The third week of March may qualify as an inflection point in the trajectory of two countries – China and South Korea – when compared to the week before, number of fresh cases diagnosed dropped by almost a third. It appears that both countries have finally managed to contain the spread of Covid-19, while relying on a diversified set of strategies (discounting any second or third wave of corona for the purposes of this brief¹).

That South Korea’s success has come as a result of a well-coordinated program of testing at a massive scale was covered by BR Research yesterday (for more, read ‘Pakistan lockdown: Sophie’s choice!’). While South Korea was able to avoid the unsavoury choice of a countrywide lockdown, others have gone down a different road.

According to NYT, beginning with China, over one-third population of the planet has gone under a restrictive quarantine, which includes most of subcontinent, Western Europe, Mediterranean, Gulf countries, and Australia.

Although it has been 66 days since the first case of Covid-19 was confirmed outside of China, 95 percent of non-China cases were confirmed in past four weeks alone. The explosive growth in cases seen globally beginning March means that states have only just begun to grapple with responses. It remains to be seen whether those who have chosen to follow in Chinese footsteps will be successful.

But what factors may have been at play in determining Chinese success at mass-quarantine? Does the socio-cultural, and political setup of other nations allow for similar measures elsewhere, that were initially dubbed ‘draconian’ by the western commentators?

In this respect, BR Research looked at various indices and country rankings of civil, personal, and economic freedom, technological prowess, state control, command economy, demographic dividend, and authoritarianism, comparing Chinese standing against that of select group of countries where number of Covid-19 cases has been widespread over the last one month.

According to Global ICT Development Index rankings for 2017 published by ITU-data, China is equally advanced in technological prowess compared to developed countries of Western Europe and USA, but that should come as no surprise. Its remarkable technological efficiencies obviously played a role in allowing it to scale production of virus testing kits and PPE equipment on urgent basis. But in that, China was not alone.

Highly developed states such as South Korea and Singapore were able to manufacture kits at a similar pace – if not build specialized hospitals and clinic on war footing. However, what sets China apart is its state power and control. According to State Power Index (2017) published by Europa, an official EU ranking index, China’s state power – driven primarily by its military prowess – is virtually unmatched by other nations facing Covid-19 onslaught, except apart from by USA.

But it’s the contrasting experience of two countries in soft power that possibly sets them apart in their ability to impose mass restriction on domestic population. While US, Western Europe, and Far Eastern countries rank highly based on Civil Liberties score, China ranking is virtually nil. Measured by Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU) for 2019, while China’s score on human rights may be a controversial subject in ordinary times, the communist states ability to instil order on large segments of population may just have proven to be its strength in times of pandemic.

This, however, raises an important question whether transparency is a strength or weakness in times of national emergencies. While the country scores poorly on Corruption Perception Index as measured by Transparency International – compared to its Covid-19 hit peers – lack of transparency did not stop it from ensuring order in the times of chaos. Because of strict restrictions on both freedom of press and social media, reportedly the Chinese state was able to closely monitor flow of information, allowing it to manage panic – arguably a crucial prerequisite for success of any interventions taken by authorities.

While readers of this brief may be tempted to draw the conclusion that in order to ensure that any attempts at lockdown (to control pandemic spread) is a success, the state must be allowed to assume wide and extraordinary powers.

But readers are cautioned, and before they may be forced to ask whether such a trade-off between individual rights and guarantee of life is worth it – consider that the South Korean experience shows that such a trade-off may not be the only option. Provided the state is technologically advanced enough to take other interventions such as mass-testing, and at least does not score more poorly than China on Transparency Index!

On to the corollary, the contrasting experience of China and South Korea raises another interesting question – in the absence of both technological advancement and state efficiency, can lockdown be at all successful?