## Akcije

kako citirati ovaj članak
prikaži na oba jezika
podeli ovaj članak

## Metrika

• citati u SCIndeksu: 0
• citati u CrossRef-u:0
• citati u Google Scholaru:[]
• posete u poslednjih 30 dana:16
• preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:14

 članak: 2 od 133
 povratak na rezultate
2021, vol. 55, br. 3, str. 930-952
Geoekonomija i preduzetništvo u vreme pandemije COVID-19
Institut društvenih nauka, Beograd

Projekat:
Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja Republike Srbije (institucija: Institut društvenih nauka, Beograd) (MPNTR - 451-03-68/2020-14/200004)

Sažetak
Cilj ovog istraživanja je da se ispita kako je koronavirus, koji je postao globalni proces, uticao na tržište rada. Cilj je da se potvrdi ili odbije postavljena hipoteza da je došlo do povećanja nezaposlenosti od početka pandemije. Takođe, cilj je dati odgovor na istraživačko pitanje da li je socijalni dijalog uspeo da ublaži negativne efekte COVID-19. U ovom istraživanju korišćeni su analitički i opisni metod. U ovom radu izloženo naučno istraživanje daje značajan doprinos proučavanju uticaja koronavirusa na regione, ekonomsku aktivnost i nezaposlenost. U radu su izneti podaci o broju (ne)zaposlenih u svetu pre početka pandemije i nakon završetka prve, udarne godine.

# Introduction

A reasonable question arises as to how coronavirus affects the business activities of enterprises. The market behaviour of enterprises is affected by industry, geography and operating models, which consist of complex supply chains, most frequently international ones, thus requiring their employees to travel on business. The virus has disturbed this method of doing business while the danger of exposure to the virus has increased, particularly for those employees who are in direct contact with customers. For these reasons, remote work has been organized, whereas the formerly established (usual) method of the functioning of organizations and employees has been changed. However, it has transpired that remote work is not always a sustainable option. At the same time, some other disturbances occurred, for example, the organization of travel was disturbed. The need arose for increasing the support globally to the mobile workforce and those businesspeople that travel. In order to ensure normal functioning of both domestic and international supply chains, in such disturbed circumstances it is important that there is no shortage of some products necessary for life sustenance. National governments make decisions about these matters, as well as about the matters of protecting citizens and overall national interests. In the events of economic disturbances, taking into account instability and unpredictability of the market, reports about increased costs and potential income of enterprises constitute important sources of information for the further course of work and (re)directing the existing or new funding (Gallagher et al., 2020).

Enterprises are forced to cope with financial and operating challenges posed by the coronavirus, and at the same time they must fulfil the needs of their employees, customers and suppliers. There is an open question of the gap between digitally backward enterprises and those that are leading in that field, then the question of the nature of work places after the COVID-19 pandemic in these two types of enterprises. Will digitally backward enterprises manage to become modernized retarding information technology and will digitally advanced enterprises manage to keep work places opened during the coronavirus? The answer is that many enterprises of both types are trying to transform their business activities towards the acceleration of digital transformation and the application of agile operating activities in order to strengthen their business (Outmaneuver uncertainty: Navigating the human and business impact of COVID-19, 2020).

# Geoeconomics and the coronavirus

The coronavirus pandemic with all its characteristics has also affected geoeconomics at the global level. Geoeconomics is, in fact, an integral part of geostrategy, together with geopolitics. It can be freely said that nowadays, in the ongoing world strategic outplaying, geoeconomics is given priority over geopolitics, which is not bad since global strategic trends remain at the rational level in that way1. In the newly-created time of the dominance of geoeconomics, the necessary conditions for strengthening geoeconomic resilience of some countries are: capable public administration, reindustrialization, protection of domestic economy and encouragement of the rise of domestic entrepreneurship, with the stability of institutions. Geoeconomic politics must be pursued by both small and large states, i.e. they must be empowered to offer assistance to enterprises on the international stage.

"In the geoeconomic game, a series of economic instruments is used: customs protection of important branches of economy, subsidizing key enterprises, preferential crediting, tax reliefs, in particular encouraging the development of selected activities, development of new technologies, competition for natural resources and infrastructure. The importance of certain countries, from the perspective of geoeconomics, will depend on the key fields, such as the movement of goods, finance, people, technologies and information" (Babić, 2019, p. 181, pp. 184-185).

