Can You Afford Your Disease? How the Presidential Election will Determine the Future of the Free Market

Can You Afford Your Disease? How the Presidential Election will Determine the Future of the Free Market

Can You Afford Your Disease? How the Presidential Election will Determine the Future of the Free Market

Friday, November 13, 2020, by Jordyn Murphy JHBL Staff Member and ICSB Board Member

This chart shows how pharmaceutical spending (measured in USD per capita) in the United States is significantly higher than in other countries.

Image Credit: https://data.oecd.org/healthres/pharmaceutical-spending.htm 


For 68% of American voters, the cost of healthcare, including pharmaceutical drugs, was an important facet in determining whether they would vote for President Trump or Former Vice President Joe Biden.[1]  In fact, many Americans have stated they are willing to pay higher taxes and forgo new drug developments if it meant a decrease in prescription drug costs.  This isn’t surprising, as over 70% of Americans currently take at least one prescription drug, and every 1.25 hour, seven Americans die because they can’t afford their prescription drugs.[2]  The coronavirus pandemic has only intensified the use and need for prescription medicine.  With Joe Biden’s election to the Presidency, voters wonder if true reform will come from his healthcare plan.

The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in America.  Americans spent $460 billion on prescriptions in 2016.[3]  So why do drug prices continue to rise exponentially? Pharmaceutical companies would tell you the prices reflect the cost of research and development (R&D), but the real answer is simple: because the free market allows it.

If each American had a dollar for every time the pharmaceutical industry defended their price hikes in the name of R&D, they likely would be able to afford their prescriptions.  However, most big pharmaceutical companies do not do their own R&D.  In fact, most drugs are the product of small startups or biotech companies based on the scientific research by the NIH, a federally funded agency.  Once a drug is discovered, big pharmaceutical companies such as Merck, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer acquire the company and prepare it for the market.  Further, in what is referred to as a legal monopoly, when the drug’s patent is getting ready to expire, companies make small tweaks (i.e., changing the side of a molecule) to obtain a new patent.  For example, Prilosec became Nexium with very little change to the drug itself and no additional health benefits for patients.  When generic companies create generic versions of these drugs, the large pharmaceutical companies pay the generic companies to delay releasing their product for a set amount of time (referred to as pay for delay).

If money isn’t spent on R&D, where does it go?  Marketing.  The United States is only one of two countries in the world that allow direct to consumer marketing.  Pharmaceutical companies spend 19 times as much on marketing and advertising than they do R&D.[4]  For example, in 2016 alone, Pfizer spent $2.3 billion in off-label promotion and kickbacks[5] to doctors.  Aside from marketing, pharmaceutical companies also spend a considerable and unfathomable amount of money on executive pay.  While on paper, an executive might make $18 million, the company buys back its stocks so the executives can cash in on their stock options with their total salaries coming to $250 million a year.[6]

So how do you tackle the most profitable industry in America?  We can’t rely on corporations gaining a moral compass.  As Allergen showed in 2017, when they transferred their patents to the Mohawk reservation to gain sovereign nation protection, they’re incapable of morality.[7] Corporate law forces corporations to be answerable to their shareholders and maximizing profits.

President Trump tried reform recently when he issued an executive order titled “Lowering Drug Prices by Putting America First.”  This order directed the Department of Health and Human Services to use the “most favored nation” approach to test international pricing with certain high-cost drugs covered under Medicare Part B and insufficient competition under Part D.  Ironically, “the statutory provision that allows the Medicare program to test different payment approaches is part of the Affordable Care Act, which the Trump Administration is currently attempting to overturn.”[8]

The first real step is price regulation through negotiation reform.  The U.S. is the only industrialized country that operates on a system that allows pharmaceutical companies to charge whatever they want.   Medicare is forbidden from negotiating prices with drug companies, a practice employed by Britain, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland.  The legislature must create a pricing committee that negotiates prices with pharmaceutical companies.  Additionally, through the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, the government must prevent big pharmaceutical companies from obtaining new patents on the existing drugs by making nonsignificant developments.

