Artificial Intelligence as a Socio-Economic Dilemma: Ordonomic Diagnosis–Reflection–Design for Education, Work and Governance
Table of contents
Bibliographic information

Swiss Journal of Business
Volume 80 (2026), Issue 1
- Authors:
- | | | | | | | | | | | | |
- Publisher
- Nomos, Baden-Baden
- Copyright Year
- 2026
- ISSN-Online
- 2944-3741
- ISSN-Print
- 2944-3741
Chapter information
Volume 80 (2026), Issue 1
Artificial Intelligence as a Socio-Economic Dilemma: Ordonomic Diagnosis–Reflection–Design for Education, Work and Governance
- Authors:
- ISSN-Print
- 2944-3741
- ISSN-Online
- 2944-3741
- Preview:
This paper analyses artificial intelligence (AI) through the lens of ordonomics, a normative-institutional approach that connects economic rationality with ethical reflection. While most discussions in AI ethics focus on principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability, fewer studies address how these principles can be institutionalized through incentive-compatible rules. We therefore conceptualize AI not as a primarily technological challenge but as a social order problem that requires institutional design and governance. The paper explicitly maps the classical ordonomic three-level schema—actor, institutional order, and market/discourse—onto an applied heuristic of Diagnosis–Reflection–Design, demonstrating how this triad operationalizes ordonomic reasoning for the AI context. Building on this foundation, we identify and categorize key AI-related social dilemmas (economic, epistemic, ethical, and educational). The analysis develops differentiated responsibilities across levels of coordination and proposes rule-based cooperation solutions that align individual incentives with collective welfare. By linking ordonomics to current frameworks such as Responsible AI, algorithmic accountability, and the EU AI Act, the paper positions ordonomics as a design-oriented ethics that bridges normative ideals and institutional economics. The result is a framework for diagnosing conflicts, reflecting responsibilities, and designing cooperative solutions that reconcile innovation with social responsibility.
Bibliography
No match found. Try another term.
- Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of political economy, 128(6), 2188-2244. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- AI Champions. (2025). Stop the Clock: Open Letter Calling for an EU AI Act Pause. Available online at: https://aichampions.eu (Call 16.01.2026) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Beckmann, M., & Pies, I. (2016). The constitution of responsibility: Toward an ordonomic framework for interpreting (corporate social) responsibility in different social settings. In Order ethics: An ethical framework for the social market economy (pp. 221-250). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT), 149–159. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Buchanan, J. M. (2000). Reason of Rules—Constitutional Political Economy. Liberty Fund Incorporated, us. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big data & society, 3(1), 2053951715622512. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Eucken, W. (1952/1990). Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Floridi, L. & Cowls, J. (2019). A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. Philosophy & Technology, 32(4), 685–703. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Friedman, B. & Hendry, D. (2019). Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Future of Life Institute. (2023). Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter. Available online at: (https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/ ) (Call 16.01.2026) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Iii, H. D., & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86-92. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Hedfeld, P. (2025a). Implicit decision voting made by humans as normative and implementable rules with the help of language models. In R. Buchkremer, O. Koch & A. Lischka (Hrsg.), ifid Schriftenreihe: Beiträge zu IT-Management & Digitalisierung (Bd. 3). FOM-Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management. ISBN 978-3-89275-395-7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Hedfeld, P. (2025b). Essay: Mit der Langfristigkeit im Herzen–Nachhaltigkeit und Generationengerechtigkeit, eine interdisziplinäre Perspektive zwischen Sozialpädagogik und Wirtschaftsethik. Zeitschrift für Sozialpädagogik, (1). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Homann, K. (2002). Vorteile und Anreize: Zur Grundlegung einer Ethik der Zukunft. Mohr Siebeck. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Homann, K., & Pies, I. (2000). Wirtschaftsethik und Ordnungspolitik–Die Rolle wissenschaftlicher Aufklärung. Ordnungstheorie und Ordnungspolitik–Konzeptionen und Entwicklungsperspektiven, Stuttgart, 329-346. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E. (2019). The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Minnameier, G. (2016). Rationalität und Moralität: Zum systematischen Ort der Moral im Kontext von Präferenzen und Restriktionen. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik, 17(2), 259. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Minnameier, G. (2025). Ordonomik und Bildung: Verantwortung für die moderne Gesellschaft (p. 372). wbv Media. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Mitchell, M. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., et al. (2019). Model Cards for Model Reporting. Proceedings of FAT 2019, 220–229. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- OECD. (2019). OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/ai-principles.html (Call 16.01.2026) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Pies, I. (2000). Ordnungspolitik in der Demokratie: Ein ökonomischer Ansatz diskursiver Politikberatung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 3-16-147507-0. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Pies, I. (2017a). Ordonomik als Methode zur Generierung von Überbietungsargumenten: Eine Illustration anhand der Flüchtlings (politik) debatte (No. 2017-03). Diskussionspapier. https://doi.org/10.5771/1439-880X-2017-2-171 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Pies, I. (2017b). The ordonomic approach to business ethics. Available at SSRN 2973614. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Pies, I. (2022). Kapitalismus und das Moralparadoxon der Moderne. Berlin: wvb Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin. ISBN 978-3-96138-310-8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Pies, I. (2025). The interplay of incentives and ideas: An intellectual journey from order economics through order ethics to ordonomics (No. 2025-08). Diskussionspapier. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/325828/1/1936155664.pdf (Call 16.01.2025) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J. & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), 469–481. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., ... & Barnes, P. (2020, January). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 33-44). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019, January). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 59-68). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Seufert, S., & Meier, C. (2023). Hybrid Intelligence: Collaboration with AI Systems for Knowledge Work. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 60(6), 1194-1209. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence (Call 16.01.2026) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Voss, J. P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
- Williamson, B., & Piattoeva, N. (2022). Education governance and datafication. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 3515-3531. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2944-3741-2026-1-30
