Essay Title: Is Economics a science? Does it matter?
To focus and frame the argument at hand, we need to begin with some key
definitions. Economics as a subject is defined as the study of the behaviours and
interactions between the various economics agents of individuals, corporations and
governments, and the larger collectives they form known as economies. The field of
economics can be further split into macroeconomics and microeconomics, the study
of economy wide variables and individual markets respectively, and whilst they are
intrinsically related, the methods of experimentation differ so drastically between
them that they can hardly be subject to the same criticisms. However, this awareness
of the differences in their sub-fields will not stop us from grouping together and
making some generalisations about the subject overall for the sake of deciding if the
field overall can be considered a science.
Some of the subjects that are indisputably classified as sciences and indeed define
the word itself are physics, chemistry and biology. What earns them their reputation
as ‘hard’ sciences is their ability to draw crystal clear conclusions from the repetitive
study and experimentation of the building blocks of life. Key to their field is their
ability to isolate particular variables, and replicate the same situations endlessly in
order to study the effect of said variable. However, economics does not enjoy this
same luxury in its study of people – understandably, we cannot expect economists to
design and manipulate an entire economy simply to study the effect of an increase in
interest rates, for example. Additionally, the added complication in the form of
people in any given situation means that even if somehow economists could create
and endlessly repeat the same manipulation on a microcosm of the global economy,
it is likely they would gain vastly different results because of how differently people
can react to the exact same circumstances. This leads to the inability of economics to
draw conclusions with the same precision of a ‘hard science’, and has led to its
relegation and classification as a “social science”.
This brings us to the important issue of why it even matters what type of subject we
choose to classify economics as. Simply put, to be a science is to be credible. As a
society, we have attached a certain importance and prestige to ‘hard’ science
subjects, perhaps because of the large role they have played in the progression of
our society, especially in terms of technological advancement. Increasingly so, within
the field of economics we have started to reflect this in terms of what we give
attention to. Despite the wide nature of topics that are encompassed by economics,
increasingly the most prestigious awards and publications (and therefore the
promotion, status and funding) are being given to works that focus on the ‘hard’
problems – positive economics, i.e. that which is fact-based and can be proved right
or wrong. Whilst these advancements are no doubt a credit to the field and create a
positive multiplier effect on society overall, they cannot be exclusively prioritised
To focus and frame the argument at hand, we need to begin with some key
definitions. Economics as a subject is defined as the study of the behaviours and
interactions between the various economics agents of individuals, corporations and
governments, and the larger collectives they form known as economies. The field of
economics can be further split into macroeconomics and microeconomics, the study
of economy wide variables and individual markets respectively, and whilst they are
intrinsically related, the methods of experimentation differ so drastically between
them that they can hardly be subject to the same criticisms. However, this awareness
of the differences in their sub-fields will not stop us from grouping together and
making some generalisations about the subject overall for the sake of deciding if the
field overall can be considered a science.
Some of the subjects that are indisputably classified as sciences and indeed define
the word itself are physics, chemistry and biology. What earns them their reputation
as ‘hard’ sciences is their ability to draw crystal clear conclusions from the repetitive
study and experimentation of the building blocks of life. Key to their field is their
ability to isolate particular variables, and replicate the same situations endlessly in
order to study the effect of said variable. However, economics does not enjoy this
same luxury in its study of people – understandably, we cannot expect economists to
design and manipulate an entire economy simply to study the effect of an increase in
interest rates, for example. Additionally, the added complication in the form of
people in any given situation means that even if somehow economists could create
and endlessly repeat the same manipulation on a microcosm of the global economy,
it is likely they would gain vastly different results because of how differently people
can react to the exact same circumstances. This leads to the inability of economics to
draw conclusions with the same precision of a ‘hard science’, and has led to its
relegation and classification as a “social science”.
This brings us to the important issue of why it even matters what type of subject we
choose to classify economics as. Simply put, to be a science is to be credible. As a
society, we have attached a certain importance and prestige to ‘hard’ science
subjects, perhaps because of the large role they have played in the progression of
our society, especially in terms of technological advancement. Increasingly so, within
the field of economics we have started to reflect this in terms of what we give
attention to. Despite the wide nature of topics that are encompassed by economics,
increasingly the most prestigious awards and publications (and therefore the
promotion, status and funding) are being given to works that focus on the ‘hard’
problems – positive economics, i.e. that which is fact-based and can be proved right
or wrong. Whilst these advancements are no doubt a credit to the field and create a
positive multiplier effect on society overall, they cannot be exclusively prioritised