Further, the tax deduction for marketing expenses must be stopped, as outlined in Joe Biden’s healthcare plan.  Reform will not be easy when the pharmaceutical companies spend over $3 billion a year in lobbying, outspending every other industry by 44%.  For example, Mitch McConnell, Republican majority leader, has received more than $200,000 from pharmaceutical companies in this most recent election cycle.  Looking forward, it will be important to elect government leaders who cannot be bought.


Jordyn Murphy is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School with an interest in corporate law, specifically asset management. Jordyn currently interns at Primark U.S. with the General Counsel and is a board member for the International Council for Small Business.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHBL or Suffolk University Law School.


Sources:

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/important-issues-in-the-2020-election/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ_ncGqyAfY

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ_ncGqyAfY

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ_ncGqyAfY

[5] Kickbacks are essentially bribes to doctors to incentivize them to prescribe medications to patients at high rates and high dosages. Kickbacks have included tickets to basketball games, vacations, tennis lessons, etc.

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ_ncGqyAfY

[7] Allergen transferred legal ownership of one patent to the New York Mohawk Tribe. The Tribe then licensed the patent back to Allergen for ongoing payments. Allergen was sued by another pharmaceutical company and argued that federal law prohibited the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from reviewing the patents because they were protected under the Tribe’s sovereign status. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that sovereign immunity does not apply to patent review proceedings. The Supreme Court denied certiorari.

[8] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2020/10/15/491425/little-late-trumps-prescription-drug-executive-order-not-help-patients/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/kickbacks-and-fraud-in-our-health-care-system-43547 

https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2020/09/23/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-trumps-most-favored-nation-approach-to-drug-pricing/#more-29213 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/important-issues-in-the-2020-election/ 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2020/10/15/491425/little-late-trumps-prescription-drug-executive-order-not-help-patients/  

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2015-5-en.pdf?expires=1604603042&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=E732605FD9298C9871813184671C44FE  

https://data.oecd.org/healthres/pharmaceutical-spending.htm 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ_ncGqyAfY 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/us/politics/coronavirus-drug-pricing-legislation.html  

https://joebiden.com/healthcare/#  

Current Status of Museums and Digital Platforms: Passion and Persistence

Current Status of Museums and Digital Platforms: Passion and Persistence

Current Status of Museums and Digital Platforms: Passion and Persistence

Wednesday, November 11, 2020, by Lenore Miller

Being the Change, You Wish to See

Those of us in the museum field, as evident in the dialogue between Hilary-Morgan Watt and Lenore Miller, are passionate about presenting art and we can call upon the entrepreneurial spirit for persistence in creating new models of experience. Digital platforms and social media are a form of outreach highly prized now, and in the future.

Museums and other cultural institutions are vulnerable due to closures and financial perils, and yet have been able to pivot effectively to represent on social media. Museums are adapting to the pandemic restrictions by utilizing social media as never before. Hilary-Morgan Watt brilliantly outlined how social media has stepped up to the challenge while museums have been shuttered. In the Spring, museums designed campaigns that creative and talented staff organized campaigns to engage audiences virtually. These were meant to uplift, providing a “light lift” for museums and way to humanize the museums’ missions by sensing the public mood.

Some exhibition themes are easier to translate to digital platforms than others. Open air components, such as the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, have been able to offer visitors immersive outdoor experiences. For example, Lee Ufan’s sculpture installation was environmental and related to the museum’s architecture, and could best be experienced by moving around in space. In contrast, however, Jimmie Durham: Still Life with Spirit and Xitle, a somewhat humorous work consisting of a car smashed by an animated boulder, could be experienced through a photograph, yet its presence in the front of the museum expanded the conversation with Lee Ufan’s installations.

A museum staff using social media effectively to augment its mission’s outreach is not new, but has become essential strategic thinking out of necessity. Staff well versed in utilization of social media have become essential players and more numerous. In our webinar Hilary-Morgan Watt described the “lay of the land” how museums have embraced social media during these uncertain times. One example that was innovative for the contemporary art museum, was introducing the personality and private studios spaces of artists to audiences through video and Zoom presentations. In the example of envisioning Pat Steir’s studio, one piece of a creative’s “content is repurposed,” stated Hilary-Morgan Watt. This is effective and vital. It opens another dimension to the appreciation of the
sustained hard work that artists do. Many successful artists are busy with their process, and the ability to glimpse inside their studios was most effectively caught by the Hirshhorn’s videography.

