IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v11y2020i5p636-646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Logical Case for Love as an Ingredient in Policy Formulation After COVID‐19

Author

Listed:
  • Rahul Sur

Abstract

In the backdrop of the COVID‐19 pandemic, which has already had disastrous public health and economic effects, but also resulted in the positive emotion of love as a spontaneous response at many levels, this article asks whether there is a need for the explicit inclusion of the emotion of love in policy formulation. It answers this affirmatively by first proposing, in Part I, what love should mean in policy formulation. However, as rationality remains highly prized in policy formulation, it considers emotion as prejudicial to its cool and level‐headed processes and assumes that human behaviour is exclusively negative. To overcome this drawback, love is proposed for inclusion in policy formulation on the rationale that it is a real and positive emotion. Part II takes an eclectic approach and provides six examples of love’s relevance drawn from hate studies, medicine, business, psychology, religion, and women’s preferences. Together, they constitute a significant pattern and demonstrate love’s versatility, making it relevant for those who formulate policy. Suggestions for policy applications are also made. While acknowledging that including love in policy formulation is not a panacea, this positive, universal, and resilient emotion should be incorporated in policy formulation to increase its effectiveness and relevance given the exceptional negativity of our times following COVID‐19.

Suggested Citation

  • Rahul Sur, 2020. "The Logical Case for Love as an Ingredient in Policy Formulation After COVID‐19," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(5), pages 636-646, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:11:y:2020:i:5:p:636-646
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12858
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.12858?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Kiley Hamlin & Karen Wynn & Paul Bloom, 2007. "Social evaluation by preverbal infants," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7169), pages 557-559, November.
    2. Herbert A. Simon, 1991. "Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 125-134, February.
    3. Krause, Jana & Krause, Werner & Bränfors, Piia, 2018. "Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations and the Durability of Peace," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 44(6), pages 985-1016.
    4. Jana Krause & Werner Krause & Piia Bränfors, 2018. "Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations and the Durability of Peace," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 985-1016, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gizelis Theodora-Ismene, 2018. "Systematic Study of Gender, Conflict, and Peace," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 24(4), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Ingrid Vik Bakken & Halvard Buhaug, 2021. "Civil War and Female Empowerment," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(5), pages 982-1009, May.
    3. Dotti, Nicola Francesco, 2018. "Knowledge that matters for the ‘survival of unfittest’: The case of the new Brussels' rail junction," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 131-140.
    4. Costantini, Valeria & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2012. "On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 132-153.
    5. Krstic, Bojan & Krstic, Milos, 2015. "Models Of Irrational Behaviour Of Household And Firm," Ekonomika, Journal for Economic Theory and Practice and Social Issues, Society of Economists Ekonomika, Nis, Serbia, vol. 61(4), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Pooja Kushwaha & M. K. Rao, 2017. "Integrating the Linkages between Learning Systems and Knowledge Process: An Exploration of Learning Outcomes," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 5(1), pages 11-23, January.
    7. Steffen S. Bettin, 2020. "Electricity infrastructure and innovation in the next phase of energy transition—amendments to the technology innovation system framework," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 371-395, November.
    8. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    10. Martina Linnenluecke & Andrew Griffiths & Peter Mumby, 2015. "Executives’ engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 321-333, July.
    11. A. Georges L. Romme, 2019. "Climbing up and down the hierarchy of accountability: implications for organization design," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Micheels, Eric T., 2014. "Experience and learning in beef production: Results from a cluster analysis," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 3(3), pages 1-10.
    13. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    14. Matthias Meier & Ingo Weller, 2012. "Hat Wissensmanagement eine Zukunft? Stand der Dinge und Ausblick," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 114-135, February.
    15. Lepori, Benedetto & Montauti, Martina, 2020. "Bringing the organization back in: Flexing structural responses to competing logics in budgeting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    16. Jasjit Singh & Ajay Agrawal, 2011. "Recruiting for Ideas: How Firms Exploit the Prior Inventions of New Hires," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 129-150, January.
    17. Tariq H. Malik & Jae Chul Choi, 2021. "Social Media Versus Personal Experience in the Consumer’s Apprehension on Imported Food Security and Safety Dilemma," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    18. Mohammad Reza Nikbakht & Mehrdad Sadr Ara, 2016. "A new experimental model for profit maximization," Journal of Economic and Financial Studies (JEFS), LAR Center Press, vol. 4(3), pages 45-52, June.
    19. Hope, Ole-Kristian & Su, Xijiang, 2021. "Peer-level analyst transitions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    20. Elna Schirrmeister & Anne‐Louise Göhring & Philine Warnke, 2020. "Psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:11:y:2020:i:5:p:636-646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.