Tracks Overview

Currently, we live in a world where our personal and professional life is affected by a plethora of phenomena characterized by a multifactorial nature. Literature and practice have shown that uncertainty and unintended consequences (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2022; Ravindran & Shah, 2023), in addition to challenges and implications triggered by phenomena such as global health (Bowen et al., 2012; Frenk & Moon, 2013), economic crises (Laskovaia et al., 2019; Meder et al., 2013), and digital transformation (to name some), must be addressed, managed and governed through dynamic capabilities (Karimi & Walter, 2015), holistic understanding (vom Brocke & Mendling, 2018), and effective change management and implementation (Hanelt et al., 2021; Wessel et al., 2021). Specifically, in order to explore, investigate and manage several aspects of such phenomena in a more holistic way, the decision management discipline underling the need of moving through ephemeral boundaries between artificial, social, and natural sciences (Yassine & Chelst, 2018).

Moreover, decision-making (DM) processes are mutating within private, public, and non-profit sectors, as well as in relation to their legacy environments and digital ecosystems (Cipriano & Za, 2022; Davidson & Chismar, 2007; Papagiannidis et al., 2023), aiming to achieve effectiveness, efficiency, ecology, innovations, sustainability and promptness. At the same time, tackling and problematising the complex interactions and co-occurrence of the different factors within the cognitive, social, and evolutionary domains is critical. From this perspective, it is not surprising that artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into decision-making tasks (Gomez et al., 2023). AI technologies enable the transformation of work and workplaces (Zimmer et al., 2023), smart supply chains (Aliahmadi & Nozari, 2023), as well as how quality management practices are adopted in the digital era (Saihi et al., 2023). AI-based technologies are being increasingly implemented inside public and private companies (Smacchia & Za, 2022; Upadhyay et al., 2022). Therefore, they are significantly affecting decisions, how to accumulate tacit and explicit knowledge (Harfouche et al., 2023), augmenting or complementing knowledge, or producing governance practices (Perry & Uuk, 2019). In parallel, due to its increasing adoption, AI is affecting many people simultaneously (Zuiderwijk et al., 2021). As a consequence, many are the implications concerning knowledge imbalance and information asymmetry between the different actors and domains (Boulanin & Lewis, 2023), as well as the AI governance practices (Papagiannidis et al., 2023), the mitigation of AI risks (Adam et al., 2022), not to mention the evaluation of security metrics (Aliahmadi & Nozari, 2023; Alufaisan et al., 2021), ethical (Cheruvalath, 2023; Dignum, 2023), biases, and responsibility issues (Boulanin & Lewis, 2023).

One of the interests of this special track is related to the design and evaluation of AI-driven decision making. At the same time, this track also raises the question of whether and how more rational and mindful decision-making processes could depend on human-driven and AI-driven policy influence.

We welcome submissions addressing our interest in AI-driven decision-making, seeking studies on how humans and AI can collaborate to make decision tasks. We invite studies that i) work on all levels of analysis, from the individual up to the societal, and ii) that report current and relevant research results on the use, the design and development of AI tools, as well as the interactions between user and AI tools in achieving decisions. We also welcome submissions providing in-depth cases of implementation and use of AI-driven decision-making processes in specific organisations (profit, public, and non-profit based) and identifying its consequences (especially unintended). We also ask that research outline how AI-driven decision-making processes can co-create value and lead to innovation and higher economic, ecologic, or social sustainability levels.

Possible topics include but are not limited to:

• AI-driven decision-making in risk management;
• AI-driven decision-making: adoption and diffusion;
• AI-driven decision-making: success or failures, challenges and opportunities;
• AI-driven decision-making and related bias, ethical implications, unintended consequences, and the dark side;
• The role of explainable and responsible AI in the decision-making processes;
• Human-AI augmentation in the decision making processes;
• Societal impacts of AI-driven decision making (e.g., for addressing healthcare, humanitarian crises, sustainability, resilience etc.);
• AI-driven decision making for crowdsourcing, co-production, and co-creation of value;
• AI-driven decision making for Information Systems Development;
• Analysing (and forecasting) the relationship between AI solutions, decision-making processes, and organisational, environmental, or ecosystems change (legacy and digital);
• Analysis of the interaction of actors (individuals, groups, organisations and networks) and AI tools during the change of decision-making processes;
• AI, decision-making, and organisational drivers of resilient change.

