Social Work and Economics

This article was a draft I recently found while going through old papers, a task engaged in during this Pandemic time. The article, “Economics and social work: a neglected relationship” by Alfred N. Page (January, 1977) provides an opportunity for social workers to reflect, and hopefully, consider the relationship of the discipline of economics to the profession of social work. I do think that Professor Page understates the case in that a relationship does exist at present. The problem is that social workers very often choose to ignore the relationship. This causes a disadvantage to the social work profession because the economists are very much aware of the relationship. One problem that Professor Page does not bring out clearly is that social work tends to be an “action” or problem solving direct service profession based upon value theory, while much of economic practice is based upon “empirical theory.” This causes the most common “clash” between the disciplines, with the social work discipline being the loser. Social work loses because economists do have values and these values are more than in pecuniary terms. More often their values are in political terms. Herein lies the real problem! Economists are more often the formulators of social policy than social workers. They do this because economists of nearly every political persuasion are political activists. The discipline allows them to operate from a research and theoretical base to influence business and government. It is significant that in the Carter Administration, Messrs. Bluementahl Treasury), Harold Brown (Defense), Marshall (Labor), Mrs. Krebs (Commerce), Schultze (Council of Economic Advisors), and Schlesinger (Energy) are economists. This trend has been consistent from the Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt with the exception of the Nixon and Ford years. Professor Page’s contention is that “an inherent relationship between social work and economics” is much stronger than it appears on the surface.” This should have special consideration for social work administrators and social work practitioners. To be effective as policy makers, for example, requires social workers to be cognizant of the laws of economics, particularly in regards to resources. Very often social workers have the reputation of not being attentive to details of economic scarcity. This is further intriguing because social work has a set of values that purport to be the foundation for the profession. Just to deal with the values as summarized by Page (there are others, of course) without dealing with attendant costs and economic public policy, social workers are required to work in a vacuum, or at least try to go down the river in a boat without a paddle. The social work caseworker, for example, may find on occasions, unnecessary advocacy is being performed. This is usually “written off” as having to “buck the system.” Usually what has occurred is that the social worker is running into a conflict with economic policy established at another level because the “values” of the social worker and the client differ from the “values” of the policy maker who in turn is relying on an economic principle. I do believe that Professor page inadvertently misleads in his appraisal of economists John Kenneth Galbraith and Kenneth Boulding when he note that “what social workers do not realize is the work of these authors is not respected by a majority of the economic profession.” On the contrary, Galbraith and Boulding are two of the dominant economists in the American Economic Association, American Economic Review, Omicron Delta Epsilon, (the International) Honor Society in Economics), and the American Economists. Certainly, they are read by all economists and allied professionals. What probably would be correct to say is that Galbraith and Boulding do not represent the majority of current economic thinking among economists, but even this may be contradictory because both hold office in the above mentioned organizations, having been elected by their peers.