Professor Robbins' Definition of Economics

Abstract

I IT IS just over ten years since first edition of Essay on tIle Nature and Significance of Economic Science; and second, a revised and extended edition in I935, with reprintings in I937 and I940, bears witness to usefulness of work. In this essay Professor Robbins first set up as canon of any definition capacity to describe exactly ultimate subject-matter of main generalizations of (p. 4; all references are to second edition); and then, in accordance with this canon, he proposed a definition of economics as the science studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means have alternative uses (p. i6). It seems to me that this definition, when judged by canon, is too wide; and I want to begin by calling attention to soCe of material that Professor Robbins himself would include in economics in accordance with his definition. Every act, he maintains on page 14, which involves time and scarce means for achievement of one end involves relinquishment of their use for achievement of another. It has an aspect. Hence economics is supposed to show that, if I want to be both a philosopher and a mathematician but haven't time for both, I must give up some part of my ambition. Similarly, on page i i, iIn a discussion of leisure and production, author holds that apportionmient of twenty-four hours in (lay between these two interests is an problem. And again, on page 26, in an imaginary sybaritic community converted to asceticism, the distribution of time between prayer and good works has its aspect equally with distribution of time between orgies and slumber. Now it is extremely difficult lo deal fairly with such a notion as that of an ''economic aspect. Aspect is a very useful term that we all employ on occasion; but I think most of us who have tried to think would be disposed to admit at least that term. may be abused and that it is certainly fair to ask those who take advantage of it to be as specific as is possible under circumstances. In present instance could we not without malice ask Mr. Robbins question: When is an aspect an aspect? If I try to answer this question in his terms, I find, first of all, that his position seems involved in a confusion between adjectives economic and so that he tends to argue that, if an act is economical, it has an aspect (pp. II, 50, I45). Here we are in region of meanings, is of course slippery and disputed ground; but I think we could at least say that economic and economical may have different meanings and, indeed, that it would be impossible to argue from one to other, unless they were two. If so, does not economical mean a frugal or thrifty quality of action, does not use ''an unnecessary expenditure of means) (p. I45), while economic would refer to general character of subject matter of science? Suppose, now, that Professor Robbins