Resolving the Covid Vaccination Debate by Understanding Diversity and Standardization

Introduction: A New Perspective to Resolve the Covid Vaccination Debate

Currently, many countries are debating on whether or not their government should vaccinate their whole population against Covid (e.g., Cohen, 2021). Not surprisingly, these debates, which are allowed or even encouraged in democratic countries, often turn into an accusation contest between political parties, especially between the incumbent and the opposition parties (Alon & Li, 2020; Cascini et al., 2021). As we know, politicizing an issue does not help resolve it objectively and scientifically.

To help resolve the debate in an objective and constructive way, we offer a new perspective by looking at the issue from the perspective of diversity versus standardization, which, we believe, is at the heart of the issue, moving it away from the politics.

The concepts of diversity and standardization are, in some sense, opposite, with diversity meaning the condition of having a variety, differing elements, or dissimilarity, and standardization indicating conformity with a standard, in order to assure consistency and regularity (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b, n.d.-c).

Historically, the development of human societies requires both diversity and standardization, and an interaction between the two. Overemphasizing either may be detrimental to the economic and scientific development of a successful society (Ernst, 2013; Marciano, 2014; Ranis, 2011).

Currently, most democratic countries are in a period of encouraging diversity, which is portrayed as a positive and a good thing, while standardization is often ignored, discouraged or even frowned upon (Clipper Round the World, n.d.; Merriam-Webster, n.d.-a; Potochny, 2019; Skagit Valley College, 2021).

However, diversity is not always a virtue; sometimes it is a hindrance. In some circumstances and under certain conditions, standardization is a virtue. For example, within an organization tasked with a project that requires everyone to have the same knowledge, a mutual understanding, to coordinate and to follow in the same direction, it is more efficient if everyone has had the same training, information, background and knowledge, and uses the same mode of communication. Within a country, it is helpful that everyone can speak a common language and shares the common values of the nation. In these cases, standardization reduces transactions costs and increases coordination and harmony. Blindly over-emphasizing diversity and unduly weakening standardization in society and organizations, as we will show, can have significant negative effects on economic development.

We have been studying the costs and benefits of diversity and standardization. In this perspective article, we will discuss the question of when an activity should be standardized and when it should be diversified, and what the criteria for that decision should be. In so doing, we hope to shed some light on the current debate on nationwide vaccination.

The Interaction Between Diversity and Standardization

The need for diversity is crucial. Genetic diversity helps assure the preservation of the various plant and animal species. When a species of plant or animal is confronted with new viruses, bacteria, or new environmental conditions, genetic diversity is a big advantage because it can help address the problem and prevent the extinction of a species. We can think of this diversity as a set of ‘experiments’. For example, when a disease strikes a plant species like rice, the genetic diversity within the rice population helps assure the preservation of the species. Some varieties may die, but some varieties may survive. The same is true for genetic diversity within animal and human populations.

In economic competition, we observe the same pattern. The 3M Company, a highly respected firm with numerous products that have improved our lives, has been successful in achieving an optimal balance between diversity and standardization in new product development. 3M’s ‘variation and selection strategy’ encourages workers to try many new product ideas. But 3M does not pursue diversity for the sake of diversity. In this case, diversity is a means to an end, not an end in itself. 3M has two steps in its strategy. First, the idea must be ‘new’ and ‘useful’ to people. Second, once a new product has shown promise, 3M will make decisive moves to invest in it and coordinate the company so as to make the product successful in the marketplace (Collins & Porras, 1994). This is the standardization step.

The evolution of measurement systems is another case. Before the introduction of the metric system, a diversity of measurement units was a detriment to the sharing of technologies and stable commerce. The adoption of the metric system around the world, which was led by France during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, has greatly facilitated increases in productivity, industrialization and international trade. Unfortunately, keeping diversity in measurements, such as simultaneously using the metric and English measurement systems, has occasionally led to disaster. In 1999, two teams, Lockheed Martin Astronautics and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), collaborated to build a $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter for the U.S. space agency, NASA. JPL used the metric system of millimetres, meters and kilograms, and Lockheed Martin used the English system of inches, feet and pounds. The result was a massive mission failure and NASA lost the Mars orbiter (Hotz, 1999).

In quite a different field, the confusion between the English and metric measurements is a leading cause of over and under-dosage of medicines in the U.S. because the American public does not yet understand the metric system (Rice, 2015).

Similarly, the use of different languages in different regions within a country has led, not only to inefficiencies and misunderstandings but also to an undermining of nation-building, such as the separatist movements within Canada or Spain. On the other hand, having a standard language within a country has generally led to increased understanding, less conflict, better coordination and fewer errors in policy (Ranis, 2011).

The advantage of diversity is the free competition of different ideas or ‘experiments’ that promote and facilitate creativity and productivity. Through free competition, ideas that hinder productivity will be criticized and eliminated due to their comparison with ideas that improve productivity. As a result, the most productive and innovative ideas and practices will win out. However, if governments or organizations attempt to thwart or regulate such competition, then the benefits of diversity may be lost.

The advantage of standardization is that it facilitates communication and coordination, allocates resources efficiently and maximizes the utility of the best products and services. Activities that require coordination, clear communication or standard sizes benefit from standardization. We have to be able to coordinate and communicate with each other. We are so surrounded by standardization that we may not be aware of the benefits of standardization: We benefit from standards in science, mathematics, responsible journalism, the mass media and the practice of law. There are standards in manufacturing. We benefit from the standardized specifications of roads, railroads, airports and air traffic rules. The train tracks have to be the same size from state to state. We benefit from health standards in restaurants and grocery stores. The U.S. could benefit from the adoption of the standards of the metric system. We could potentially benefit from a national set of Covid standards regarding masking, covid testing and vaccination rules. Different standards in different localities and states create confusion and increase the chance for future reinfection.

