Alfred Marshall’s Definition of Economics (The Neo-classical view)
The neo-classical school led by Dr. Alfred Marshall gave economics a respectable place among social sciences. Marshall was the first economist who lifted economics from the bad repute it had fallen. Dr. Alfred Marshall (1842 – 1924) in his book, “Principles of Economics” defined Economics as a study “study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social actions which is closely connected with the attainment and with the use of material requisites of well-being”. This definition clearly states that economics is on the one side a study of wealth and on the other and more important side “a part of the study of man Marshall’s followers like Pigou, Cannon and Baveridge (the neo-classical writers) has also defined Economics as “a study of causes of material welfare.” For example, according to Cannon, The aim of Political Economy is the explanation of the general cause’s en which the material welfare of the human being depends.”
Characteristics of Material Welfare-Definitions:
The definitions given by Welfare School of Economists have the following main features:
(1) Wealth is not the be all and end all of human activities. Economist does not regard wealth as the be all and the end all of the human activities. It is only a mean to the fulfillment of an end which is human welfare. Welfare and not wealth is, therefore, of primary importance to man.
(2) Study of an ordinary man. Economics is a study of an ordinary man who lives in society. A person who is cut away from the society is not the subject of study of Economics.
(3) It does not study all activities of man. Economics does not study all the activities of man. It is concerned with those actions which can be brought directly or indirectly with the measuring of rod of money.
(4) Study of material welfare. Economics is concerned with the ways in which man applies his knowledge, skill to the gifts of Nature for the satisfaction of his material welfare.
For a long time, the definition of economics given by Alfred Marshall was generally accepted. It enlarge the scope of economics by taking emphasis that its studies wealth and man rather than wealth alone. However, Marshall’s definition was criticized by Lionel Robbins. He in his book “Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economics Sciences” gave a critical review of the welfare definitions of economics. These criticisms are summed as under.
Criticism of Material Welfare-Definition:
(1) Narrow down the scope of economics. According to Robbins, the use of the world “Material” in the definition of economics considerably narrows down the scope of economics. There are many things in the world which are not material but they are very useful for promoting human welfare. For example, “the services of doctors, lawyers, teachers, dancers, engineers, professors etc., satisfy our wants and are scarce in supply”. If we exclude these services and include only material goods, then the sphere of economics study will be very much restricted.
(2) Relation between economics and welfare. The second objection raised by Robbins on welfare definition is on the establishment of relation between economics and welfare. According to him, there are many activate which do not promote human welfare, but they are regarded economic activities, e.g., the manufacture and sale of alcohol goods or opium, etc. Here Robbins says, “Why talk of welfare at all? Why not throw away the mask altogether”.
(3) Welfare is a vague concept. The third objection levied by him was on the concept of “Welfare”. In this opinion welfare is a vague concept. It is purely subjective. It varies from man to man, from place to place and from age to age. Moreover, he says what is the use of a concept which cannot be quantitatively measured and on which two persons cannot agree as to what is conductive to welfare and what is not. For example, the manufacturing and sale of guns, tanks and other war heads, the production of opium, liquor etc. are not conducive to welfare but these are all economics activities. Hence, these cannot be excluded from the study of economics.
(4) Impractical. The definition of welfare is of theoretical nature. It is not possible in practice to divide man’s activities into material and non-material.
(5) It involves value judgment. Finally, the word “Welfare” in the definition involves value judgment and the economists according to Robbins, are forbidden to pass my verdict.
comment closed