Nature and technique of economic analysis

The present work is the second in the series entitled Studies in Modern Economic Analysis. The first volume Key nesian Economics, the author is glad to record, has had a wide and a generous response and even a measure of appreciation from the teachers and students of Economics alike. Encouraged at this, the author now takes the opportunity of presenting the second volume to his appreciative readers. The present volume, like the first, is primarily addressed to the post-graduate students of Indian Universities, although it can prove equally useful to the informed layman interested in the study of Economics.

The scope and methodology of Economics is perhaps the most controversial branch of Economic Analysis. And this controversy is as old as Economics itself. Besides being highly controversial, this field of Economics has also gathered around itself a certain amount of mist which intercepts a penetrating analysis oft e main issues involved in its domain. Further, there is hardly any other branch of Economic Analysis which presents a greater confusion to the readers than the scope and methodology of Economics. The object of the present work is to clear up the mist surrounding the subject of scope and metho dology and to present the principal issues to the readers in a simple, clear and forthright manner.

Regarding the definition of Economics, it is generally well known that there are three main definitions at present in the field-the 'wealth', the 'welfare' and the 'scarcity' definitions. But it is not so well-known that there also exists a school of thought among present-day economists which is strongly opposed, nay, even hostile to the idea of defining the subject matter of Economics. The author is referring here to the views. of Kenneth Boulding, Gunnar Myrdal, Von Mises, Maurice Dobb and William Kapp who stand for the immediate abolition of the frontiers separating the various social disciplines. Although the author does not fully subscribe to the views of the No-definitionists, yet he cannot look upon with favour the various barriers which separate the social sciences to-day.