Artists reputations can grow and spread in popular culture through social media, as in the case of Yayoi Kusama’s “Infinity Mirrors” and the “Obliteration Room” (February – May, 2017) “This extremely popular exhibition was amplified by visitors’ and staff’s participation in social media,” read the website. So, using social media has just stepped up in its versatility for the current state of affairs. And one must remember that by digital means, the museum can track its successes, and yes failures. Support museums and make your voice heard through comments, as they are heard!

While museums are closed or visitation reduced, are we losing our ability to engage in “sustained looking” at works of art? The experience of close examination of works of art — the subtle textures, details, and yes “presence” — is the most enriching experience of a museum visit. By oneself or with others. The collecting and preservation of artifacts will not be replaced by the digital experience, but it adds an accessible way of visiting the museum’s treasures. The local reach of a small museum can become global. Its educational mission reaching new and diverse audiences. But being “old school” I still want to be present to experience the interaction among works of art as they have been curated and displayed.

Lenore Miller

Lenore Miller

Curator Emerita, the George Washington University Museum and ICSB Master Teacher

As director of university art galleries and chief curator, Ms. Miller led the Luther W. Brady Art Gallery team while also overseeing GW’s art collection. Throughout her time at GW, she also taught courses on exhibition design, art history survey and design for the fine arts.

Hilary-Morgan Watt

Hilary-Morgan Watt

Digital Engagement Manager for the Smithsonian’s Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

With 15 years of experience in museums and galleries, Ms. Watt has led digital strategy workshops across the Smithsonian and lectured at the State Department, George Mason University, and Georgetown University. A transplant from the Pacific Northwest, she completed her B.F.A. at Southern Oregon University and completed her Masters in Museum Studies from the George Washington University (GWU). She is an active member of ArtTable and an adjunct professor at GWU, teaching “Museums & Social Media” in the Graduate Museum Studies program.

Real Essence of Sustainable Growth

Real Essence of Sustainable Growth

Real Essence of Sustainable Growth

Saturday, October 17, 2020, by Ayman El Tarabishy

Empathy and connection are the foundations of our human experience as they are and will continue to be even more so as the foundations of our entrepreneurial experiences.

About a week ago, members from the ICSB family joined together to create a pre-conference workshop for the upcoming AIM Digital conference. Winslow Sargeant, Vicki Stylianou, Ahmed Osman from the ICSB Board of Directors, and Andrew McDonald from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and myself entered into a discussion about the small business reality in the world today. Centering our discussion on the AIM Digital event, “Reimagining Economies: the Move Towards a Digital, Sustainable, and Resilient Future,” the conversation covered an array of topics. Today, however, in reflecting this Saturday, I would like to explore further the more significant notion of connection regarding the end of the status quo and the present and future of Humane Entrepreneurship.

The concept of empathy is bedrock and determinant of one’s ability to enact a culture of Humane Entrepreneurship. Empathy is, as noted in Kim et al. (2018), “the extent to which a company shares emotions and information with its employees.” We can extrapolate this idea from company to city, region, country, and the international community. We can imagine how organizations and individuals who value empathy might share and exchange with their colleagues in thinking about this definition. They might also practice transparency, care, and understanding for their customers and the communities in which they work and inhabit. To practice and work in an empathetic manner is to connect with those around us actively.

A significant purpose of empathy, as well, is that it is not the usage or implementation of empathy as a means of an end to greater wealth. Instead, it is the practice of being human, which includes being empathetic, which works virtuously with other humans to create something deemed as valuable for the world. That which is considered valuable then becomes something profitable so that it becomes something that works sustainably, cyclically, or continuously. When we can recognize the expansiveness of wealth, we will finally understand sustainability on a deeper level.

Sustainability is undoubtedly about generating money so that not firms can function entrepreneurially. They can ensure that their employees find themselves in quality and well-paying positions that care for them and their families. More broadly, however, sustainability is about creating sustainable patterns of interest and investment. We might ask the questions: “Are employees working in conditions that allow their creative and innovative humanity to shine?” or “Is this company able to adapt to change in a way that allows the company, their employees, the community (often including the employee’s families) to be sustainable?” Sustainability is genuinely a more significant connection of firms to their employees and communities and employees to their jobs, their families, their communities, and a greater consciousness that recognizes the humaneness in all people.