Background references:

• Adam, H., Balagopalan, A., Alsentzer, E., Christia, F., & Ghassemi, M. (2022). Mitigating the impact of biased artificial intelligence in emergency decision-making. Communications Medicine, 2(1), 149.
• Aliahmadi, A., & Nozari, H. (2023). Evaluation of security metrics in AIoT and blockchain-based supply chain by Neutrosophic decision-making method. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 24(1), 31–42.
• Alufaisan, Y., Marusich, L. R., Bakdash, J. Z., Zhou, Y., & Kantarcioglu, M. (2021). Does Explainable Artificial Intelligence Improve Human Decision-Making?
• Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2022). Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. In Package ‘Bibliometrix’ (3.2.1).
• Boulanin, V., & Lewis, D. A. (2023). Responsible reliance concerning development and use of AI in the military domain. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(1), 8.
• Bowen, K. J., Friel, S., Ebi, K., Butler, C. D., Miller, F., & McMichael, A. J. (2012). Governing for a healthy population: Towards an understanding of how decision-making will determine our global health in a changing climate. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(1), 55–72.
• Cheruvalath, R. (2023). Artificial Intelligent Systems and Ethical Agency. Journal of Human Values, 29(1), 33–47.
• Cipriano, M., & Za, S. (2022). Which Digital Transformation Strategy for Non-profit Organisations Non-Profit Organisations ? Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022),Timisoara, Romania, 19.
• Davidson, & Chismar. (2007). The Interaction of Institutionally Triggered and Technology-Triggered Social Structure Change: An Investigation of Computerized Physician Order Entry. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 739.
• Dignum, V. (2023). Responsible Artificial Intelligence-from Principles to Practice: A keynote at TheWebConf 2022. ACM SIGIR Forum, 1–6.
• Frenk, J., & Moon, S. (2013). Governance Challenges in Global Health. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(10),
• Gomez, C., Unberath, M., & Huang, C.-M. (2023). Mitigating knowledge imbalance in AI-advised decision-making through collaborative user involvement. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 172(December 2022), 102977.
• Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197.
• Harfouche, A., Quinio, B., Saba, M., & Saba, P. B. (2023). The Recursive Theory of Knowledge Augmentation: Integrating human intuition and knowledge in Artificial Intelligence to augment organizational knowledge. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(1), 55–70.
• Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(1), 39–81.
• Laskovaia, A., Marino, L., Shirokova, G., & Wales, W. (2019). Expect the unexpected: examining the shaping role of entrepreneurial orientation on causal and effectual decision-making logic during economic crisis. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(5–6), 456–475.
• Meder, B., Le Lec, F., & Osman, M. (2013). Decision making in uncertain times: what can cognitive and decision sciences say about or learn from economic crises? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(6), 257–260.
• Papagiannidis, E., Enholm, I. M., Dremel, C., Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2023). Toward AI Governance: Identifying Best Practices and Potential Barriers and Outcomes. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(1), 123–141.
• Perry, B., & Uuk, R. (2019). AI Governance and the Policymaking Process: Key Considerations for Reducing AI Risk. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 3(2), 26.
• Ravindran, S., & Shah, M. (2023). Unintended consequences of lockdowns, COVID-19 and the Shadow Pandemic in India. Nature Human Behaviour.
• Saihi, A., Awad, M., & Ben-Daya, M. (2023). Quality 4.0: leveraging Industry 4.0 technologies to improve quality management practices – a systematic review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 40(2), 628–650.
• Smacchia, M., & Za, S. (2022). Association for Information Systems Societal Impact of Information Systems Artificial Intelligence in Organisation and Managerial Studies: A Computational Literature Review, ICIS 2022 Proceedings, 6, 0–17.
• Upadhyay, N., Upadhyay, S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022). Theorizing artificial intelligence acceptance and digital entrepreneurship model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 28(5), 1138–1166.
• vom Brocke, J., & Mendling, J. (2018). Frameworks for Business Process Management: A Taxonomy for Business Process Management Cases. In Read (pp. 1–17).
• Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Blegind Jensen, T. (2021). Unpacking the Difference Between Digital Transformation and IT-Enabled Organizational Transformation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(1), 102–129.
• Yassine, A., & Chelst, K. (2018). Opportunities for Decision Analysis in Engineering Management. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(2), 151–161.
• Zimmer, M. P., Baiyere, A., & Salmela, H. (2023). Digital workplace transformation: Subtraction logic as deinstitutionalising the taken-for-granted. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 32(1), 101757.
• Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y. C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3).

