was paraphrasing something by the writer and philosopher George Santayana. But as Churchill had recently led Britain through a huge crisis, his words are highly relevant for governments today.

That’s why I’ve decided to focus my next blog series on what governments can learn from past crises and pivotal moments in recent history. For each blog, I’ll look at what happened, how governments responded and whether their policies worked. I’ll then ask: how can governments use the lessons of the past, and the progress they’ve made during the COVID-19 pandemic, to solve the challenges of today and tomorrow?  

An unprecedented crisis? Not entirely

Like me, you probably couldn’t count the number of times you’ve read or heard the word “unprecedented” in relation to the COVID-19 crisis. But generally, commentators have used it about the scale of the pandemic response, not the pandemic itself.

After all, the Spanish flu pandemic infected 500m and killed 20m–50m worldwide, compared with almost 250m infections and 5m deaths so far for COVID-19. And the US economy shrank by a third between 1929 (the Wall Street Crash) and 1933, compared with an estimated 3.5% in 2020.

That’s not to downplay the challenges governments face today. In 2020, the average global debt stood at 97% of GDP, and an estimated 95m more people fell into extreme poverty than had been predicted before the pandemic. Demand for many goods is also outstripping supply, causing the rate of inflation to rise and asset bubbles to grow.

The COVID-19 crisis differs from its predecessors in four key ways

My point is that the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis aren’t necessarily new; in fact, neither are the solutions. Many have been tried and tested before, either in response to past crises or at other pivotal moments in political history. Take these examples:

• Using deficit spending to fund rescue packages, while mobilizing the private sector to create jobs and stimulate growth: the 1933 New Deal and the 1948 Marshall Plan
• Collecting, sharing and analyzing data and granting loans to businesses: the European Coal and Steel Community, established in the 1951 Treaty of Paris
• Allocating a set amount of multilateral stimulus spending to “green” measures: the 2007–08 global financial crisis

So, what really is different this time? In my view, it’s:

1. The scale of the spending involved
2. The role and impact of technology
3. The moral obligation on the “haves” to help the “have nots” that have borne the brunt of the crisis
4. The now-existential threat of climate change

Let’s look at these differences in more detail.

Big spending and big data

First, according to the International Monetary Fund, in 2020, global governments took US$12t in fiscal action, and central banks took about US$7.5t in monetary action, to save lives and prop up the world economy. The money’s still coming, with the US government working to implement further packages focusing on social spending and infrastructure. 

Governments now have a moral imperative to help those that have borne the brunt of the virus and its effects.

Second, this is the first big crisis of the hyperconnected world (another of my favorite topics). So, data and technology have taken on extraordinary power. They’ve allowed some groups to carry on working or studying, for example, while others have lost their jobs or fallen even further behind. Similarly, they’ve supported the swift development of effective vaccines and treatments, which have the power to help all countries recover. But so far, rich countries have benefited disproportionately.

Third, on top of the inequalities I just described, the COVID-19 virus has also hit some countries and ethnic groups harder than others. This has increased the divide between the “haves” and the “have nots” to a point that can no longer be ignored. Governments now have a moral imperative to help those that have borne the brunt of the virus and its effects.

Finally, rather than replacing climate change and environmental degradation on the list of priorities, COVID-19 has accentuated their importance. We know that environmental damage helps cause the spread of infectious diseases, for example. And we all saw how a temporary halt in economic activity improved air and water quality globally. As a result, a “green recovery” has become central to many national and multinational plans.

Faced with these challenges and opportunities, then, how can governments:

• Make sure their spending achieves the economic and social outcomes they want?
• Use data and technology to tackle inequality, build resilience and track the impact of their investments?
• Make green investments that also create lasting growth and jobs?

Stay tuned for my forthcoming blog series to find out what answers history can provide.

The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the global EY organization or its member firms.