ABSTRACT
Chapters in Part II decipher the state's response to the economic crisis ensuing from biosecurity. They set out the problem that biosecurity poses for the economy; outline the magnitude of the economic crisis; and trace the state response to it. They are oriented towards, and combine in, addressing the question of whether the state aims to preserve the economy as it was on the eve of the pandemic, or to alter the economic paradigm — and how.
Biosecurity represents a threat for capital accumulation. The suspension of society entails a suspension of the economy. The state tries to revitalise the economy not by alleviating the fear of the virus, but by erecting an opposite one: the fear of economic collapse. The two fears dovetail in the dilemma between “lives and livelihoods” set out in governmental strategic documents. An analysis of the logic, calculi and discourse at play in these documents shows that, while prima facie equanimous between protecting life and protecting livelihoods, the state in fact prioritises “livelihood” over “life”, the economy over health.