ICSB strives for this reality. Do we miss the mark sometimes? Of course. We are human, and failure is a natural part of the human experience. It is, however, our ability to adapt and evolve continuously that ensures our survival in recognizing what we value, our community of members, and ensuring their wellbeing and prosper, that we can overcome the failings of our missteps to continuously center the connection of this small business and entrepreneurship community.

At the end of our pre-conference workshop, I asked Vicki, Winslow, Ahmed, and Andrew for their rapid reaction to specific terms, one being Humane Entrepreneurship. Their reactions included the following: “social infrastructure,” “the new way of the economy,” “sustainable growth,” and “getting it done on an equal basis.” I believe that we can truly build a beautiful world when we allow the principles of Humane Entrepreneurship to guide our actions in our communities, nations, and world. Empathy and connection are the foundations of our human experience as they are and will continue to be even more so as the foundations of our entrepreneurial experiences.

It is here we will advance. It is here where entrepreneurship lies.

article by:

Dr. Ayman El Tarabishy,

President and CEO, ICSB and Deputy Chair of the Department of Management, GW School of Business

Evoking Ecosystems: As Nature Intended

Evoking Ecosystems: As Nature Intended

Evoking Ecosystems: As Nature Intended

Saturday, October 3, 2020, by Ayman El Tarabishy

There is essentially no framework, which we can construct, that can truly describe a “framework” for ecosystems because an ecosystem’s success is typically based on its ability to capture the least common denominators of a community, or the groups typically left out of the discussion.

In the process of becoming in this new status quo, we hear a lot of reference to creating, (re)building, and maintaining entrepreneurial ecosystems. Session two of the New Professor program elicited a need to further our discussion of not only what an ecosystem is and what it necessitates, but additionally, the parts of entrepreneurship that affect (or determine) success or lack thereof within these ecosystems.

Ecosystem, originally a biological term, describes a community or environment in which organisms (or entities) interact with each other and their physical environment, or the structure that creates the confounds and limits on that particular system. We can find ecosystems practically everywhere; nature is and consists of many ecosystems, there are ecosystems within our institutions, and we can even find ecosystems within and throughout the inner workings of the human body. There seems to be, however, one specific commonality that holds for all of these ecosystems, and that is that they do, operate, and functions better, more efficiently, and more progress when they are left alone.

As the entrepreneurial community seeks to find a way to curate these ecosystems artificially, I must question why a need is there and from where it originates. There seems to be much energy being allotted to the research and construction of a “framework,” or collection of similarities with which we can manipulate and build ecosystems worldwide. Yet, I must bring light to this particular confusion.

We are spending time and money looking to create something artificially that can occur naturally in our societies.

Is the problem truly that we do not have enough or enough well-built ecosystems, or is it instead of that our institutions and we are not ready to recognize their problematic nature? Throughout the discussion on ecosystems, Humane Entrepreneurship, and more, we hear time and time again, the need to center the entrepreneur, or “place the entrepreneur in the driver seat.” We want to intensely and deeply return the natural balance to our communities, so we speak of focusing on the human as if it is a hard thing to do. Humans focus on humans. Seemingly a simple equation, but for some reason, a much more complex formulation.

As we take so much effort to center the entrepreneur and their needs in this artificial system we have made, we must question, What is an entrepreneurial ecosystem more than the act of removing our institutions and organizations to get them out of the way of the entrepreneurs?”

I want to note that, of course, we have spent centuries building the society in which we now inhabit. However, I would like to postulate that the need for entrepreneurial ecosystems has advanced as a need to “return to our roots” and find a more natural and organic balance within the ecosystem. Similar to the havoc being placed on the Amazon by humans, the ecosystem will survive when we stop pretending that there is anything that we can do to enable entrepreneurship and empower entrepreneurs, other than give them the space to do just that.

I want to stop for a moment to remind everyone that these pieces are specifically written to make us pause. These ICSB Reflections are released for the challenge and encouragement of “questioning the system.” Let us not fall claim to an idea just because it receives much attraction; let us, instead, better understand a concept and see it as a possible solution to aid us in advancing society.

