WEALTH DEFINITION
Adam Smith in his book Wealth of Nations defined economics as follows; Political Economy considered as a branch of Science of Statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects; first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more property to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves, and secondly, to supply the State or Commonwealth with the revenue sufficient for the public services. It proposes to enrich both the people and sovereign ". The long and short of the definition is that Economics aims at enriching the people and the State to lead a comfortable life in the community. The whole emphasis is on earning and spending of wealth. Hence, his classroom definition is given has 'the science of wealth'.
Almost all classical economists defined economics in a similarly fashion with some verbal difference. J. B. Say defined, "The aim of Political economy is to show the way in which wealth is produced, distributed and consumed". According to J. S. Mill Political economy professes to teach or investigate the nature of wealth and the laws of its production and it's distributions", Walker defined economics as "knowledge relating to wealth".
Criticism of Wealth Definition
The definition of Adam Smith and his contemporaries was not appreciated by the people at that time, as the 'wealth definition' was narrowly interpreted to the extent of misinterpretation. The stronghold of religion and church, which taught puritanical views and simple living, made the people misunderstand the classical writers that they taught people the love of money. The term 'wealth' was mistaken to be a substitute of money. Hence the classical definition become the target of attack and criticism by literary men like Ruskin, Carlyle and Russel. Economics was dubbed as the 'bread - and - butter' science. It was also ridiculed as the Gospel of Mammon', a dark and dismal science. Ruskin went to the extent of Charecterising economics as a 'bastard science, the science of getting rich'. Apart from literary criticisms at the hands of philosophers, the definition stands criticized in the academic circles as follows:
1. The classical economics had taken a very narrow view of wealth,confining it to earning and spending of money. They had given a wrong impression about the true character of economics. The economic activity of a man need not be selfish or mean.
2. The definition is incomplete in the sense that it gives an impression as if human wants are satisfied only through earning and spending of money. A man, however, gets satisfaction not only from earning and spending of wealth but also through other activities like dancing, singing, etc. These activities have economic aspects involving choice and satisfaction of human wants. According to classical definition, these are outside the scope of economics.
3. The definition gives an impression that wealth is the end of all human activities. Wealth is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. Moreover,it is possible to think of ultimate objectives which or not concerned with wealth.
4. Prof. Walrus has criticized Adam Smith's definition as unscientific. The definition emphasizes equally the importance of providing income for the people and also the state. These two operations are distinct in character. The aim of getting plentiful money for the people is practical expediency or the material well-being, whereas to procure sufficient revenue to the state depends on equity or justice. Material well-being and justice are two different considerations with different order. The acquisition of wealth and production should come first, and then only the State can think of equitable distribution between the individual and the state.
The wealth definition was considered unscientific and incomplete on the above stated grounds,and hence discarded towards the close of the nineteenth century.
You must be logged in to post a comment.