Adam smith by ALIRMallah22

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 3

									It was criticized on Adam Smith's definition of Economics by
Dr. Alfred Marshall and some other neo classical economists
on the basis of following points.
    Man occupies a primary place and wealth only a secondary one. As Marshall puts
    it, Economics is "on the one side a study of wealth; and on the other side and
    more important side, a part of the study of Man." But in the view of Adam Smith
    and other classical economists, Economics is the study of wealth. On that point, It
    was criticized that the primary importance was given to wealth and secondary to
    man. In this way the human being was degraded and ignored.

    Adam Smith included only material goods in economics and excluded services
    i.e. doctor's, teacher's and lawyer's services. We know that their services are also
    as important as goods.

   Adam Smith emphasis only to earn the wealth. They did not study about the
    means to earn the wealth.

    He ignores the human welfare as compared to wealth. According to them wealth
    is more important than human welfare.

    The word wealth is controversial and the majority of the people dislike it. They
    thought that wealth is an evil.

    Economics was supposed to teach selfishness and came to be called a "dismal
    science"
    Anonymous
Lionel Robbins led on frontal attack on the Marshallian view in
the study of economics. The main points of criticism are:
1. Welfare is not measurable. It varies from individual to individual, person to person and
age to age. A thing may give pleasure to a person but it may be harmful for the others.
There is not any instrument for its measurement. Robbins criticizes the idea of welfare. It
is difficult to decide what welfare is and what not welfare is. There are many activities
which do not promote the human welfare but they are regarded economic activities e.g.
the manufacturing and sale of alcohol etc.

2. Marshall's definition has limited the scope of economics. As according to Marshall
economics is concerned only with material welfare. According to him all those activities
which do not promote the material welfare are totally ignored. As they are immaterial.
Robbins does not think it right for the economists to confine their attention to the study of
material welfare, because in the actual study of economic principles, both the material
and immaterial are taken into account. Robbins rejected Marshall's definition as being
classificatory because it makes a distinction between material welfare and non-material
welfare and says that economics is concerned only with material welfare.

3. As Marshal said Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life. It is
difficult to know, what is the difference between ordinary course of business and extra
ordinary course of business?
Anonymous

								
To top