So, in the beginning, when we face new problems, we are best off if we have a variety of ideas, experiments, approaches and solutions. Especially in those areas in which there are a set of unexpected problems, we can benefit from a diversity of potential solutions in the hope that one of those solutions is the best one. Diversity leads to more discoveries. This was especially true during the COVID pandemic; organizations were better off by encouraging more diverse ideas to better deal with the new challenges brought about by the pandemic (Kaur & Kaur, 2020; Zaoui et al., 2021).

Once a new product or technique is demonstrated to be more useful or better than the existing ones, we need standardization to ensure its adoption and the maximization of its benefits for society. When an activity (such as disseminating a new product in society) has to be coordinated, we should opt for standardization. In summary, standardization leads to decreased friction in socio-economic activities, better coordination and increased benefits of new products and inventions. In those areas in which we need accurate communication and coordination, we should promote standardization.

Covid Vaccine Development and Implementation

Using our perspective on the roles of diversity and standardization in economic and technological development, we argue that to develop the new Covid vaccines, we needed diversity. The case of the United States, which has been a leader in vaccine development, supports our argument: it not only has some of the most advanced health science but also has a very tolerant atmosphere and culture that assembles and encourages its numerous scientists with rich and diverse backgrounds to engage in unconventional thinking and experimentation.

As for the government, it must set up clear standards by which all vaccines can be judged as to their quality, efficacy and safety. In the U.S., the CDC and the FDA standardized a new vaccine development and approval/testing process (CDC, 2014). If the government were to artificially treat all newly-developed vaccines as equal, regardless of their quality, then ineffective and unsafe vaccines might be protected, and this could negate the potential value of diversity.

Under this social and policy environment, the U.S. has developed at least three Covid vaccines with high levels of efficacy and safety: the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine, the Pfizer Covid vaccine and the Moderna Covid vaccine.

Once the most effective and safest vaccines are developed and tested according to the standards of science, the government should distribute them out nationwide to fully realize their benefits.

In this regard, we must say that, regrettably, many nations have not been able to do a good job in promoting and achieving a nationwide vaccination against Covid, even though the vaccines are now available. As of 15 September 2021, worldwide, only 30.5% of the world’s adult population has been fully vaccinated (University of Oxford & Global Change Data Lab, 2021).

Among all the countries, Israel has been one of the most successful in achieving a relatively high rate of Covid vaccination for its population: 61.5% (University of Oxford & Global Change Data Lab, 2021). Its success has been attributed to the universal health care coverage with a uniform package of benefits, nationwide digital data networks and a nationwide community infrastructure (Bassan & Field, 2021). All of these are results of standardization. The Japanese are also beginning to see the positive results of their standardization in mask-wearing and vaccinations in the incredible fall in the infection rates and death rates in Tokyo.

Concluding Remarks

The optimal balance between diversity and standardization is that when facing a new problem of an unknown nature, we must diversify and create a set of ‘experiments’, a competition of ideas for finding the best method for solving the problem. We judge those ideas or solutions according to a set of scientific standards. Once the best method is found, the government of a country should adopt it as the standard for the nation. If the society loses its ability to unify and enforce a standard, or if it attempts to support diversity unconditionally forever, at the end of the day, society will fail to solve the problem.

As for the current debate on national vaccination, from the discussion above, it should be clear that in order to develop vaccines, we need some diversity, a diversity of ideas, approaches, and chemistry. Indeed, the beneficial environment of diversity that the democratic nations display has helped them to become leaders of the world in developing the best vaccines. But they also need high standards for testing and approval (CDC, 2014), and the standards must be strictly and objectively applied.

Once the best vaccines have been developed and tested, the government must roll them out with full force and speed worldwide to as many nations as possible in order to quickly realize the benefits of the vaccines for the entire world.

To achieve this, standardization is required in formulating and implementing the vaccination policy for a nation. More specifically, the national government must communicate the scientifically approved information about the vaccines to the public and effectively curb or discredit inaccurate information and rumours about the vaccines (Largent, 2012). It must make vaccination mandatory to all who are fit to take it and the government must develop the capability to implement these policies effectively and efficiently. All of these require uniformity and standardization.

In the longer term, we must understand the advantages and disadvantages of diversity and standardization and their interaction. In order to maximize the benefits of diversity and standardization, our governments must formulate their policies to achieve an optimal balance between the two.

Directions for Future Research

The perspective on diversity vs. standardization can be further developed theoretically and empirically. We need to develop measurements of diversity and standardization at the firm, industry, and country levels. For instance, an index of diversity/standardization at the country level may be used to evaluate how diversity and standardization affect economic activities and scientific and technological advancement. We can also assess how political, economic, and cultural factors affect diversity and standardization in a society. At the firm level, we can evaluate how diversity and standardization affect firm performance, and how organizational culture and strategies affect firm diversity and standardization.

The studies should be conducted to develop a general rule which determines whether a given activity should promote diversity or promote standardization, based on a logical, consistent decision process. Further studies are needed to evaluate the optimal use of diversity and standardization for each industry and social dimension. For example, does society benefit from a diversity of measurement systems? Can society benefit from a diversity of different languages?

In education, can we benefit from diversity in teaching, or should we standardize?

Do we benefit from a standardization of laws from state to state? Is it better to have a diversity of social programs from state to state, or standardization? Is it better to have a diversity of tax laws from state to state, or standardization?

Internationally, we have already learned that to protect ourselves from financial crises, we need to have a standard international regulation of financial institutions. Currently, nations are negotiating over a standard international minimum tax rate (Amaro, 2021).

As can be seen, the above issues are nontrivial, and some are even urgent. We call upon scholars of management, economics, and international business to study these issues.