The Covid-19 pandemic as a potential change agent for selected economic concepts

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the article is to refer to the thesis about the need to modify the main paradigm of economic sciences – by which we mean mainstream economics – with all its consequences that influence the whole economic sciences. We posit the need for the modification of how economic sciences are practiced in ontological, epistemological, and methodological aspects. The need results from the impact of several factors that appeared even in the pre-pandemic period, for which Covid-19 may be a complementary and reinforcing circumstance that may even directly determine the change.

Research Design & Methods: The main method we used was that of critical literature analysis. We constructed a set of normative recommendations for changes in economic sciences. Next, we selected four issues to exemplify the areas that require change, for which we proposed a set of postulates that constitute the desired modifications in economic sciences.

Findings: The conducted literature review shows that the number of people convinced of the need to modify the assumptions and content of economic sciences grows systematically. Sometimes, there even appears a more elaborate demand for the revision of economic sciences, not only of their modification.

Implications & Recommendations: Firstly, the most important consequence of the study is the justification of the postulate of departing from the dominance of the main paradigm of economic sciences contained in mainstream economics towards noticing the multi-paradigm character of economic sciences, and secondly, the support of the position leaning towards the active and normative involvement of economic sciences in creating/correcting the surrounding reality.

Contribution & Value Added: The text is a synthesis of the postulates previously reported in the literature regarding the modification of economic sciences with the consequences caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Chronologically, the Covid-19 pandemic is the last of the causative factors of the revision under consideration – neither the only nor the most important factor – but what draws attention are its direct nature, violence, and the surprise associated with its appearance.

Keywords

Covid-19 pandemic, methodology of economics, paradigm, change agent, economic theory, homo economicus

Author Biography

Piotr Banaszyk

PhD in Economics (1989, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland); Professor at Poznań University of Economics and Business (Poland). His research interests include international supply chain management and strategic management.

Przemysław Deszczyński

PhD of Humanities in Political Science (1989, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland); Professor at Poznań University of Economics and Business (Poland). His research interests include international economics, economy of development, and information economics.

Marian Gorynia

PhD in Economics (1985, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland); Professor at Poznań University of Economics and Business (Poland). His research interests include international economics and international business

Krzysztof Malaga

PhD in Economics (1990, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland); Professor at Poznań University of Economics and Business (Poland). His research interests include economic growth and development, microeconomics, macroeconomics.

