Criticism
Marshall’s definition has been criticized by more recent economists, including Lionel Robbins. Robbins' criticisms include:
(1) Narrows down the scope of economics. Marshall distinguishes between material and non-material welfare, and confines economics to the study of material welfare. Robbins feels that economists should not limit their attention to material welfare. There are things that are "non-material" but they promote human welfare. Robbins cites “the services of doctors, lawyers, teachers, dancers, engineers, professors". These goods "satisfy our wants and are scarce in supply”. Some economists feel that Marshall's definition of "material" includes both goods and services, and that Robbins is either misreading Marshall's text, or creating a straw man argument.
(2) Assumes equivalency between welfare and economic activity. For Robbins, there are economic activities which do not promote human welfare. For example, the sale of cocaine or heroin. Here Robbins says, “Why talk of welfare at all? Why not throw away the mask altogether”.
(3) It is a vague concept. According to Robbins, “welfare” is a vague concept to use to define economics because it is subjective. Economics is a quantitative science; but welfare cannot be quantitatively measured, and two persons cannot agree on what creates or improves welfare.
(4) It involves value judgement. Finally, the word “welfare” in Marshall’s definition brings economics to the realm of ethics. Robbins would prefer that economics remain neutral in assessing the results of economic transactions.
Read more about this topic: Welfare Definition Of Economics
Famous quotes containing the word criticism:
“Cubism had been an analysis of the object and an attempt to put it before us in its totality; both as analysis and as synthesis, it was a criticism of appearance. Surrealism transmuted the object, and suddenly a canvas became an apparition: a new figuration, a real transfiguration.”
—Octavio Paz (b. 1914)
“The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art—and, by analogy, our own experience—more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.”
—Susan Sontag (b. 1933)
“...I wasn’t at all prepared for the avalanche of criticism that overwhelmed me. You would have thought I had murdered someone, and perhaps I had, but only to give her successor a chance to live. It was a very sad business indeed to be made to feel that my success depended solely, or at least in large part, on a head of hair.”
—Mary Pickford (1893–1979)