Re: definitions of economics 
One has to distinguish between the subject-oriented definitions of  
economics (e.g. the production and distribution of goods, etc.) and  
the process-oriented definitions (rational choice under scarcity). 
The problem is that these two approaches get lumped indiscriminately  
together. 
A more significant problem is that the definition is inevitably  
sociologically-determined. 
Economics as a 'discipline' was artificially constructed in the  
first place, so that broad agendas are sociologically-excluded.  Did  
Max Weber or Karl Polanyi 'do' economics? Not as far as economists  
are concerned. 
Even within 'economics', some approaches are more acceptable than  
others.  
IN practice, economics should be defined as what 'respectable'  
economists do - namely neoclassical economists (of whatever variant).  
That is, economics is the study of what Hausman calls 'rational  
greed', but delimited to conceptual frameworks dictated by  
constrained optimisation. 
So in practice, economics is not about the study of the production  
and distirbution of goods, etc. It is about the study of this subject  
via a particular narrowly defined analytical framework. 
Whether economics ought to be so defined, and so practised is another  
matter. 
 
Evan Jones Economics Sydney University 
[log in to unmask]