Chairs:

• Stefano Za, Michele Cipriano, and Marco Smacchia (University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy)

Session Committee:

• Massimiliano Agovino, University of Naples “Parthenope”, Italy.
• Alessio Maria Braccini, University of Tuscia, Italy.
• Edgardo Bucciarelli, University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
• Lea Iaia, University of Torino, Italy.
• Alessandra Lazzazara, University of Milan, Italy.
• Agnese Rapposelli, University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
• Stefan Schmager, University of Agder, Norway.

The Economy of Francesco, an international movement of economists, practitioners, entrepreneurs, and change-makers launched by Pope Francis in May 2019, inspired DEoF as a special session within the international conference on Decision Economics (DECON), now in its fifth edition 2023. Specifically, DEoF values and is committed to providing a more complete view of the economics profession along with a body of scientific economic knowledge more open to social, environmental, and civil issues that are related—by hook or by crook—to the study of human decisions, the evolution of decision-making, and how it deviates systematically from the methodological approach of standard economic theory and policy.

Far from simply responding to narrow and unnatural assumptions of individual incentives, preferences, and selfishnesses, DEoF contends that economic actions cannot be derived merely from utility-maximising drives and equilibria of neoclassical individualism since they emerge, persist, and are transformed by our relations with others, the world we bring forth with others, the wider natural processes, and the communities to which we belong. With this in mind, DEoF aims to provide a venue for scholarly and community-focused discussion on development and sustainability, the analysis of the social economy and social interactions, well-being, welfare and happiness, capabilities, reciprocity, trust, relational goods, formal and informal institutions, experimental development economics, public policy decision-making, economics and philosophy, and the history of economic analysis. Among other critical issues and matters of concern, the growing wealth and income gap, along with novel social and environmental inequalities—having starkly unequal impacts within and across societies—have prompted new reflections on economic, social, and political change processes: What kind of human development and social change processes are we experiencing? Who bears the responsibility for growing inequalities, poverty, unemployment, and climate disasters? Why do academics, practitioners, and politicians differ so much on the importance attached to these and other related issues and, most importantly, what are the conceptual tools, methods, and interpretive frameworks we need to understand such transformations and dynamics?

Bringing into mutually beneficial dialogue, understanding DEoF relies on gaining a foundation in its major traditions as well as the merits of different and heterodox economic schools in economics, theories, and frameworks of inquiry relevant to the analysis of development and social change, micro- and macroeconomic analyses of socio-economic development, fiscal and monetary policy in development studies, human development, income distribution, migration, development planning and policy, behavioural and cognitive insights, and the related. This year, in particular, we start considering Vilfredo Pareto’s scientific thought in line with DECON’s annual main track, critically suggesting that real socio-economic systems have bogged down elsewhere than their presumed optimality and Pareto efficiency requirement. The interest in Pareto’s work has distinctive characteristics, particularly affecting income distribution, distributive justice concern, and contemporary forms of rising inequality within increasingly unstable economies. This consists of reopening the discussion on all the theoretical, historical, and methodological aspects of his intellectual legacy, still the subject of controversies that have never ceased, also raising ethical issues. Somehow, the recent resurgence of interest in the work of Pareto has largely benefited from the current return to the "classics" and the sociological tradition after the excesses of empiricism without any substantive argument and analytic perspectives—including a multitude of insights and reflections—and a neo-positivism devoid of field research. In addition, the restructuring of international crises has given whole meaning to Pareto’s analysis of feelings (and their derivations) and interests, as well as their masks that come into play in the struggles between groups and nations, to the detriment of the evolutionary and linear analyses which, after more than half a century of ideological warfare, had prevailed between economists, sociologists and historians, among other social scientists.

Established in January 2023, the special session DEoF aims to cultivate and foster innovative thinking and research, especially on the role of ethics and shared values in decision-making, encouraging a multidisciplinary debate on concepts, measurement, analysis, policy, as well as practice for human development and sustainability, crossing economics, social, institutional, and environmental subjects. Helping to promote intellectual pluralism and collective purpose in economics, DEoF seeks to provide a forum for disseminating new insights, research findings, and cutting-edge works through an open exchange of ideas among a broad spectrum of academics, policymakers, and development practitioners interested in confronting global, national, and local human development challenges. A few examples of the expected submissions include high-quality empirical, experimental, theoretical, and policy-oriented contributions, which allow for a deep understanding and comprehensive analysis of social and/or civil economy approaches.

