Economics as a Science of wealth

Adam smith (1723-1790) was the citizen of Scotland. He is known as the father of economics and leader of classical economists. He had published the book entitled, ‘An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations’ in 1776 A. D., which is also called ‘Wealth of Nations’, in short. This definition is known as science of wealth because its subject matter is completely based on wealth and its significance. Adam Smith concluded that human wants are unlimited, which are most essential to be fulfilled and the wealth is only thing that fulfill human wants.

The definition of economics as a ‘Science of Wealth’ was also supported by J.B. say, F.A. walker, J. S. Mill, T. R. Malthus and David Ricardo. According to F.A. Walker, “economics is that body of knowledge that relates to wealth”. Similarly, J. B. Say defined that;“ Economics is that science which treats of wealth”.

The act of defining economics as a science of wealth, Adam smith separated man into economic and non-economic-man. According to Adam Smith’s wealth definition, economics studies only those human beings who are engaged in production and consumption of wealth are called economic-men, and does not study those human beings who are not engaged in wealth producing activities are called non-economic-men. For example, a retired person is a non-economic-man since he is not involved in wealth producing activities.

In conclusion, each and every classical economist defined economics in similar version of Adam Smith that economics is the body of knowledge related to wealth. Thus, economics is a science of wealth.

Main points of wealth oriented definitions:

(1)      Economics is the study of wealth only.

(2)      The main objectives of human being is to earn wealth. Which means fulfilling the human wants?

(3)      Economics studies only economic activities of economic man.

Criticisms:

(1)      Too much emphasis on wealth:

          Economics as a science of wealth cannot be regarded as being a correct one. Classical economist gave more importance to wealth than to man. But wealth is produced by man so critics are not agree to wealth is primary and man is secondary.

(2)      Emphasis on Economic man

         Man has to do many activities but every activity is not related to wealth. Wealth oriented economics only targeted to Economic activity and economic-man so this concept is wrong to real life of man, because all activities of man are not related to wealth.

(3)     Narrow scope

          Wealth oriented definition has narrow scope. It is rejected because of it covers only material things, this definition only lighted to wealth. It is not considered other scope of economics. So this definition is not suitable for modern age. The main critics of wealth definition are Alfred Marshall, John Robinson, and Leon Walras, etc. They converted the view of economics as a science of wealth.