The role of the state in the newly-created time of the dominance of geoeconomics is becoming more relevant and is actually quite significant because, apart from the business subjects, it is the main bearer of the market appearance of enterprises and the placement of their goods in the international market. The influence of one country nowadays, besides other factors, is no doubt determined by its economic power. That is what Japan and Germany realized as early as the middle of the 20th century, when they adjusted their respective industries to the international market. A geostrategy may also refer to some broader continental geographical regions such as the European Union region, the Asian-Pacific region, the Central Asian region and many others. However, the concept of geoeconomics in its most general meaning covers the role of the state and the private sector in economy, the road of economic development and modernization, as well as the manner of global integration. The aspect of geoeconomics also includes transport corridors, i.e. roads that are as important as ocean routes (Lissovolik, 2017).

One of the definitions says that geoeconomics is a combination of economic and geographical factors that refer to international trade (Merriam-Webster, 2021). Another more complex definition says that geoeconomics is the study of effects of the samples of material disputes over power between different actors in the international order, thus justifying their importance analyzed within international political economy (International Political Economy, IPE). In the context of geoeconomics, the economic power of the countries and other international entities is crucial for their appearance in the international market, but, ultimately, for the maintenance of military power, diplomatic apparatus and intelligence service as well (Jaeger & Brities, 2020). However, during the coronavirus pandemic, the entire power of one country was reflected in its readiness and ability to cope with the pandemic. The state was powerful in relation to the number of human lives it was able to save, whether it was able to develop its own vaccine and to conduct the vaccination of its own population. Small countries cannot be expected to provide large investments in order to conduct research about the virus and vaccines, but it is realistic to expect them to prove to be able and dedicated to apply appropriate measures in a timely manner and to respond adequately to the newly-created situation. Only the country that had the necessary awareness, the country that had the best organized medical resources could respond well to the spreading pandemic. In the very first days of the pandemic, the borders were closed, travel was restricted and work from home was introduced, so during 2020 the loss of work hours occurred. Closing the borders, as a measure resorted to by many countries, is directly opposite to their former attitudes about open global movement and liberal trade.

# Entrepreneurship and COVID-19

COVID-19 has caused mainly negative financial effects on the business of small and medium-sized enterprises that were among the greatest economic "victims" of the pandemic2. The fact that these enterprises were exposed to dangers beforehand as well, but the pandemic has multiplied these dangers and risks. Generally speaking, the crisis has increased the need for knowledge exchange in order to respond to the risks it has brought. Many have redirected the existing production and business processes, trying to predict the changes and to protect their own investments accordingly. The COVID-19 virus affected substantially the overall life of the population throughout the world, so that social interaction has been modified. On one hand, entrepreneurs were exposed to risk, responsible for innovations, while on the other hand, their ability to respond to the requirements of market challenges was undermined. Today, entrepreneurs must make decisions on the basis of available information and analyses. The manner in which an organization responds will determine its business success, its business capability and survival in the market. There are "four Cs" in crisis management: causes, consequences, caution and coping. Causes may appear occasionally or continuously, consequences refer to the crisis effects on the business and living environment and the capability of an enterprise to remove ecological barriers. Caution implies the risk of acting in a certain manner, while coping is the way in which enterprises managed to cope with a specific event. Entrepreneurship is an activity that constitutes a part of overall social interactions, and most frequently it is a part of a broader network. That obliges entrepreneurs to solidarity in the network and/or the group they belong to. Entrepreneurship is focused on ideas, and even in uncertain circumstances an opportunity for making profit should be perceived. An entrepreneur is an individual that uses a business opportunity through innovations. An entrepreneur must also take care of the effects of his/her work on the environment, which gives his/her activity a broader ethical dimension (Ratten, 2020).

The coronavirus pandemic made assistance to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises become indispensible because those enterprises are the backbone of new economies, for example in the area of sustainable development.

“In economy, sustainable development refers to the rational use of natural resources in the process of creating sustainable economic (industrial) development and the opportunities of creating new work places, employment and human resources management. Such places are called green work places” (Maksimović, 2020, p. 245).

For these reasons Michael Porter concludes that polluted air is the result of inefficient use of resources for economic purposes. New industrialization is faced with two challenges; the first one is increasing sophistication of technology and improving knowledge and its application; the second one is environmental protection. “Green” jobs should provide decent work to workers, and financial security and poverty alleviation to their families, thus leading to the social inclusion of a larger percentage of the population. Including small and medium-sized enterprises in the “green sector” is significant because through the regulatory ambience and institutional environment they can go towards increasing innovations and the creation of new work places. Moreover, investments in human capital, although initially expenditure, actually lead to savings in the use of natural and physical resources. Employees are thus provided better work places, living standard and earnings. Unemployment, as a rule, first affects the poorest members of the society, then unqualified workforce and finally women and young population, which this COVID-19 crisis has fully confirmed (Maksimović, 2020, p. 249, p. 254, p. 256).

