Two major crises are usually considered “important factors” when they trigger big, lasting changes in economies, politics, or societies rather than being short, isolated shocks. They matter because they expose weaknesses in existing systems and force governments, markets, and institutions to respond and adapt in ways that shape later events.

What “two crises” usually means

When people say “the two crises” in recent discussions, they often mean:

  • The 2008 global financial crisis
  • The COVID‑19 crisis starting in 2020

These are frequently studied together because both were global shocks that disrupted growth, employment, and public finances, but with different causes and patterns.

Why they were important factors

In economics and politics, these two crises are seen as crucial because they:

  • Revealed deep systemic vulnerabilities in finance and public health systems.
    • In 2008 this was excessive leverage, risky mortgage lending, and fragile banking structures.
* In 2020 it was weak pandemic preparedness and supply chains for medical goods.
  • Forced extraordinary policy responses.
    • Central banks slashed interest rates and used quantitative easing in both periods.
* Governments massively expanded fiscal support, especially during COVID‑19, with grants, emergency loans, and job support programs.
  • Reshaped inequality, trust, and politics.
    • After the eurozone debt crisis and then COVID‑19, researchers note higher income shares for the top 1%, more people at risk of poverty, and declining trust in institutions.
* This shift is linked to lower electoral participation and rising support for populist parties in several countries.

How the two crises differed

Even when both are “important factors,” they worked through different channels:

  • 2008 was a financial-origin crisis.
    • Triggered by the mortgage and banking meltdown, then spilling over into the real economy.
* Weak bank capitalization and complex financial products amplified the shock.
  • COVID‑19 was an exogenous health shock.
    • Originated in a pandemic, with economic damage caused largely by lockdowns and health measures.
* Hit all countries at once, not just those with weak banks or housing bubbles.

Because of this, they are often used together in teaching and forums as a “history as a mirror” pair: the first shows what happens when financial risk is mismanaged, the second what happens when non‑financial systemic risk (like a pandemic) is underestimated.

Why they matter in “factor” questions

When exam questions or forum prompts ask “why were the two crises important factors,” they usually mean:

  • They changed the context :
    • For example, explaining why governments are now more cautious about debt, or why central banks keep large toolkits ready for emergencies.
  • They influenced later outcomes :
    • For instance, why public attitudes toward globalization, EU integration, or welfare policies shifted after repeated shocks.
  • They provide comparative lessons :
    • Comparing the two helps show the importance of early warnings, buffers (like bank capital or fiscal space), and fast, coordinated responses.

TL;DR: The “two crises” (usually 2008 and COVID‑19) are called important factors because they exposed structural weaknesses, prompted unprecedented policy actions, and redirected economic and political trends in ways that still shape decisions today.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.