Economics has a long history, a history that s as long as human civilization itself. It evolved with the evolution of human race as when in stone-age, people satisfied their wants by exchanging weapons with skins and meat. But the science of economics is relatively younger with its first book “The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” penned just two and half centuries ago, in the year 1776 A.D. by Adam Smith. This subject had evolved as a science in the same year of the American Revolution and has, without any doubt, a lot to do in the field of human welfare and benefit of the complete human civilization.
Adam Smith, as the father of economics, considered it only to be the science of wealth and human beings and their welfare were secondary factors to him. Then Marshall defined economics as an ordinary business of life that concentrated on materialistic welfare. And Robbins defined it with respect to scarce resources and unlimited wants. Pigou classified it in terms of monetary measurements. Though neither of these definitions can be considered to be incorrect, none of them are wholesome as Adam Smith only talked about wealth, Marshall talked about materialistic welfare and missed out externalities and other factors that complete the meaning of economic welfare, Robbins limited his opinion within the boundaries of scarcity and choice, and Pigou was limited within the boundaries of monetary measurements. But if we ponder into these definitions and opinions sketched by these great economic thinkers we find the concept of welfare underlying in their views either it be through the welfare of the nations or that of the individual’s through ordinary business of life, or through the management of the scarce resources in terms of multiple uses and unlimited wants or welfare in accordance with monetary aspects. The concept of welfare clearly stands in every statement that defines economics…..as openly as in Marshall’s, or as an undercurrent as in that of Adam Smith. It could be justified with the following arguments:
Firstly if we look into free market system, we find that market forces are influenced by self-interest of individuals which leads to the well-being of the complete economic community. We find government’s in all those markets where community seems to bear injustice. This does indicate that well-being or welfare and economics are interconnected in such a way that one completes the meaning of the other.
Secondly, economics is concerned with mass production, industrialization, infrastructural development, etc, all of which are concerned with increasing the wealth but not simply the wealth of an individual but the wealth of thousands of individuals by increasing the wealth of complete nation which, in other words, could be stated as by bringing about the welfare of the whole community. Moreover, it even proves that economy and economics are not just concerned with individual and their welfare but with the welfare of complete human civilization. It is because in economics though individuals are taken as an important factor, being a subjective science, the mass completes the facts required. For example, a seller cannot solely depend on a single consumer/customer and would have no profit if the customer is only attended and goods are made available according to his choice. The seller will gain profit if he could supply the goods demanded by mass though every single customer matters to him. Economics demands broader view and if it’s observed by associating it only with wealth then here supply doesn’t meet the demand. Thus, if we go in accordance with the major and basic law of economics, the broader view of economics when demanded…..it should be supplied with definition where wealth and welfare are complimenting one another.
As argued in first and second opinions, the welfare lies as undercurrent and supports as well as fulfills the meaning of economics and also supports its to be a subjective science because when we concentrate on one or two people in the market, we see individuals and their self-interests in the market but for broader view, if we look all around the market, we would see thousands of individuals i.e. a vast community and the self interest of those individual appears combined as welfare of the whole community. This is also the concept of Free Market mechanism. From this we can now say that the concept of welfare…in broader sense is also supported by a major theory in Economics.
Thirdly, in economics we encounter with the words like externalities, market failure, government’s interference and many more, all of which are concerned with welfare and wellbeing of all. Keynes concept of Government’s interference when economy has negative impact on people due to externalities, market failure…., etc rescued the world from world World-wide great depression of 1929/30. His concept and theories widely supported the concept and theory of welfare. Today his theories are still applicable and working efficiently to control the economic fluctuations and instability and we cannot deny the fact that the major objective for which his theories were stated i.e. ‘welfare of human community’ in economic basis.
Moreover, public finance, which talks about revenues and expenditure of a government, plans provisions about non-rival and non-excludable goods under which topics like education, health, etc i.e. the topics of human welfare comes, is a inevitable part of economics……thus making welfare to be its unavoidable part.
It could be also argued that the topics like scarcity and choices, equal distribution of wealth too in a way are concerned with welfare. If economics the is not concerned with the human welfare then why would it be concerned about poor and rich or better utilization of scarce resources to satisfy everyone’s needs? It could have concentrated its subject matters within those factors that would stand helpful only to the people who have studied it and only those who have gone through it would gain profit. Moreover, why are economists concerned about the economic welfare of all in this world…..? Wouldn’t it be easier and profitable for them to keep their knowledge within themselves so that only few i.e. only economists would know about rare and scarce resources, depression and instabilities……just making them well-off. But it is well known fact that economics and economy is based on the behavior of thousands of people….and few handful cannot benefit themselves only while the rest of the world is turbulent, rather they should suffer too with others… So from this it could be said that economics does not just care about benefit of few but it is that subject that concerns all and thus is evolved for welfare of all equally. Moreover, the world has gained today’s pace due to economics. And the searches and researches are still carried out despite of all these achievements…for the future welfare of human beings and this world with out any doubt.
All the above arguments support the point that economics is concerned with the welfare, but it is also a science because though it may have value-laden and subjective subject matter, it follows scientific methods in proving its arguments and hypotheses as laws and theories by testing its accuracy and applicability in different situations.
So, by all these, Economics could also be defined as ‘the Science of Welfare’ because if it was not so then “The Nobel Prize” wouldn’t have been entitled to any outstanding economic contributions along with such contribution in five other vital or major fields of humanitarian welfare.