Furthermore, small and medium-sized enterprises find it difficult to cope with the challenges and strategic choices during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are seven recommendations to them: 1. Build a trustworthy team for crisis management, make and implement decisions quickly; 2. Review plans, adjust to the fluid situation in order to bridge dilemmas; 3. Use data in a timely manner; 4. Give answers at the agreed pace; 5. Understand full the exposure to risks and effects and third parties, their vulnerability to failure and potentials affecting sustainability; 6. Contact and engage staff, customers and suppliers, and 7. Strengthen the process of responding to the crisis, assign teams that will make decisions and communicate at the local level (Gallagher et al., 2020).

The tourism sector in the EU has been particularly affected by the coronavirus pandemic. This sector employs about 27 million people worldwide and generates 10% of GDP in the EU. In order to alleviate negative economic effects, the European Commission has issued new guidelines for activating European tourism, while simultaneously supporting tourism through fiscal measures and passengers' rights. When ensuring liquidity of the industrial sector, the EU helps companies in adjusting their production lines and reducing legal bureaucratic formalities in order to increase production in the EU and ensure faster supply of the products to the market. The free flow of goods and services before the COVID-19 pandemic facilitated substantially the supply in the EU single market. Now the funding of small and medium-sized enterprises is facilitated, and the ESCALAR programme has been initiated for those companies seeking to expand. Before the pandemic, small and medium-sized enterprises employed two thirds of the workforce and they have been seriously affected by the crisis. Declining profits have been recorded in all countries, but small and medium-sized enterprises in Italy and Spain have suffered the worst effects. 30% and 33% of them respectively say that their profits have decreased, while in Germany profits have gone down to about 23% in 2020 (Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SME, 2021​). As early as May 2020, the United Nations predicted that there would be a decrease in global economy at the loss level of about nine trillion dollars (United Nations (UN), 2020).

