Developments in Social Economics Theory
Paper Session
Monday, Jan. 5, 2026 10:15 AM - 12:15 PM (EST)
- Chair: Rojhat Avsar, Columbia College-Chicago
Revising the Moral Arguments Black Reparations in the US in light of the Economic Arguments
Abstract
There are currently two kinds of arguments for paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved individuals in the US, one economic regarding how it should be done and one moral regarding why it should be done. However, these arguments were developed independently of one another, and rely on different conceptual foundations. Successful public policy for paying reparations needs both kinds of arguments and needs them to be mutually supporting. This paper argues that the burden of adjustment falls on the current moral arguments. Their reliance on Locke’s natural rights thinking and neoclassical economics individualism makes them philosophically problematic, unrealistic, and ultimately unpersuasive. The economic arguments for reparations rely on Stratification economics, and represent individuals as members of social groups. They provide support for concepts of group rights and collective moral responsibility, and provide a basis for more realistic and persuasive moral arguments for reparations.Secularization of Linguistics in the Review of Social Economy over 80 Years
Abstract
The Association for Social Economics (ASE) started as the Catholic Economic Association in 1941 but was rebranded to its current name in 1970. Building on the Association’s origins and longstanding interest in ethical dimensions of economics, we examine contributions that appeared in the Association’s Review of Social Economy (ROSE) journal which existed under both association names. We will investigate how the contextual usage of terms such as “justice,” “equity,” “fairness” and “ethics” have shifted from more theologically grounded to more secular, policy-oriented connotations over time in ROSE using latent semantic analysis (LSA). LSA is a computational method that captures shifts in word meaning and relational patterns across texts. Through this project, we will present a case study demonstrating how LSA can support qualitative economic research by tracking language shifts and evolving rhetorical voices with potential academic and policy significance. To provide historical linguistic grounding for our analysis, we intend to train models using texts published prior to 1941 that are thematically and linguistically similar to those appearing in the first issues of ROSE. Candidate training texts that we have identified include “Social Aspects of Christianity” by Richard T. Ely (1899) and the papal encyclicals “Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII, 1891) and “Quadragesimo Anno” (Pius XI, 1931). These texts are chosen based on alignment with early ROSE content in both theme and tone—blending Christian social thought with economic analysis. Ultimately, our project should deepen understanding of ROSE's intellectual trajectory while providing a methodological template for examining moral language evolution in other academic economic forums.Why Would Capitalist States Pursue Gender Equality?
Abstract
The feminist macroeconomics literature contains a wide array of analyses of macroeconomic policies and their gendered impacts. They share a foundational argument that gender matters for macroeconomics: gendered structures are the terrain where policy operates and macroeconomic policies produce results that are not gender-neutral. But beyond understanding how macroeconomic policy interacts with gender, why would existing capitalist states pursue gender egalitarian outcomes? This paper examines the answers provided by the feminist economics literature, creating a classification of three distinct approaches. The first approach contains instrumental arguments: assertions based on empirical connections between feminist economic policies and favored macroeconomic outcomes. The second approach centers ethically grounded arguments that begin from critiques of traditional economic measurements of wellbeing. These include the feminist economic manifestations of the capabilities approach, the human rights approach, and the social provisioning approach. Lastly, the social reproduction approach shares a basis of focusing on processes of reproduction which are essential to the perpetuation of the macroeconomy, connecting biological reproduction to capitalist reproduction. I argue that the social reproduction literature provides the most productive analyses of the conditions wherein states would share an interest in progressing feminist macroeconomic policy agendas and the limitations of reforms led by capitalist states. Still, this literature contains a diversity of approaches to the state and continues to wrestle with its theorization. Representing a wide range of positions within the feminist macroeconomics literature, the approaches presented here highlight the necessity for greater clarity in the theorization of the state and the relationship between economic analysis and real-world policy change.Social Costs: A Real Issue, A Theoretical Conundrum
Abstract
Despite its intuitiveness, the notion of social cost raises theoretical conundrums that impinge on economic policy. Social costs often are intuitive and easily identified – consider on-job mortal accidents or the environmental consequences of pollution – but a metric is required to assess them on firmer grounds and to ascertain what it would cost to do away with them. The main contention of the paper is that such a metric depends on neither strictly objective nor strictly subjective criteria.The paper begins with a survey of how the concept is used in economic theory. It focuses on three major approaches. The first one is based on neoclassical theory. It considers social costs as just another term for externalities, that is, consequences of economic activity that relative prices do not take into account. The policy implications consist in determining institutional changes that provide a solution to these market failures. The second approach points out that a social cost exist only if the legal system permits it. Consequently, whether a social cost exists or not is less a strictly economic problem than a matter of ethical/political choice. The third approach explains social costs in terms of the irreconcilability of two economic goals in a capitalist market economy: profitability and people’s livelihood. Despite their insights, neither one of these approaches provides a clear metric.
The second part of the paper examines two possible means to assess the reduction of social costs: happiness and the freedom to choose how to conduct one’s life. In doing so, it argues that they provide useful insights but that are of little use as abstract indicators. Their operationalization in policy terms requires interaction between ordinary people and economists (more broadly, social scientists).
JEL Classifications
- B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches
- Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology