Band 8 model answer

The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the vulnerabilities inherent in globally integrated supply chains, prompting widespread calls for countries to prioritise domestic production. I agree that some rebalancing is warranted, though a wholesale retreat from global trade would be both impractical and economically damaging.

The disruptions of 2020 and 2021 demonstrated that excessive concentration of manufacturing in a small number of countries creates systemic risk. Shortages of personal protective equipment, pharmaceutical ingredients, and semiconductor components revealed that critical goods had become difficult to obtain precisely when they were most needed. Governments were right to conclude that strategic industries require a degree of domestic or regional capacity as a buffer against future shocks.

Nevertheless, the appropriate response is not a general turn towards self-sufficiency. The principle of comparative advantage, which holds that countries benefit by specialising in what they produce most efficiently, remains sound. Autarkic industrial policy tends to protect inefficient producers at consumers' expense and, historically, has often failed to deliver the resilience it promises. The solution lies in diversification of supply chains rather than their abandonment.

A more measured approach would see governments identify genuinely critical sectors, such as medicine, energy, and food, and invest in building redundant capacity either domestically or through alliances with trusted partners. At the same time, broader trade networks should be maintained and, where possible, deepened to capture the economic benefits that globalisation has delivered over recent decades.

In conclusion, the pandemic's lessons justify targeted investment in strategic domestic production, but should not be used to justify a broader rejection of international economic integration. Resilience and openness are complementary goals, not opposing ones.