In the USA, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises have been gravely affected by the pandemic because they are concentrated in the sector that is directly affected by the measures against the COVID-19 pandemic. That is, for example, the services and retail sector that is more credit-limited than large enterprises. That is why the US Congress enacted the law on assistance and economic security from the coronavirus, which included $350 billion for financing the earnings protection programme in these enterprises. Before the enactment of this law, many employers had already fired some of their employees and, when this law came into force in April 2020, the funds were used for the payroll calculation and the payment of leases or utilities. The next critical point was the fact that employers did not expect to recover their business in the following two years (Humphries et al, 2020, p. 2). Moreover, European and global economy has suffered huge economic losses, while social and economic consequences are not going to work, lower demand by consumers, uncertain investment plans and limited liquidity of enterprises. These are definitely temporary consequences, and that is why it is necessary to try to make them as short-lasting as possible, so that this situation should not cause permanent damage to economies or lead to the loss of property and technologies. The economic response to the pandemic should also be made by saving lives and ensuring the consumption of the necessary funds for recovering from the pandemic. The economic response should also include the protection of European enterprises from profit loss, as well as the provision of the necessary financial support to the sector of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in order to maintain liquidity. In addition, remote work, reduction of working hours and extended sick leave are also promoted in order to strengthen the social dimension of the European Union (European Commission, 2020, p. 13, p. 2, p. 7). For those reasons, the World Economic Forum has proclaimed the "4R" principles: Respond, Recover, Rebuild, Reset (World Economic Forum, 2020). The message is that it is necessary to give an adequate and feasible response to the COVID-19 crisis at the global level, to recover enterprises and sectors, to revive production, resources and investments, and to reset work normalization. Not all countries have been affected by the pandemic in the same way; some of them are affected on a larger and some others on a smaller scale, depending on the manner of their preparation for this crisis. Ion some countries, employers reduced working hours in order to keep workplaces and salaries of their employees. In other countries, a high increase in unemployment was recorded and employees are expected to return to their work places once economies open and start working more intensively (OECD, Employment-outlook 2020). Such situation has been further compounded by the inflow of migrants. For example, in the EU labour market, migrants are trying to integrate in various ways, most often by accepting poorly paid and risk-bearing jobs, as well as jobs in informal economy. However, women migrants with low qualifications have been affected most gravely, as well as the members of minority ethnic and religious groups (Novaković & Maksimović, 2019, p. 201). In order to enable social entrepreneurs to play their role well and to avoid bankruptcy, financial and non-financial support was necessary. According to the multinational initiative Collaborative for Frontier Finance, before the COVID-19 crisis, global needs for financing small and growing enterprises (SGEs), which include social entrepreneurs, amounted to$930 billion, while the gap in financing SGEs was estimated at $2.5 billion. This gap no doubt increased during the crisis, and the COVID Response Alliance for Social Entrepreneurs responded to COVID-19 in April 2020 by mobilizing 60 leading social sector organizations in order to help in providing support and raising the awareness about the vital role of social entrepreneurs and the role they played in coping with the crisis. The members of the Alliance supported over 50,000 social entrepreneurs throughout the world, and in turn they improved the social effect on the people's lives (the lives of about one billion people), providing access to employment, food, energy and other services (World Economic Forum, 2020, p. 9). Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the greatest economic crisis since the 1929 Great Depression. The 2020 crisis is more serious even than the financial crisis from 2008/09. COVID-19 has led to a decline, or almost collapse of economic activity, and an increase in unemployment as early as the first months of 2020. Unemployment will remain at a high level in 2021 in OECD countries, reaching 10% (see Table 1), while recovery is expected only after 20213 (OECD, Employment-outlook 2020, pp. 1-2). Table 1. Unemployment rate from 2008 to 2020 in OECD countries Табела 1. Стопа незапослености од 2008. до 2020. у ОЕЦД земљама Year / Година 2008. 2010. 2012. 2014. 2016. 2018. 2020. Unemployment in % / Незапосленост у % 5,7 8,6 8 7,9 6,6 5,6 8,8 For 2020, the data until May were taken. The average unemployment rate is shown for the OECD countries and Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Source: According to OECD; Employment outlook 2020 Although recovery regarding employment is expected to accelerate in the second half of 2021, some predictions show that global unemployment will reach about 200 million people in 2022, as compared to 187 million in 2019. Recovery will be uneven – faster in the development countries, but also in those with a more comprehensive approach to vaccination, those that are increasingly creating decent work places, as well as support to the most threatened population strata. All demographic groups have been affected by the pandemic, but the influence of COVID-19 has had different degrees. Namely, unemployment of women declined by 5% in 2020, while unemployment of men declined by 3.9% in the same year. Furthermore, women became inactive in a higher percentage because "lockdown led to increased and repeated 'traditionalization" of gender roles" (United Nations (UN), 2021). It can be said with certainty that labour markets all over the world were most gravely affected by the 2020 pandemic. As a matter of fact, 8.8% of global working hours were reduced by 8.8% in 2020 as compared to the last quarter of 2019. That means the loss of 255 million full-time jobs. The worst loss of working hours was recorded in Latin America, the Caribbean, South Asia and South Europe. The losses of working hours in 2020 were four times higher than during the global financial crisis in 2009. In Central Europe, schemes of job keeping and reduction of working hours were supported, and that is why employment losses were the lowest there. The worst losses were suffered by women, young employees, the self-employed and those with low-qualified jobs4. Global unemployment increased by 33 million in 2020 as compared to 2019. The worst loss in earnings from work was suffered by the employees in America (10.3%), and the smallest in Asia-Pacific (6.6%). Such disproportional effect and uneven recovery point to the contrast between the mass job loss in the sectors such as tourism, culture, art and construction, and the positive increase in employment in those service sectors that require high qualifications, such as information and communications. All this indicates that recovery will be uneven and that inequalities will be increasingly pronounced in the following years. Speaking of the trend of closing work places, they vary depending on geoeconomic regions, so world economy is not entirely affected. The closing of work places was on the lowest scale in Europe, and on the largest Scale in Asia-Pacific. The governments of different countries perceived that geographically aimed and sector-specific measures were acceptable to people, although the measures of balance between public health and support to workers and enterprises affected by the closure of work places are constantly monitored and considered. Tourism is one of the crucial sectors for the functioning of developing countries and growing economies. In that sector, the losses of working hours will turn into the loss of employment rather than into reduced working hours. In 2009, global unemployment was by 0.6% higher than in 2008, while in 2020 it rose to 6.5% from 1.1% in 2019. The loss of work places increased social contributions and the greatest burden of the job loss in the second quarter of 2020 was suffered by low-qualified workers (10.8%), then by medium-qualified workers (7.5%) and in the end by high-qualified workers (2.2%) (ILO, 2021, p. 9, p. 19). In the second quarter of 2020, a substantial decline in the number of employees was recorded, while the loss of about 68 million work places is anticipated in 2021. The losses in global earnings from work are estimated to have decreased by 8.3% in 2020, which is$3.7 billion or 4.4% of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The data from the third quarter of 2020 speak of a sharp contrast between the loss of work places in badly affected sectors such as accommodation, food services, art and culture, retail and construction. On the other hand, there was a positive increase in the number of work places in many high-qualified service sectors, i.e. information and communications, as well as financial and insurance activities. This imparity exists in different countries in different ways (ILO, 2021, p. 2).