Potential topics of interest to this special session and related research areas include but are not limited to:

• Economics, humanism, and the commons: An intentional research agenda.
• The need for pluralism in economics: The Economy of Francesco as a viable solution.
• Computational approaches for spatial studies and social networks: Challenges and advances.
• Industry concentrations and global market power: Micro- and macroeconomic implications.
• The emergence of cooperation in evolutionary environments beyond economic outcomes.
• Rethinking microeconomics: Civil economy, public happiness, and relational goods.
• Natural and civil happiness, peace, reciprocity, and socio-economic integration policy.
• Common goods: Citizen engagement and collective action for an integral ecology.
• The political economy of gratuitousness: Experimental methods in public economics.
• Longitudinal studies of the social processes backwarding the formation of individual preferences.
• Another idea of the market: From a morally free zone to felicitas publica and community well-being.
• Economic policy between private and social accounting: Indicators, benchmarks, and tools.
• Integral human development at a glance: Capabilities and perspectives.
• Decision-making in the rule of law architecture and social integration policy actions.
• Fighting against poverty and the poor’s exclusion: From contractual to community relations
• Government and institutions: Experimental approaches and behavioural public finance.
• Why does diversity matter? Reflecting society’s priorities within economics.
• Developing a critical understanding of the agri-food supply chain volatility: A resilience framework.
• The role of women in the economy, workforce, and society: Where do we stand?
• Strengthening access to decent work: Providing opportunities for decent livelihoods and income.
• Fair taxation: Understanding of the complex relationships between globalisation and localisation.
• People-centred development: The emergence of environmental and social sustainability.
• International peace and stability: Human decision-making and heuristics of judgment.
• On the economic relevance of gratuitousness: Economic theory of social institutions.
• Natural field experiments to measure social capital and risk preferences in smallsocieties.
• Conceptual parameters of several behavioural economic-informed policy frameworks.
• Economically and politically marginalised communities: Experimentation and analysis.
• Decision-making processes for setting social and climate goals as well as adaptation policies.
• The behavioural foundations of development experimental economics.
• Integral ecology: Novel entrepreneurial initiatives and political proposals.
• Meritocracy or how to legitimise socio-economic inequalities and contrasts redistribution.
• Equality of opportunities: Challenges to bridge the gap between research and policy domains.
• Understanding rational choice theory, its shortcomings, and implications for economic policy.
• Relating market laws to human behaviour: A robotic hand to support the invisible hand.
• Pandemics rarely affect all people equally: Health as a global public good.
• Behavioural science and public policy for sustainability and human development.
• Sustainability-related disclosures for benchmarks: Tips for creating more sustainable ventures.
• Making the best decisions during pandemic crises: Why we need more than following the science.
• The potential for social mobility: Today’s inequalities in economic and social outcomes.
• Meritocracy as social inequality: A technocratic vision of the organisation of society and economy.
• Social responsibility beyond the invisible hand: Economic value chain and social value chain.
• Working for people and needs: Algorithms, economic justice, and digital commons.
• Resting on the same fatal assumptions: Rational and behavioural theories of the market.
• Measuring environmental and socio-economic impacts of ethical versus policy decisions.
• The uselessness of 'dismal science' in addressing contemporary issues and improving human life.
• Non-linear complexity theory: What have economists learned about valuing social relations?
• Knowledge base for taking action for the Sustainable Development Goals: Theory and policy.
• A commitment to promoting peace and conflict resolution through education and research.
• Building capabilities: The social economy as a novel paradigm for human development.

Distilling several decades of research at both the micro and macro levels, DEoF offers a distinctive insight into economic activity and economics that reveals social actions and underlying social structures, seeking to unravel the hidden meanings behind the supposedly impersonal worlds of production, consumption, asset transfer, and finance. To advance our understanding and knowledge of the theoretical economic pluralism of DEoF and its annexed problem space features, we invite economists, statisticians, philosophers, historians, scholars in organisation and management, as well as other social and cognitive scientists, to respond to this Call. Submissions are invited from early career researchers and more experienced experts and practitioners whose research transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. Researchers whose studies explore the intersection between integral human development, sustainability, and scientific enquiries are particularly encouraged to apply.

