Economics as A science of Material welfare

The leader of neo-classical economists Alfred Marshall (1842-1924) was born in Britain. He was professor of economics at Cambridge University. He had published the book entitled ‘Principles of Economics’ in 1890. Economics is a science of material welfare was accepted very long time. Alfred Marshall gave it from this definition. It is quite clear that although economics still studies wealth is not considered as primary importance. He has been given man to primary place and wealth to secondary. According to him "Economics is a study of man's action in the ordinary business of life; it inquires how he get his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on one side a study of wealth and on the other, and more important side, a part of study of man"

The economists concerned themselves with material welfare as distinguished from general welfare because general welfare is something abstract and immeasurable. When as material welfare is something concrete and tangible and it is more definite by the measuring rod of money. Economists like A.C. Pigou, Edwin Cannon, Beveridge, etc supported Marshalian concept of economics. According to A.C. Pigou, "the range of our inquiry becomes restricted to that part of social welfare that can be brought directly or indirectly into relation with the measuring rod of money”. Similarly, according to view of Beveridge, "Economics is the study the general methods by which men cooperate to meet their material needs”.  The welfare definition given by Marshall has following main points:

(1)      Economics does not regard wealth and wealth is given secondary to man.

(2)      Economics is social science and not one, which studies isolated individuals.

(3)      Economic-men are not only subject matter of economics but it deals ordinary business of life.

(4)      Economics studies 'material requisites of well-being or causes of material welfare'. It has thus a materialistic aspect and ignores non-material aspects.

Criticisms:

Lionel Robbins was a main critic of material welfare oriented definitions. The main points of his criticisms of Marshall’s definition are given as under.

(1)      It is classificatory. It classifies economic phenomena into material and non–material.

(2)      This definition ignores the non-material services like those of doctors, farmers, etc. which also make an important contribution to economic welfare.

(3)      The distinction made in this definition between ordinary business of life and extra ordinary life is not clear.

 (4)     According to definition, Economics deals with person living only in society. It ignores other who also may have an economic problem like unemployment, per capita income accounting, etc.

(5)      According to this definition, limited the scope of economics by adopting the measuring rod of money i.e., it is not clear about measuring rod of money