Definitions of economics

There are a variety of modern definitions of economics. Some of the differences may reflect evolving views of the subject itself or
different views among economists.[1]

The earlier term for e' conomics' was political economy. It is adapted from the FrenchMercantilist usage of conomie politique, which
extended economy from the ancient Greek term for household management to the national realm as public administration of the
affairs of state.[2] Sir James Steuart (1767) wrote the first book in English with 'political economy' in the title, explaining that just as:

Economy in general [is] the art of providing for all the wants of a family, [so the science of
political economy] seeks to secure a certain fund of subsistence for all the inhabitants, to
obviate every circumstance which may render it precarious; to provide every thing necessary
for supplying the wants of the society, and to employ the inhabitants ... in such manner as
naturally to create reciprocal relations and dependencies between them, so as to supply one
another with reciprocal wants.[3]

The title page gave as its subject matter "population, agriculture, trade, industry, money, coin, interest, circulation, banks, exchange,
public credit and taxes".[3] economics are important for our life

The philosopher Adam Smith (1776) defines the subject as "an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations," in
particular as:

a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the twofold objective of providing] a
plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people ... [and] to supply the state or commonwealth
with a revenue for the publick services.[4]

J.B. Say (1803), distinguishing the subject from its public-policy uses, defines it as the science of production, distribution, and
consumption of wealth.[5] On the satirical side, Thomas Carlyle (1849) coined 'the dismal science' as an epithet for classical
economics, in this context, commonly linked to the pessimistic analysis of Malthus (1798).[6] John Stuart Mill (1844) defines the
subject in a social context as:

The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the
combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena
are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.[7]

The shift from the social to the individual level appears within the main works of the Marginal Revolution. Carl Menger's definition
reflects the focus on the economizing man:

For economic theory is concerned, not with practical rules for economic activity, but with the
conditions under which men engage in provident activity directed to the satisfaction of their
needs.[8]

William Stanley Jevons, another very influential author of the Marginal Revolution defines economics highlighting the hedonic and
quantitative aspects of the science:

In this work I have attempted to treat Economy as a Calculus of Pleasure and Pain, and
have sketched out, almost irrespective of previous opinions, the form which the science, as it
seems to me, must ultimately take. I have long thought that as it deals throughout with
quantities, it must be a mathematical science in matter if not in language.[9]
Alfred Marshall provides a still widely cited definition in his textbook Principles of Economics (1890) that extends analysis beyond
wealth and from the societal to the microeconomic level, creating a certain synthesis of the views of those still more sympathetic with
the classical political economy (with social wealth focus) and those early adopters of the views expressed in the Marginal Revolution
(with individual needs focus). Marshall's inclusion of the expression wellbeing was also very significant to the discussion on the
nature of economics:

Political Economy or Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it

examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the
attainment and with the use of the material requisites of wellbeing. Thus it is on the one side
a study of wealth; and on the other, and more important side, a part of the study of man.[10]

Lionel Robbins (1932) developed implications of what has been termed "[p]erhaps the most commonly accepted current definition of
the subject":[11]

Economics is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and
scarce means which have alternative uses.[12]

Robbins describes the definition as not classificatory in "pick[ing] out certain kinds of behaviour" but rather analytical in "focus[ing]
attention on a particularaspect of behaviour, the form imposed by the influence ofscarcity."[13]

Some subsequent comments criticized the definition as overly broad in failing to limit its subject matter to analysis of markets. From
the 1960s, however, such comments abated as the economic theory of maximizing behavior and rational-choice modeling expanded
the domain of the subject to areas previously treated in other fields.[14] There are other criticisms as well, such as in scarcity not
accounting for the macroeconomics of high unemployment.[15]

Gary Becker, a contributor to the expansion of economics into new areas, describes the approach he favors as "combin[ing the]
assumptions of maximizing behavior, stable preferences, and market equilibrium, used relentlessly and uninchingly."[16] One
commentary characterizes the remark as making economics an approach rather than a subject matter but with great specificity as to
the "choice process and the type ofsocial interaction that [such] analysis involves."[17]

John Neville Keynes regarded the discussion leading up to the definition of economics more important than the definition itself.[18] It
would be a way to reveal the scope, direction and troubles the science faces.