References

1. Al-Rodhan, N.R.F. & Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition. Geneva: Geneva Center for Security Policy. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.4772&rep=rep1&type=pdf on May 25, 2021.
2. Banaszyk, P., Deszczyński P., Gorynia, M., & Malaga K. (2021). Przesłanki modyfikacji wybranych koncepcji ekonomicznych na skutek pandemii COVID-19. Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, 1(305), 53-86. http://doi.org/10.33119/GN/132485
3. Becker, G.S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563826
4. Bhagwati, J. (2004). In defence of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.2307/40204318
5. Bharma R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 195-211. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563826
6. Boushey, H., Delong, J.B., & Steinbaum, M. (Eds.) (2017). After Piketty: The Agenda for Economics and Ine-quality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Brilman, J. (2004). Les meilleures pratiques de management. Paris: Editions d’Organisation.
8. Caligiuri, P., De Cieri, H., Minbaeva, D., Verbeke, A., & Zimmermann, A. (2020). International HRM insights for navigating the Covid-19 pandemic: Implications for future research and practice. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies, 51(5), 697-713. http://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00335-9.
9. Colander, D., Hold R.P.F., & Barkley, J. (2003). The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics (Middlebury Col-lege Economics Discussion Paper No. 03-27). Retrieved from http://www.middlebury.edu/~econ on No-vember 16, 2020.
10. Coyle, D. (2020). Markets, State, and People: Economics for Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11. D’Aveni, R. (1995). Coping with Hypercompetition: Utilizing the New 7S’s Framework. Academy of Manage-ment Executive 9(3), 45-57. http://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1995.9509210281
12. Daly, H. & Cobb, J.B. Jr (1989). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Envi-ronment and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press. http://doi.org/10.1177/027046769101100137
13. Davis, J. (2006). The Turn in Economics: Neoclassical Dominance to Mainstream Pluralism. Journal of Institu-tional Economics, 2(1), 1-20. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137405000263.
14. Deszczyński P. (2011). Conceptualization of globalization. In P. Deszczyński (Ed.), Globalization. Poznań: WSB - University Press.
15. Dzionek-Kozłowska, J. (2018). Model homo economicus. Geneza, ewolucja, wpływ na rzeczywistość gospodar-czą. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
16. The Economist. (2020, July 25). Starting over again – The covid-19 pandemic is forcing a rethink in macroe-conomics, Briefing, No 25., 13-16.
17. Fiedor, B. (2019). Podział na ortodoksję i heterodoksję w świetle potrzeby pluralizmu metodologicznego w ekonomii, perspektywa mikroekonomiczna. In M. Gorynia (Ed.), Ewolucja nauk ekonomicznych. Jedność a różnorodność. Relacje do innych nauk. Problemy klasyfikacyjne (pp. 41-56). Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet Nauk Ekonomicznych.
18. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
19. Gorynia, M. (2019a). Współczesne nauki ekonomiczne – tożsamość, ewolucja, klasyfikacje. In M. Gorynia (Ed.), Ewolucja nauk ekonomicznych. Jedność a różnorodność. Relacje do innych nauk. Problemy klasyfikacyjne (pp. 13-14). Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk. http://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2020.014.
20. Gorynia, M. (2019b). Competition and Globalisation in Economic Sciences: Selected Aspects. Economics and Business Review, 5(3), 118-133. http://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2019.3.7
21. Gorynia, M. (2021). Will COVID-19 Kill Globalization? In M.A. Marinov & S.T. Marinova (Eds.), Covid-19 and International Business. Change of Era (pp. 66-73). London: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781003108924
22. Hall, Ch.A.S. & Day, J. W. Jr. (2009). Revisiting the Limits to Growth after Peak Oil. American Scientist, 97(3), 230-237. http://doi.org/10.1511/2009.78.230
23. Herma-Fox, A., LaPerla, B., Serafeim, G., & Wang, H. (2020). Corporate Resilience and Response During Covid-19. Retrieved from https://www.top1000funds.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Corporate-Resilience-and-Response-during-Covid-19_April-20.pdf on April 11, 2021.
24. Hume, D. (1969). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
25. Kowalski, T. (2013). Globalization and transformation in Central European countries: The case of Poland. Poz-nań: Poznań University of Economics Press.
26. Krugman, P. (2020). Arguing with Zombies: Economics, Politics, and the Fight for a Better Future. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
27. Manyika J., Pinkus G., & Tiun M. (2020). Rethinking the Future of American Capitalism (McKinsey Global Insti-tute). Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured Insights/Long term Capi-talism/Rethinking the future of American capitalism/Rethinking-the-future-of-American-capitalism.pdf?shouldIndex=false on November 12, 2020.
28. McKinsey Global Institute (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Long%20term%20Capitalism/Rethinking%20the%20future%20of%20American%20capitalism/Rethinking-the-future-of-American-capitalism.pdf?shouldIndex=false on April 12, 2021.
29. Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: why now and why next. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2), 205-228. http://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910247437.
30. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
31. Nozal, A.L, Martin, N., & Murtin, F. (2019). The Economy of Well-being: Creating Opportunities for People’s Well-being and Economic growth. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=SDD/DOC(2019)2&docLanguage=En on May 27, 2021.
32. Popper, K.R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
33. Robbins, L. (1932). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.
34. Rodrik, D. (2011). The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York: Norton and Company.
35. Rodrik, D. (2015). Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Rodrik, D. (2017). Populism and the Economics of Globalization. Paper presented at AIB Conference – Dubai. Retrieved from https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/populism_and_the_economics_of_globalization.pdf on March 22, 2021.
37. Roubini, N. (2020a, July 29). Revisiting the White Swans. Project Syndicate. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/global-tail-risks-remain-a-threat-in-2020-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-07?barrier=accesspaylog on March 22, 2021.
38. Roubini, N. (2020b, March 24). A Greater Depression? Project Syndicate. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/coronavirus-greater-great-depression-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-03?barrier=accesspaylog on March 22, 2021.
39. Sandbu, M. (2020). The Economics of Belonging: A Radical Plan to Win Back the Left Behind and Achieve Pros-perity for All. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
40. Serra, N. & Stiglitz, J. E. (Eds.) (2008). The Washington Consensus Reconsidered: Toward a New Global Govern-ance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199534081.001.0001.
41. Skidelsky, R. (2020). What’s Wrong with Economics? A Primer for the Perplexed, New Haven: Yale University Press. http://doi.org/10.12987/9780300252767.
42. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. Washington: W.W. Norton Company. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.0391-5026.2003.00107.x
43. Stiglitz, J. E., Fitoussi, J-P., & Durand, M. (2018). Beyond GDP Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307292-en.
44. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Per-formance and Social Progress. Retrieved from http//www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr on March 03, 2021.
45. Street, J. (1987). The Institutional Theory of Economic Development. Journal of Economic Issues 21(4), 1861-1887. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4225949?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents on May 31, 2021.
46. Streeten, P. (2001). Globalisation: Threat or opportunity?. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. http://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.74039.
47. Taleb, N.N. (2010). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York: Random House Trade.
48. Van der Bergh, J. & Antal, M. (2011). Evaluating alternatives to GDP as measures of social welfare/progress. Retrieved from: https://www.wifo.ac.at/bibliothek/archiv/36247/WWWforEurope_WP_056.pdf. on De-cember 12, 2020.
49. Varshney, L.R., & Socher, R. (2020), COVID-19 Growth Rate decreases with Social Capital, Retrieved from https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20077321v1.full.pdf on May 27, 2021.
50. Wolf, M. (2020, July 16). How Covid-19 will change the world? Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/9b8223bb-c5e4-4c11-944d-94ff5d33a909 on September 2, 2020.
51. Yadav, N., Sushil, N., & Sagar, M. (2013). Performance Measurement and Management Frameworks: Re-search Trends of the Last Two Decades. Business Process Management Journal, 19(6), 947-971. http://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2013-0003