Therefore, it is here that we will “refocus” on Humane Entrepreneurship. Dr. Norris Krueger and his ecosystem gurus are urging us to do so. As these experts release their reviews on thriving and failing ecosystems and the phenomena of ecosystems at large, I cannot help but notice the “humane” in all of it. They provide a solution to help institutions, regions, and governments better understand how the human must sit first and at the forefront of all our decisions around entrepreneurship.

The New Professor’s second class ended with a view of the group’s takeaways. They were all (unsurprisingly) focused on the human. Simultaneously, person after person reiterated ways in which these organizations and institutions that need to get out of the course are made up of individuals. If we change our thinking — from the entity in which the people exist within to the people themselves, then we will be simultaneously creating solutions in two frameworks of understanding: HumEnt and that of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

In both theories and practices, two essential concepts can hold true in both our natural and artificial systems, being bottom-up and intangible. In nature, ecosystems are created by the symbiosis of microscopic living organisms working synergistically together. The masses (bottom-up) are responsible for creating and maintaining the system, while it is inexplicable energy (the intangible) that provides the conduction of an ecosystem’s seamless flow.

We can think of the intangible in an entrepreneurial ecosystem, or frankly any human ecosystem, as the culture. Culture works as a significant driving force that, although very difficult to describe, guides an ecosystem. Culture — created, accepted, and perpetuated by the people — decides the parameters of success, failure, and an ecosystem’s ability to flow seamlessly. I want to pose that this might be a missing piece in the discussion of ecosystem building. There is essentially no framework, which we can construct, that can truly describe a “framework” for ecosystems because an ecosystem’s success is typically based on its ability to capture the least common denominators of a community, or the groups typically left out of the discussion. The ability of an ecosystem to adequately engage with the women, children, and disenfranchised will change depending on each culture. Yet, it is a guiding and determining factor for the prosperity in every entrepreneurial ecosystem.

As always, I hope that this reflection will illicit much thought and discussion going forward. This is not a comprehensive review but rather a call to the greater narrative we are all taking part in. We can easily find contradictions in all theories and most practices, and therefore, it is our responsibility to find our seat in the uncertainty of the gray area.

It is here we will advance. It is here where entrepreneurship lies.

article by:

Dr. Ayman El Tarabishy,

President and CEO, ICSB and Deputy Chair of the Department of Management, GW School of Business

The Stakeholder Share: Entrepreneurship’s Return to Its Roots

The Stakeholder Share: Entrepreneurship’s Return to Its Roots

The Stakeholder Share: Entrepreneurship’s Return to Its Roots

Saturday, September 8, 2020, by Ayman El Tarabishy

The simple act of transforming our previous consideration as shareholders as the most important aspect in a corporation to integrating stakeholders as active contributors can work significantly toward establishing a culture of humane entrepreneurship.

This week, having started the New Professor Program, we have been reflecting much on the elements necessary as we build entrepreneurship that is focused on innovation for humanity and the pursuit of business opportunities for profit, society well-being, sustainability, and the integration of all people. These concepts are not new to this organization nor its members. However, as we have previously taken time to specifically examine opportunities for wealth generation, sustainable practices and cycles of growth, and humane inclusion, we have yet had a chance to discuss the importance of societal well-being. To properly portray how community well-being can be illuminated in our new and humane normal, we need to examine our understanding of stakeholders’ and shareholders’ role and relationship to an enterprise.

Humane Entrepreneurship can be thought of as the harmony of applied innovation, the pursuit of business opportunities for profit, and the sustainable well-being of society, which is for the people and by the people. It is, in essence, a humane way of treating entrepreneurship, where the well-being of each individual is paramount. This is an excellent concept, but it becomes interesting when we look to our historical roots, examining the operational environment. Returning to 1970, Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman announced that any business who pursued a goal other than making money was “an unwitting puppet of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” His declaration was taken as religion, and for the next 40 some years, we, collectively, viewed shareholders as the only group to indeed have a moral claim on the corporation, which existed, in essence, to maximize their value, specifically, the bottom line. However, as we know, corporations, just as individuals and communities, do not exist in silos, nor do their company practices. In recent years, the evil and unprecedented harm on cities worldwide for the sake of the bottom line has become more visible thanks to innovations in technology, which allow people to see both the social successes and havoc caused by enterprises globally.