Background references:

• Akerlof, G.A. (1976). The economics of caste and of the rat race and other woeful tales. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(4), 599-617.
• Akerlof, G.A. (1997). Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica, 65(5), 1005-1027.
• Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.
• Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
• Axelrod, R. (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1095-1111.
• Banerjee, A.V., & Duflo, E. (2009). The experimental approach to development economics. Annual Review of Economics, 1(1), 151-178.
• Banfield, E.C. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society. Glencoe (IL): Free Press.
• Barca, L., & Franzini, M. (2005). Legittimare l’Europa: Diritti sociali e crescita economica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
• Barrera, A. (2011). Market complicity and Christian ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Bartling, B., Weber, R.A., & Yao, L. (2015). Do markets erode social responsibility? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 219-266.
• Basu, K. (2010). Beyond the invisible hand: Groundwork for a new economics. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
• Becchetti, L., & Cermelli, M. (2018). Civil economy: Definition and strategies for sustainable well-living. International Review of Economics, 65, 329-357.
• Becchetti, L., & Solferino, N. (2011). What to do in globalised economies if global governance is missing? The vicarious role of competition in social responsibility. International Review of Economics, 58(2), 185-211.
• Benabou, R. (2000). Unequal societies: Income distribution and the social contract. American Economic Review, 90(1), 96-129.
• Bergoglio, J.M. (Pope Francis) (2015). Laudato Si’: On care for our common home. Vatican City: Vatican. Available at: [ link ] (last accessed 16 January 2023).
• Bergoglio, J.M. (Pope Francis) (2019). Letter for the event Economy of Francesco. (May 1, 2019), [Ec-Fco], in OR (May 12, 2019) 8.
• Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of norms. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
• Boda, Z., & Zsolnai, L. (2016). The failure of business ethics. Society and Business Review, 11(1), 93-104.
• Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). The inheritance of inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 3-30.
• Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Osborne, M. (2001). Incentive-enhancing preferences: Personality, behavior, and earnings. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 155-158.
• Bruni, L. (2006). Civil happiness: Economics and human flourishing in historical perspective. Abingdon (UK): Routledge.
• Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2004). Civil economics: Efficiency, fairness, public happiness. Bologna: Il Mulino.
• Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (eds.) (2013). Handbook on the economics of reciprocity and social enterprise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Caffè, F. (1973). Politica economica ed esigenze umane. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 44(1/2), 3-7.
• Caffè, F. (1976). Un’economia in ritardo. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
• Caffè, F. (1981). Una politica economica di buoni propositi 1979-1981. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 89(4), 763-767.
• Chipman, J.S. (1976). The Paretian heritage. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, 14(37), 65-171.
• Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516, 86-89.
• Cox, C.J. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46(2), 260-281.
• Crouch, C. (2011). The strange non-death of neoliberalism. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press.
• Curtis, L.A. (1993). Investing in children and youth, reconstructing our cities: Doing what works to reverse the betrayal of American democracy. Washington: The Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation.
• Davis, J.B. (2011). Individuals and identity in economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Diez, F.J., Leigh, D., & Tambunlertchai, S. (2018). Global market power and its macroeconomic implications. IMF Working Paper No. 2018/137.
• Donati, P. (2012). La moralità dell’agire nel mercato e l’etica relazionale. Annales Teologici, 26(2), 275-302.
• Dow, S.C. (1996). The methodology of macroeconomic thought. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Downey, E.H. (1910). The futility of marginal utility. Journal of Political Economy, 18(4), 253-268.
• Durlauf, S.N. (1993). Nonergodic economic growth. Review of Economic Studies, 60(2), 349-366.
• Easterly, W. (2007). Inequality does cause underdevelopment: Evidence from a new instrument. Journal of Development Economics, 84(2), 755-776.
• Falk, A., & Nora Szech, N. (2013). Morals and markets. Science, 340(6133), 707-711.
• Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K.M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
• Fleming, J.M. (1968).Targets and instruments. IMF Staff Papers, 15(3), 387-404.
• Frey, B.S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 402-435.
• Friedman, B.M. (2005). The moral consequences of economic growth. New York: Knopf.
• Frydman, R., & Goldberg, M.D. (2011). Beyond mechanical markets: Asset price swings, risk, and the role of the state. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
• Galbraith, J.K. (1958). The affluent society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
