Economic Policies as Moral Disputes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

If populists explicitly reject empirical claims in favor of moral ones, then economists cannot rely on traditional economic tools of cost-benefit analysis, causal inference, and other empirical methods to engage with populist economic proposals. Economists who debate populist COVID-19 policies should consider adopting their language of morality by classifying economic policies into three categories: morally compelling, morally prohibited, and morally disputed. Nations adopt morally compelling policies when they prioritize the welfare and security of their own citizens. In the United States of America, these policies were often described by proponents and critics alike as “America First.” Nations engage in morally prohibited polices when they introduce morally compelling policies in an unethical manner. Finally, morally disputed policies are those which are intended to promote the welfare of the nation, but for which the precise effects are disputed. For example, tariffs can be used to promote the development of companies in a nation’s medical and healthcare supply chain, but at a cost of distorting markets. When economists adopt the language of morally compelling and morally prohibited policies, then morally disputed policies can become a common ground in which populism can engage with the traditional empirical claims of economists.