At last, though these arguments may not provide any precise or solid scientific touch to support the welfare side of economics, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the subject itself is value-laden one and has its own dissenting school of thoughts and controversies reside over its every topic. So, it could be said that the debate over the economic as welfare science may continue, but it itself would be contributing for welfare purpose and supporting the theory of Economics as a Science of Welfare.
Adam Smith, as the father of economics, considered it only to be the science of wealth and human beings and their welfare were secondary factors to him. Then Marshall defined economics as an ordinary business of life that concentrated on materialistic welfare. And Robbins defined it with respect to scarce resources and unlimited wants. Pigou classified it in terms of monetary measurements. Though neither of these definitions can be considered to be incorrect, none of them are wholesome as Adam Smith only talked about wealth, Marshall talked about materialistic welfare and missed out externalities and other factors that complete the meaning of economic welfare, Robbins limited his opinion within the boundaries of scarcity and choice, and Pigou was limited within the boundaries of monetary measurements. But if we ponder into these definitions and opinions sketched by these great economic thinkers we find the concept of welfare underlying in their views either it be through the welfare of the nations or that of the individual’s through ordinary business of life, or through the management of the scarce resources in terms of multiple uses and unlimited wants or welfare in accordance with monetary aspects. The concept of welfare clearly stands in every statement that defines economics…..as openly as in Marshall’s, or as an undercurrent as in that of Adam Smith. It could be justified with the following arguments:
Firstly if we look into free market system, we find that market forces are influenced by self-interest of individuals which leads to the well-being of the complete economic community. We find government’s in all those markets where community seems to bear injustice. This does indicate that well-being or welfare and economics are interconnected in such a way that one completes the meaning of the other.
Secondly, economics is concerned with mass production, industrialization, infrastructural development, etc, all of which are concerned with increasing the wealth but not simply the wealth of an individual but the wealth of thousands of individuals by increasing the wealth of complete nation which, in other words, could be stated as by bringing about the welfare of the whole community. Moreover, it even proves that economy and economics are not just concerned with individual and their welfare but with the welfare of complete human civilization. It is because in economics though individuals are taken as an important factor, being a subjective science, the mass completes the facts required. For example, a seller cannot solely depend on a single consumer/customer and would have no profit if the customer is only attended and goods are made available according to his choice. The seller will gain profit if he could supply the goods demanded by mass though every single customer matters to him. Economics demands broader view and if it’s observed by associating it only with wealth then here supply doesn’t meet the demand. Thus, if we go in accordance with the major and basic law of economics, the broader view of economics when demanded…..it should be supplied with definition where wealth and welfare are complimenting one another.
As argued in first and second opinions, the welfare lies as undercurrent and supports as well as fulfills the meaning of economics and also supports its to be a subjective science because when we concentrate on one or two people in the market, we see individuals and their self-interests in the market but for broader view, if we look all around the market, we would see thousands of individuals i.e. a vast community and the self interest of those individual appears combined as welfare of the whole community. This is also the concept of Free Market mechanism. From this we can now say that the concept of welfare…in broader sense is also supported by a major theory in Economics.
Thirdly, in economics we encounter with the words like externalities, market failure, government’s interference and many more, all of which are concerned with welfare and wellbeing of all. Keynes concept of Government’s interference when economy has negative impact on people due to externalities, market failure…., etc rescued the world from world World-wide great depression of 1929/30. His concept and theories widely supported the concept and theory of welfare. Today his theories are still applicable and working efficiently to control the economic fluctuations and instability and we cannot deny the fact that the major objective for which his theories were stated i.e. ‘welfare of human community’ in economic basis.
Moreover, public finance, which talks about revenues and expenditure of a government, plans provisions about non-rival and non-excludable goods under which topics like education, health, etc i.e. the topics of human welfare comes, is a inevitable part of economics……thus making welfare to be its unavoidable part.
It could be also argued that the topics like scarcity and choices, equal distribution of wealth too in a way are concerned with welfare. If economics the is not concerned with the human welfare then why would it be concerned about poor and rich or better utilization of scarce resources to satisfy everyone’s needs? It could have concentrated its subject matters within those factors that would stand helpful only to the people who have studied it and only those who have gone through it would gain profit. Moreover, why are economists concerned about the economic welfare of all in this world…..? Wouldn’t it be easier and profitable for them to keep their knowledge within themselves so that only few i.e. only economists would know about rare and scarce resources, depression and instabilities……just making them well-off. But it is well known fact that economics and economy is based on the behavior of thousands of people….and few handful cannot benefit themselves only while the rest of the world is turbulent, rather they should suffer too with others… So from this it could be said that economics does not just care about benefit of few but it is that subject that concerns all and thus is evolved for welfare of all equally. Moreover, the world has gained today’s pace due to economics. And the searches and researches are still carried out despite of all these achievements…for the future welfare of human beings and this world with out any doubt.
All the above arguments support the point that economics is concerned with the welfare, but it is also a science because though it may have value-laden and subjective subject matter, it follows scientific methods in proving its arguments and hypotheses as laws and theories by testing its accuracy and applicability in different situations.
So, by all these, Economics could also be defined as ‘the Science of Welfare’ because if it was not so then “The Nobel Prize” wouldn’t have been entitled to any outstanding economic contributions along with such contribution in five other vital or major fields of humanitarian welfare.
At last, though these arguments may not provide any precise or solid scientific touch to support the welfare side of economics, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the subject itself is value-laden one and has its own dissenting school of thoughts and controversies reside over its every topic. So, it could be said that the debate over the economic as welfare science may continue, but it itself would be contributing for welfare purpose and supporting the theory of Economics as a Science of Welfare.
