I'm not sure about the definitions, the economy is social, social issues have an economic impact.
The models of economics favoured by free marketeers are very dated, relics of an age way, way before even Cold War military keynesianism when arms spending in the worlds super powers out paced all other priorities.
This is why a lot of the morally loaded arguments about social issues, ie welfare lifers, child poverty etc. reflect home economics, ie an individual's spending habits, means, lifestyle, rather than the need to keep money circulating in the economy, employment and the spending habits of savers versus spenders, even should they be spending very little that they receive by way of either state support or private charity.
If free market orthodoxy where strictly observed the money would quickly be channelled to the one percent, their house hold spending couldnt possibly rival that of the state or low income "spend thrifts" in aggregate, employment would sharply decline as companies economise, making savings from human resources, existing workforces would be pushed harder, burn out quicker and exit the labour force to become a burden upon resource pressed families or limited and diminishing charitable providers and managerial expenses will become expansive leading to the kind of persistent board room pay scandals for failing businesses which alienate the public and encourage their support for demagogues.
Think there's a crisis now try that, there's an equilibrium to be struck between the dynamism of competition, markets which conform to economic theories without grave social consequences and the unintended consequences of an economic based upon the circulation of money which can undermine work ethics, family functioning etc. where certain populations out grow others.