Next, we might look to Edward Freeman, an American philosopher. He, around the same time, stated, conversely, that many groups can make moral claims on the corporation because the corporation has the potential to harm or benefit these groups. Freeman’s theory can encompass a variable that Friedman forgot, which would be the stakeholders. Including the owners, corporate managers, the local community, customers, employees, suppliers, stakeholders are essential to the survival and success of the corporation as their relationship with the corporation affects them.

A little over a year ago, many of us applauded the Business Roundtable’s incredible statement, declaring “181 CEOs of American’s largest corporations overturned a 22-year-old policy statement that defined a corporation’s principal purpose as maximizing shareholder return.” A glorious moment in history and a small victory for the ICSB community. After nearly five years of attempts to bring visibility to this alternative perspective of viewing stakeholders as merit holders of an enterprise and organization, a significant collective, such as the Business Roundtable, decided to assist in welcoming in the transition to a more humane centered view of the enterprise.

This modality of transforming our previous consideration of shareholders as contributors and stakeholders as invisible to critical is a significant step in establishing a culture of humane entrepreneurship that works to heal rather than hurt. We kindly thank organizations, such as the Business Roundtable, for their action towards a better tomorrow. However, given the pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic, we must ask organizations such as this, what next? Almost a month after a lockdown in the United States in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Business Roundtable addressed Vice President Pence in a letter, stating that:

“We appreciate the efforts of the Trump Administration and many Governors to begin the difficult work of developing economic recovery plans. It is important to plan now for the gradual lifting of some restrictions on activity when policymakers, guided by public health officials, conclude the time is right. This work is especially important to small and medium-sized businesses — many of whom are our customers and suppliers — and for individuals and families who are bearing the brunt of the current crisis” (Business Roundtable, 2020).

These kind words are essential from an organization such as this, but we must now ask, how are you and your invested CEOs honoring stakeholders at this moment? When an organization declares the importance of stakeholders openly, they must act appropriately in their communities when pressure tightens. We must tread lightly and be aware that while we make this gallant movement back to our roots and Freeman’s emphasis on stakeholders, we do not mean to repeat history. Move to stakeholder inclusion, promoted by the lens of Humane Entrepreneurship, is not intended to enable philanthropic or socially responsible acts, nor are we promoting the re-establishment of social entrepreneurship. We are specifically and directly asking for a holistic approach that incorporates social achievements (the Sustainable Development Goals) and focuses on the Employees to accelerate and sustain solutions and increase opportunities on a local and global level.

We look forward to reports which cover how corporations involved in the Business Roundtable look to create more job opportunities and to empower their current employees, even in moments such as this. How are foundational organizations, such as this, providing an equitable policy that allows parents to successfully do their work, while feeling supported to care for their children learning from home? How can we ensure that we keep up with ecological policies that care for our local communities is necessary ways to continue our combat against climate change? How are organizations, such as this, advocating for fair and inclusive policies for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, and appropriate measures that ensure that these MSMEs have access to such aid? We commend your service to stakeholders, and we provide that we will stay current with how you uphold your practice of Humane Entrepreneurship at this moment.

We, your supporters, and your stakeholders are watching and waiting.

article by:

Dr. Ayman El Tarabishy,

President and CEO, ICSB and Deputy Chair of the Department of Management, GW School of Business

Answering key questions around informality in micro and small enterprises during the COVID-19 crisis

Answering key questions around informality in micro and small enterprises during the COVID-19 crisis

Answering key questions around informality in micro and small enterprises during the COVID-19 crisis

Sunday, September 20, 2020, by The International Labour Organization

Understanding how informal enterprises are affected by the Covid-19 crisis is of central importance for identifying effective responses and designing support strategies that can encounter the socioeconomic impacts of the global pandemic. This document provides answers to a set of questions that address, for example, how governments and other actors can effectively reach out to informal economic units, the kind of support that is needed and what might be effective ways to reduce the risk of informalization of formal jobs and economic units. It is a living document that will be updated with additional practical insights on ongoing basis.