The theory of economics … is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique of thinking, which helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions (John Maynard Keynes, 1883—1946).
A few comments on the above may help. The first definition, by Steuart was conceived before much formal and sustained thought by a succession of scholars had been given to what we now name “economics”. Steuart was a mercantilist, primarily interesed in the wealth of the British crown and its capacity to support a navy, pay soldiers, and build and maintain the King’s highways. His concern was not with the nation as a whole — the artisans, farmers, and other men of low degree. In contrast, the next definition, by Mill — a very acceptable definition even today — does consider the society as a whole. It also calls attention to the “laws of ... production and distribution.” which are still at the forefront of economic interest. With the exception of the definition given by Lionel Robbins, all of the others reach down — like Mill — into the entire community. Veblen and Mitchell are dissenting economists (…) Yet both echo the phrase of Marshall, a major orthodox economist, about “the attainment . . . of the material requisites of well being.” Marshall, Robbins, and Mitchell place emphasis on human behavior. This is a desirable emphasis, lest we forget because of our shorthand way of speaking that human beings are the cause of economic phenomena. For example, economists are much concerned about the rise and fall of prices; but prices do not rise and fall. Human beings mark them up or down. The majority of American standard or orthodox economists would endorse the definition given by Marshall, not only because it is a good one, but also because of his great authority. Yet Robbins’ — so completely different—would also meet with great favor. What economists like about this pithy definition is that it goes to the heart of an issue which engrosses many of them: how to reconcile scarcity or the niggardliness of nature with the unlimited desires of man. Economists like to say they will not be needed in heaven. The reason is that in paradise, wants are few and resources boundless. Its inhabitants will never have to decide how much to spend and how much to save, how heavily to tax, how much butter to give up in order to have guns.
The definition given by Keynes, the most widely acclaimed economist of the 20th century, is a rather puzzling one. Economics is here defined partly as a “technique of thinking.” What does this mean? Obviously, any organized body of knowledge directs the mind in ways that are foreign to other organized bodies of knowledge. The chemist thinks about how atoms combine, whether they combine explosively or quietly, what happens when you restructure the atoms of a molecule. In this sense, we get a unique “technique of thinking” in almost any specialized activity, including economics; indeed, even baseball, football, and other sports impose a special technique of thinking, But is his all that Keynes has in mind? Certain well-known techniques of thinking include induction and deduction. Behaviorist psychologists — at least in the early days—reduced thinking to inaudible speech; the philosopher John Dewey described thinking as problem solving. Without clarifying, Keynes seems to claim for economics a unique method of ascertaining truth—one which is either a substitute for or an addition to the more widely known methods suggested above; something you would not find in a book of logic, only in a book of economics. If this is his meaning, we must reject the definition, for the method of scientific investigation and techniques of thought are the same for all kinds of data; and in any case, there is a difference between the concerns and data of economics and the method of studying it — a difference which is not recognized in the Keynesian definition.
The question whether economics is really a science cannot be answered easily. Astronomy, chemistry and physics have spoiled us with their split-second accuracy and such infallibility of prediction that we are inclined to look with disdain at the social sciences. Biology has not scored the successes credited to the physical sciences, but it still outpaces economics by a good deal. If, however, science is thought of as an attitude, a willingness to put aside prejudice, self-interest, and the unverified wisdom of the authority, then economics will fare moderately well.”
This ends the longer quote.
Gambs and Komisar themselves state: “The economist’s job in our society - as it would be in simpler societies - is to study all of our decision-making forces, practices, and traditions, and to decide whether they are promoting the general welfare.” (p14)
My own notes on all of this: (1) Keynes’s quote likely refers to the ‘science’ claim for economics, and has less to do with its subject matter. See the discussion on Hicks in chapter 19. (2) Robbins’s definition, though popular as it is - since it focusses on a clear phenomenon that can be frequently seen - thus is inadequate on the whole. It is an engineering’s definition, a rephrasing of ‘efficiency’. It is useful to highlight some aspects, but no more. It neglects policy stagnation that causes a state of inefficiency to endure. It neglects evolution and power that for example affect the income distribution. Robbins’s definition is like defining a map as ‘a piece of paper that contains street names’, forgetting all the other useful things that map makers provide.
Mankiw (1998:4) defines: “Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce resources.”
This again mixes ‘economics’ (the approach) and ‘political economy’ (a subject). I am not in favor of this, see the introductory discussion. The ‘10 principles’ that Mankiw himself provides in his first chapter give a nice view on the economic approach to problems - quite like Keynes’s definition - but do not tell us much yet about the management of the state.