During this crisis, many people who wanted to get a job were interrupted in that intention and became inactive because of not seeing an opportunity for looking for a job due to numerous restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (ILO, 2021, p. 8).

One study of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on business and employment at the beginning of the crisis speaks of temporary and permanent lockdown at the beginning of the crisis. Out of the total sample of the enterprises, 41.3% answered that they were temporarily closed due to COVID-19; 1.8% reporting being closed permanently due to the pandemic; 1.3% answered that they were temporarily closed for some other reasons, while 55% reported that they still worked. Moreover, this study shows that the enterprises fired the largest number of workers in the period from 31 st January 2020 to 31 st March 2020. Namely, in that period, the number of employees with fixed-term jobs declined by 32%, the number of part-time employees was lower by 57%, the number of full-time employees declined by 17.3%, while the number of employees with reduced working hours declined by 34% in that period as compared to 30th January 2020 (Bartik et al, 2020).

# Social dialogue and the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic

Because of the onset of the crisis, market actors were forced to conduct social dialogue that occurred on a tripartite and bipartite basis. Efficient tripartite social dialogue was conducted among governments, employers and employees, while bipartite social dialogue was conducted between trade unions and employers, without the participation of governments (ILO, 2020a, p. 8).

Namely, social dialogue consists of consultations, negotiations and exchange of information of common interest to the representatives who negotiate and referring to economic and social policies. In 2020, trade unions in most countries used social dialogue (81%) in order to respond to the COVID-19 crisis and protect employees and enterprises affected by the crisis. The accomplishments of tripartite social dialogue were social protection and employment, medical protection, employee testing, income protection, introduction of temporary jobs, prohibited dismissal, mandatory payment of earnings to certain categories of employees, such as pregnant women, employees with risky diseases and employees above the age of 60. Support was provided to those employees who could not work remotely, and care was taken of children. Social assistance included income support to the population through social benefits. Social assistance to enterprises included financial support through the postponed payment of social contributions, deferred tax payment, favourable loans and avoidance of further job losses. Bipartite social dialogue between trade unions and employers at national and sector levels, and sometimes at the company level as well, included the supervision of the implementation of employee protection measures at work. Bipartite dialogue was reported in 82 out of 133 countries. Social partners implemented safety and health measures for employees, a temporary delay in line with the quarantine, safe arrival at work, distribution of information materials, introduction of work in shifts, reduced gathering of employees at work, work place sanitization, collective transport and payment in kind. Some trade unions even stopped asking for membership fees in order to relieve the burden on their members (ILO, 2020a, p. 12-13).

The ILO's policy for suppressing the negative social and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic is shown through four pillars Table 2.

Table 2. Four pillars constituting the framework of the ILO policy for suppressing the negative social and economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis
Табела 2. Четири стуба која чине оквир политике МОР-а за сузбијање негативног социјалног и економског утицаја кризе COVID-19

Pillar 1
Encouragement of economy and employment
Active fiscal policy
Crediting and financial support to some sectors, including the healthcare sector
Pillar 2
Support to enterprises, work places and income

Expansion of social protection to all
Implementation of measures for keeping employment
Ensuring financial/tax and other reliefs for enterprises
Pillar 3
Employee protection at work

Strengthening protection measures at work
Adjusting work arrangements (e.g. remote work)
Prevention of discrimination and exclusion
Expanding the approach to paid leave
Pillar 4
Relying on social dialoge for resolving problems

Strengthening capacities and resilience and organizations of employers and employees
Strengthebing government capacities
Strengthening institutions and the processes of social dialogue, collective negotiations and labour relations

Source: ILO, 2020b, p. 4

This framework was founded on international labour standards. The observation of international labour standards contributes to the culture of social dialogue and cooperation at work in order to accelerate recovery and prevent the worsening of unemployment. That is why the ILO adopted four political frameworks based on international labour standards to be observed. Therefore, this organization recommends relying on four pillars and their measures as follows: Pillar 1 – encouragement of economy and employment; Pillar 2 – support to enterprises, work places and earnings; Pillar 3 – protection of employees at work; and Pillar4 – relying on social in problem solving (ILO,2020b).

