The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are holding their annual spring meetings this week amid the most extraordinary economic and political contexts in at least a generation. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva previewed these sessions last week, saying that the fund expects a complex, “multi-speed” recovery from the pandemic because economic fortunes are diverging so widely as a result of varying vaccination rates around the world. She went on to warn that preexisting inequalities that have been exacerbated by the coronavirus crisis might lead not only to macroeconomic instability but also greater polarization, the erosion of trust in governments, and growing social unrest. This troubled landscape reminds many of the aftermath of the 2007-2008 international financial crisis. The fallout from that shock was profound, not only economically; there was very significant international political turbulence, including the rise of anti-establishment populists riding an anti-globalization mood across much of the world. The global economic shock from the pandemic has been even greater. Recognizing the challenges that lie ahead, Georgieva last week called on governments to give “everyone a fair shot” as they build on the extraordinary $16 trillion in global fiscal and monetary stimulus packages provided so far in 2020 and 2021. Without these, Georgieva said, the downturn would have been three times worse. The remaining problem is, in her words, that economic prospects are “diverging dangerously,” with the global economy now in a multi-speed recovery that is increasingly powered by the US and China. However many other countries are falling behind, with new strains of the virus holding back growth prospects, especially in Europe and South America. It is widely considered that the peak of the political aftershock that followed the 2007-2008 international financial crisis came in 2016, when Donald Trump was elected US president and the UK voted to leave the EU. What was so striking about both of these events was that the actions of two countries previously known for political stability, and being traditional rule makers of the international order, caused the world to become a significantly more uncertain place. While 2016 might prove a defining year in the eyes of some historians, however, significant political volatility has been a feature of international politics for much of the post-financial crisis period. The most eye-catching examples of this were the political revolutions, popular uprisings and protests in emerging markets. These include the so-called “Arab Spring” that began in Tunisia and spread to include revolutionary changes of power in countries such as Libya; the transfer of power in Yemen; plus demonstrations and uprisings in countries such as Algeria. In addition, there was the Ukrainian revolution of 2014, which resulted in the ousting of pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych; the Brazilian demonstrations of 2013 that were, at the time, the largest in the country for about two decades; and the 2011 Azerbaijani protests against the government. Developed countries also took a political hit. In Europe, for instance, millions took to the streets and administrations in more than half of the 27 EU states fell or were voted out of office between spring 2010 and 2012 alone. Within the core eurozone, 11 of 14 governments collapsed or lost elections during that same period. Looking ahead, a key question is whether political instability will rise significantly, especially in parts of the world where growth is sputtering. Much of the answer, as Georgieva asserts, rests with policymakers, and the IMF recommends measures including reforms of tax policies and the bolstering of social safety nets such as healthcare and education. The fund acknowledges that the cost of these reforms, for 121 emerging market economies to provide such basic services, will be about $3 trillion. The IMF estimates that faster progress in ending the health crisis, including a more equitable sharing of vaccines, could add almost $9 trillion to the global gross domestic product by 2025. Georgieva last week highlighted the fact that only one country in Africa, Morocco, so far has started a program of coronavirus vaccinations. It is widely considered that the peak of the political aftershock that followed the 2007-2008 international financial crisis came in 2016, when Donald Trump was elected US president and the UK voted to leave the EU. Andrew Hammond Therefore while the window of opportunity to tackle the crisis remains partially open, it already seems likely there will be significant political consequences of the pandemic. In part this is because the salience of economic inequality has grown in many countries. Both the populist right and the left have capitalized on this, as shown not only by Trump’s victory in 2016 but also the 2018 landslide victory of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico. Both of these victories were framed by the anti-globalization backlash. Moreover, the consequences of the health crisis are likely to endure for many people, including the young, who have suffered the most in terms of unemployment. This puts many at risk of long-term damage to their earning potential and job prospects, which could fuel discontent that might well lead to protests. With the world now in the second year of the pandemic, the prospects of increased political volatility around the globe in the coming decade are significant. While the circumstances will vary from country to country, this future political instability will potentially be fueled by economic inequality and the legacies of the health crisis, such as higher levels of youth unemployment, and also by longer-standing political and socioeconomic discontent arising from previous crises, including the 2007-08 financial crash. Andrew Hammond is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics. Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view