The planet faces numerous crises that are global in scope and cannot be solved by any one country alone: environmental degradation, food and water insecurity, climate change, economic disruption, natural disasters, conflict and terrorism, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These crises are linked by common drivers, including increasing population and consumption; declining agricultural, mineral, and fossil fuel supplies; and a growing dependence on imported energy sources.
The recent financial crisis was sparked by the collapse of US financial firm Lehman Brothers in September 2008. The failure of this and other firms sparked a panic in financial markets around the world as investors pulled out their money; banks and other institutions that wanted new financing could not get it; and economies stalled. Governments responded to the financial crisis by lowering interest rates, buying ownership stakes in financial firms, lending money to those in need, and providing other support. Many of these policies worked to prevent a global depression, but the recovery took much longer than in previous recessions without a global crisis component.
While research on crisis communication and management is extensive, the effects of global crises on consumer well-being and consumption have not received sufficient attention. This article aims to fill this gap by exploring how people respond to global crises, how they evaluate international and national crisis-regulating institutions, and how these evaluations impact their attitudes toward international institutions. The theoretical framework draws on the sociopolitical theory of trust, which predicts that when people have dual expectations of national and international institutions (as in the case of a global crisis) they tend to assign blame for ineffective crisis management equally to both institutions.
About the Author