# Final considerations

The outbreak of the coronavirus in 2020 affected all spheres of life and work, including international economy and geoeconomic characteristics. During the coronavirus pandemic, the entire power of a state was reflected in its readiness and ability to cope with the pandemic and to save human lives, which led to the specific "vaccine geopolitics". The borders were closed, travel was restricted and work from home was introduced. The aim of this paper was to prove that unemployment had increased, which actually happened from the beginning of 2020 onwards. The closing of the borders was directly opposite to the former attitudes about open global movement and liberal trade, which made global economy less liberal and more planned and it is the main geoeconomic consequence of the crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. The coronavirus forced many enterprises to cope with financial and operating challenges. It made assistance to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises become indispensible because these enterprises are the backbone of new economies.

This paper proves that there has been a decline in economic activity, an increase in global unemployment and a loss of work places. The most significant role of national governments was in relation to the protection of citizens and national interests. The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative financial effects, primarily on the business of small and medium-sized enterprises. Speaking of the European Union region, small and medium-sized enterprises employed two thirds of its workforce and were responsible for innovations and the development of digitization. Their work was seriously threatened throughout 2020. Apart from economic effects, there are also negative social effects because people have lost social contacts due to remote work and being closed at home. The labour market has been most gravely affected by the pandemic because financial markets can perform transactions electronically as well. It is for these reasons that social dialogue was activated and took place between governments, employers and employees. It was supposed to facilitate the position of some workers, as well as to provide support to everyone and encourage them to persevere during the pandemic.

This paper establishes that the pandemic has most gravely affected medical workers, employees in the informal sector, self-employed people, employees in SMEs, migrant workers, women, young people and persons with disabilities (ILO, 2021, pp. 4-5). The following finding is that the most affected sectors are: tourism, transport (naval transport and civilian aviation), construction, healthcare, since hospitals have had to change their work regime substantially, and the sales and production sector (ILO, 2021, pp. 6–7; Maksimović, 2021).

The recovery from the pandemic-caused economic crisis is expected from 2021 onwards, but work conditions are not expected to go back to normal until 2023. It remains to be seen how this recovery will proceed, whether many work places will be closed and whether new ones will be opened.

Regardless of the answer to the above-listed questions, a bitter fact remains that the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic is the most significant global economic crisis ever since the Great Depression in the first half of the 20 th century, and its long-term geopolitical, geoeconomic and geostrategic consequences will certainly be substantial, which makes this topic a first-order subject of future research in social sciences.

# Endnotes

 1Nevertheless, it can be said that we live at the time of the triumphant “return of geopolitics” to international relations, although geopolitics has actually mutated into geoeconomics. Several years ago, one of the authors of this paper wrote about the returning trend of the so-called “Realpolitik” in the international relations, and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic openly shows that this trend has been properly detected (Cvetićanin, 2018, pp. 28–43). 2Large enterprises have also been affected by the crisis, but they have large supplies and are not credit-restricted, so that they are able to overcome market uncertainty. 3This refers to the unemployment percentage in comparison to the overall workforce. 4In 2018, for instance, the unemployment rate of women in the German labour market was 75.85% and 83.8% of men out of the total number of employees. However, in the past six years, women have increased their share in total employment, although men used to account for more employees until recently (48.8) in comparison to women (45.4). Inequalities between men and women in the labour market are also reflected in the manner of employment, so that men are usually employed full-time and women are employed part-time. It was not until 1977 that women gained the right to decide on their own about whether to get a job. Until that year, their spouses or other members of the family made that decision. Nowadays, mass employment of women is considered one of the most important factors of economic growth (Novaković and Maksimović, 2019).

# References

## O članku

jezik rada: srpski, engleski
vrsta rada: izvorni naučni članak
DOI: 10.5937/socpreg55-33257
primljen: 21.07.2021.
prihvaćen: 14.08.2021.
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 29.10.2021.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman

## Povezani članci

Nema povezanih članaka