Introduction

Abstract

This introduction provides an overview of the papers presented at the ASE Sessions at the ASSA 2024 exemplifying the theme: Retaining the Lessons of the Pandemic: Reclaiming the Social in Economic Policy to Address the Challenges of the Future. All three articles incorporate basic principles of social economics.

KEYWORDS : :

• Social economics
• pandemic
• methodology
• diversity

These articles showcase the papers presented at the ASE Sessions at the ASSA 2024 exemplifying the theme: Retaining the Lessons of the Pandemic: Reclaiming the Social in Economic Policy to Address the Challenges of the Future. The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in our economies. It exposed vulnerabilities in healthcare systems, but it also highlighted inequalities in access to necessities and race and gender inequalities. As the risk of infection waned these insights faded, and societies reverted to pre-pandemic attitudes.

The first of these articles The second article (Palka, 2024) uses research methodology and the values embedded in it as a starting point for incorporating the values of social economics into our solutions for the challenges we face. Unpacking the variety of ways to do participatory research and the potential decisions to be made in doing participatory research, this paper starts with methodology as a solution. Participatory research can itself effect change and has the potential to democratize knowledge creation. The final paper (Kim, 2024) takes this to a different level, addressing diversity within the economics profession itself. Inequality in the Economics profession is a problem in and of itself, but different experiences and standpoints in the creation of economic knowledge also hamper equitable development of knowledge leading to understandings of the economy and society that are explicitly biased.

All three articles incorporate basic principles of social economics. All articles prioritize human beings. It is a principle of social economics that the purpose of the economy is to provide for the members of the society. This is not meant to preclude concern for the natural world, but instead in opposition to those who prioritize efficiency or profit making above human beings. All articles address inequalities as a goal; in the final paper (Kim, 2024), it is the main goal. All articles use analyses in which the economy is embedded in human society. Economic processes operate within cultural and political environments. This principle is less explicit in the articles presented here, because they take this interconnection as a given. And, finally, all articles express explicit values of social responsibility for addressing the problems they identify. The article on the pandemic (Siqueira, 2024) begins with policies intended to reduce deaths and rejects a herd immunity solution. The article on methodology (Palka, 2024) argues that each researcher also bears responsibility for positive social change as members of the society. Kim (2024) argues that institutions of the economic profession or the profession as a whole, rather than only individuals who harass or discriminate, bear responsibility for change.

The first article (Siqueira, 2024) compares policies to combat the pandemic and poly-crisis to outcomes in the G20 countries. The analysis links the social, epidemiological, political, and economic to define a poly-crisis of the pandemic in which the consequences extended beyond deaths and infections to affect almost every facet of life. In particular, inequality and poverty increased, and extremist political views spread. Social and political factors affected the success of efforts to combat the pandemic. Siqueira utilizes an index for the stringency of measures to contain the pandemic, the share of vaccination, and income support to compare to a relative measure of death and draw lessons.

The paper (Siqueira, 2024) provides a clear example of the application of principles of social economics. The share of deaths compared to each country’s share of population measures the failure or success of the policies, using the term ‘Pandemicide’ for the worst outcomes in which policy makers are held responsible for those deaths. Human beings, not the efficiency of policy or as a trade-off with profit, are the priority. However, the paper also recognizes that human beings require the production and distribution of essential goods. Beyond deaths, the discussion of economic costs of the pandemic was also costs for human beings in terms of unemployment or inflation that disproportionately affected the poorest. The analysis recognizes the social embeddedness. The concept of the poly-crisis itself exemplifies this by emphasizing the interaction of the social, economic, and political. The poly-crisis was not just the spread of disease but was a crisis that affected every aspect of life. Similarly, Siqueira, 2024 described the complex interaction between non-pharma logical policies to avoid the spread of disease, such as lockdowns, and human behavior. For example, the effectiveness of public health advice is limited by the context of social networks that spread misinformation.

The second paper (Palka, 2024) focuses on participatory forms of research. It provides a good overview of different motivations for using participatory practices and the various ways it can be applied. This paper provides a framework for categorizing various participatory research types along dimensions running from hierarchical to democratic and pure science to radical change. Palka is particularly interested in the potential for democratizing knowledge and effecting radical change. She considers participatory research for projects on the social and solidarity economy. Using this specific context, she is able to develop recommendations for how to apply participatory research ethically and productively.

This paper (Palka, 2024) expands the concept of the social, beyond understanding to practice. The focus is on human beings not just as the objects of research, but as agents of knowledge creation. It incorporates feminist literature on the socially-embedded subject. Economic actors are not autonomous individuals, but socially-embedded individuals. Finally, researchers in cooperation with participant-subjects take responsibility for social change.

The final paper (Kim, 2024) takes on the problem of diversity in the economics profession in the United States of America. Statistics demonstrate that people of color are underrepresented in economics at all levels. Kim (2024) argues that potential economists are discouraged or driven away because economic theory fails to acknowledge their experience. Many face hostility, discrimination, or isolation. The paper provides a series of solutions similar to interventions undertaken in other STEM fields.

This paper (Kim, 2024) also embodies the principles of social economics. It begins with human beings, specifically African American, Latinx, Hispanic, and indigenous human beings. Social embeddedness is a given. Labor markets and human capital acquisition take place within a hierarchical social structure in which some groups have greater access to knowledge creation practices. Finally, Kim (2024) emphasizes social responsibility by arguing that the profession as a whole and its institutions, including universities and colleges, PhD programs, and organizations, especially the AEA, are responsible for effecting change.

The papers presented here represent a small sampling of the many powerful ideas presented at ASE sessions in 2024. Social economics encompasses a broad range of topics. These papers cover very different topics, but they all share a strong commitment to the basic principles of social economics including retaining the lessons of the pandemic.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).