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]