A recent review of economics definitions includes a range of those in principles textbooks, such as descriptions of the subject as the
study of:

the economy
the coordination process
the effects of scarcity
the science of choice
human behavior
human beings as to how they coordinate wants and desires, given the decision-making mechanisms, social
customs, and political realities of society
.
It concludes that the lack of agreement need not affect the subject-matter that the texts treat. Among economists more generally, it
argues that a particular definition presented may reflect the direction toward which the author believes economics is evolving, or
should evolve.[19]

References
1. Backhouse, Roger E., and Steven Medema (2008). "economics, definition of,"The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics, 2nd Edition, pp. 720-22.Abstract. (http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_E000291
&q=definitions&topicid=&result_number=5)
_____ (2009). "Retrospectives: On the Definition of Economics,"Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(1), pp.
22133 (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.1.221) .
 2. Antoine de Montchrestien(1615). Traict de loeconomie politique. F. Billacois, ed., 1999, critical edition,preview (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?id=rtJhT0PazN4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) .
P. Bridel (1987 [2008]). "Montchrtien, Antoyne de,"The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics , v. 3, p. 546
[pp.546-47].
3. James Steuart ([1767, 1770] 1966).An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Oeconomy: Being An Essay on the
Science of Domestic Policy in Free Nations, v. 1, [title page] and pp. 2-3 (https://books.google.com/books?id=uN8T A
AAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) , Oliver and Boyd for the Scottish Economic Society
. Title
page and Book I, "Introduction," , pp. 15, 17, as quoted in Peter Groenwegen (1987 [2008]), "'political economy' and
'economics'," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics , v. 3, p. 905.
4. Smith, Adam (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the W
ealth of Nations, and Book IV.
5. Say, Jean-Baptiste (1803 ).A Treatise on Political Economy; or the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of
Wealth, trans. 1834, C. C. Biddle, ed., Grigg and Elliot.
6. [Carlyle, Thomas] (1849). "Occasional Discourse on the N[egro] Question," Fraser's Magazine, republished in
Works of Thomas Carlyle, 1904, v. 29, Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 348-383.
Malthus, Thomas (1798).An Essay on the Principle of Population.
Persky, Joseph (1990). "Retrospectives: ADismal Romantic," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(4), pp. 166-
169 [pp. 165 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1942728)-172].
7. Mill, John Stuart (1844). "On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It",
Essay V, in Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy(V39). (Accessed Nov 2011)
8. Menger, Carl (1871). Principles of Economics, p.48., [1] (https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Principles%20of%20Eco
nomics_5.pdf).
9. Jevons, W. Stanley (1871). The Theory of Political Economy, Preface, p.vi-vii.[2] (http://library.mises.org/sites/defaul
t/files/The%20Theory%20of%20Political%20Economy_2.pdf)
10. Marshall, Alfred (1890 [1920]).Principles of Political Economy, v. 1, pp. 1-2 [8th ed.]. London: Macmillan.
11. Backhouse, Roger E., and Steven Medema (2009). "Retrospectives: On the Definition of Economics," Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 23(1), p. 225. [pp. 22133. (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.1.221)
12. Robbins, Lionel (1932).An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, p. 15 (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=nySoIkOgWQ4C&printsec=find&pg=P A15#v=onepage&q&f=false). London: Macmillan. Links for1932
HTML (https://books.google.com/books?id=nySoIkOgWQ4C&printsec=find&pg=PR10#v=onepage&q&f=false) and
2nd ed., 1935 facsimile (https://www.scribd.com/doc/14242989/An-Essay-on-the-Nature-and-Signicance-of-Economi
c-Science-Lionel-Robbins-).
13. Robbins, Lionel (1932).An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science
, p. 16 (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=nySoIkOgWQ4C&printsec=find&pg=P A16#v=onepage&q&f=false).
14. Backhouse, Roger E., and Steven G. Medema (2009). "Defining Economics: The Long Road to Acceptance of the
Robbins Definition," Economica, 76(302), V. Economics Spreads Its Wings(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.111
1/j.1468-0335.2009.00789.x/full#ss4). [Pp. 805820 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.007
89.x/full).]
Stigler, George J. (1984). "EconomicsThe Imperial Science?"Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 86(3), pp.
301 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3439864)-313.
15. Blaug, Mark (2007). "The Social Sciences: Economics,"The New Encyclopdia Britannica, v. 27, p. 343 [pp. 343-
52].
16. Becker, Gary S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, Chicago, p. 5 (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=iwEOFKSKbMgC&printsec=fnd&pg=P A5=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) .
17. Backhouse, Roger E., and Steven Medema (2009). "Retrospectives: On the Definition of Economics," Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 23(1), p. 229 [pp. 22133 (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.1.221)
.
18. John Neville Keynes, The Scope and Method of Political Economy, p.51. [3] (http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/eco
n/ugcm/3ll3/keynesjn/Scope.pdf)
19. Backhouse, Roger E., and Steven Medema (2009). "Retrospectives: On the Definition of Economics," Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 23(1), Introduction and Conclusion [pp.22133 (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.125
7/jep.23.1.221).

Further References
 Bye, Raymond T. (1939) "The Scope and Definition of Economics,"Journal of Political Economy, 47(5), pp. 623-47.
Coase, Ronald H. (1978). "Economics and Contiguous Disciplines,"Journal of Legal Studies, 7(2), pp. 201-211.
Dow, Sheila C. (2002) Economic Methodology: An Inquiry, Oxford University Press.Description and review.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Definitions_of_economics&oldid=802515439

"

This page was last edited on 26 September 2017, at 17:11.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.