• Giridharadas, A. (2018). Winners take all: The elite charade of changing the world. New York: Alfred Knopf.
• Gui, B., & Sugden, R. (eds.). Economics and social interaction: Accounting for interpersonal relations. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
• Henderson, H. (2022). The moral foundations of impact evaluation. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 23(3), 425-454.
• Holden, W.N., & Mansfield, W.O. (2018). Laudato Si’: A scientifically informed Church of the poor confronts climate change. Worldviews 22(1), 28-55.
• Holland, J.H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Kahn, A.E. (1966). The tyranny of small decisions: Market failures, imperfections, and the limits of economics. Kyklos, 19(1), 23-47.
• Knight, C., & Stemplowska, Z. (eds.) (2011). Responsibility and distributive justice. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
• Lefranc, A., Pistolesi, N., & Trannoy, A. (2008). Inequality of opportunities vs. inequality of outcomes: Are Western societies all alike? Review of Income and Wealth, 54(4), 513-546.
• McCleary, R., & Barro, R.J. (2006). Religion and economy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 49-72.
• Minsky, H.P. (1982). On the control of the American economy. Hyman P. Minsky Archive. Paper No. 147. http://digitalcommons.bard.edu/hm_archive/147
• Montgomery, W.D. (2015). The flawed economics of Laudato Si’. The New Atlantis, 47, 31-44.
• Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
• Pattanaik, P.K. (1994). Rights and freedom in welfare economics. European Economic Review, 38(3-4), 731-738.
• Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281-1302.
• Rajan, R. (2019). The third pillar: How markets and the state leave the community behind. New York: Penguin Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard (MA): Harvard University Press.
• Schotter, A. (1981). Economic theory of social institutions. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
• Scitovsky, T. (1986). Human desires and economic satisfaction. New York: New York University Press.
• Scitovsky, T. (1992) [1976]. The joyless economy. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
• Scitovsky, T. (1995). Economic theory and reality. Aldershot (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Segall, S. (2009). Health, luck, and justice. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
• Segall, S. (2013). Equality and opportunity. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
• Selten, R., & Ockenfels, A. (1998). An experimental solidarity game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 34(4), 517-539.
• Sen, A.K. (1970). The impossibility of a Paretian liberal. Journal of Political Economy, 78(1), 152-157.
• Sen, A.K. (1973). Behavior and the concept of preference. Economica, 40(159), 241-59.
• Sen, A.K. (1982). Choice, welfare and measurement. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
• Sen, A.K. (1987). On ethics and economics. Oxford (UK): Blackwell.
• Sen, A.K. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
• Sen, A.K. (1997). Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica, 65(4), 745-779.
• Shackle, G.L.S. (1952). Expectation in economics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
• Shackle, G.L.S. (1988). The origination of choice. In Frowen, S. (ed.), Business, time and thought, pp. 1-7. London: Palgrave McMillan.
• Shafik, M. (2021). What we owe each other: A new social contract for a better society. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
• Stigler, G. (1981). Economics or ethics? In McMurrin, S. (ed.), Tanner lectures in human value, Vol. 2, pp. 145-191. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.
• Stiglitz, J.E. (2005). The ethical economist. Foreign Affairs, 84(6), 128-134.
• Stiglitz, J.E. (2016). Ethics, economic advice, and economic policy. In DeMartino G.F. & McCloskey D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Professional Economic Ethics, pp. 495-519. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Taleb, N.N. (2019). Skin in the game: Hidden asymmetries in daily life. New York: Random House.
• Tarascio, V.J. (1969). Paretian welfare theory: Some neglected aspects. Journal of Political Economy, 77(1), 1-20.
• Tinbergen, J. (1956). Economic policy: Principles and design. Amsterdam: North Holland.
• van Bavel, B. (2016). The invisible hand? How market economies have emerged and declined since AD 500. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
• van Tine, R. (2017). Reflections, analysis, and significance for human ecology of Pope Francis’s encyclical letter Laudato Si’ on care for our common home. Human Ecology Review, 23(1), 141-178.
• Veblen, T. (1934). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Modern Library.
• Whaples, R.M. (2017). The economics of Pope Francis: An introduction. The Independent Review, 21(3), 325-345.
• Zamagni, S. (2021). Scattered remarks on the Economy of Francesco research programs. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 129(4), 507-516.

Chairs:

• Tony E. Persico (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, United States)

Session Committee:

• Helen M.J. Alford, Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (Vatican City State)
• J. Manuel Corchado, University of Salamanca (Spain)
• Edgardo Bucciarelli, University of Chieti-Pescara (Italy)
• Paolo Santori, Tilburg University (Netherlands)
• Giogia Nigri, LUMSA (Italy)
• Chiara Fubrizi, Ministry of Economy and Finance (Italy)