Is economics a subject in social science? Without doubts, it is. But what's its role in social sciences? Meanwhile, is economics a business subject? It appears that economics must contain something more than business. There are economics not in the business area, such as the economics that studies poverty problems, labour relations, etc.
However, in universities, economics department may also belong to a business school while books in "business and economics" are often classified as one type, and are not associated with books in other social sciences, like psychology, sociology, geography, etc. These are signs showing that economics is a business subject.
This question has troubled me for a long time as I am often asked by students about this. I originally thought that students were ignorant about the true nature of economics. So, what I need is to educate them. One day, or when they have studied economics for a longer period, they will understand. However, day after day, the same question repeats. It won't be eliminated. I now think that the issue is not so simple.
Let's start with some facts first. Basically most top universities in the world have economics in the faculty of social sciences (some in faculty/college of arts and sciences/social sciences), not in their business school (or faculty). If economics is in their business school, it is normally a smaller unit than the department in the faculty of social sciences. Thus, economics may be in both social science faculty and business school but, if it is in only one school or faculty, it will be in the social science faculty.
Thus, it appears clearly that economics is obviously a social science subject. Economics contains some business elements but it is only about certain overlapping areas (so they are handled as a unit in business school).
Of course, what I said is only about the situation in most top universities. What happens to most need not happen to some other universities.
I exactly teach in an environment where the above situation is not true. In Hong Kong, most universities have their economics department only in business schools (or faculties). The faculty of social sciences will not normally have economics in it.
Yet, my own university has economics in social science faculty. But my university's arrangement is an exceptional case instead of the norm in Hong Kong, exactly reversing what happens elsewhere. It is hard to say if it is good or bad for my university to embrace the "world" practice instead of the local practice. Many local students actually wonder why economics is not in business school and keep asking me why.
But so what? If the case in Hong Kong is an exception instead of the norm, the problem is simply that students don't understand or other people in Hong Kong don't understand. It is not deserving further discussions.
Well, things are not that simple. If there is misunderstanding, it is not limited to Hong Kong, and to students, but everywhere and someone else. As mentioned above, books in "business and economics" are often classified as one type. You can easily find that this is the common practice in bookstores.
Yes, perhaps bookstores are too casual in classification matters. Then, let's see how De Gruyter Brill, a famous academic book publisher, classifies their books. Again, business and economics is one type. In fact, I have also written a blog post in the past, grumbling how "economics books" are often used to refer simply to business books.
Hence, it appears that what happens in universities can only demonstrate how academic scholars treat economics. They treat economics as a social science subject. The common people may not have this impression.
Perhaps we should consider the academics are right and common people are wrong. Economics is a social science subject, not simply a business subject. That's of course what I believe to be true for long. But let me start with another story first.
For long, I have been told that economics is the "queen of social sciences". I was told this when I was enrolled by an economics undergraduate programme as a freshman. The slogan was printed in T-shirts and was used by tutors to introduce the subject. We were all very proud of having the opportunity to study economics as the "queen".
After many years, I have become an economist and have an opportunity to attend a talk given by a sociologist. To my surprise, and it is the first time I hear this, the sociologist said sociology is the "queen of social sciences"! Of course, I wouldn't question this sociologist in the talk. But I learn that what we (economists) consider to be obviously true may not be so, from other perspectives.
If you search the information source of the slogan, you will find that Paul A. Samuelson (1915-2009), a prominent economist, is considered to be the first to coin economics with "queen of social sciences". Well, Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the father of sociology, has crowned sociology with "queen of social sciences" much long time ago.
So, you can see: it is economists who say economics is the queen, and it is sociologists who say sociology is the queen. If we (economists) don't recognize sociologists' claim, why should they recognize our claim?
From this story, let's think deeper. While economists consider economics as a subject in social sciences (and the queen), will other social scientists also think so? Yes, most universities have economics in the faculty of social sciences. But this may not be a good evidence to demonstrate the claim: it may be that administratively it is the most convenient choice to place economics in social science faculty. Yet, what we are looking for is not the administrative classification, but the essence.
If we look at the essence, let's ask a question: is economics closer to other social sciences, or is sociology closer to other social sciences? I think it is easy for you to answer this question if you have ever taken some non-economics social science courses, offered by geography, political science, psychology, journalism, etc. The answer: sociology is closer to them.
It is obvious that economics uses markedly different methods in studying the same object - society. It uses mathematical methods, rational choice model, methodological individualism, etc. Most other social sciences don't use these methods. In contrast, sociology's concepts like identity, socialization, etc. are widely used in other social sciences, except in economics.
If we assess people's behaviours in bookstores, the situation is crystally clear: people reading "social sciences" books are normally not those who would read economics books; people reading economics books may often also read business books; people reading psychology books may often also read sociology, politics books, etc.
As mentioned above, economics also studies some non-business areas, such as poverty problem, labour relations, etc. Business studies are not concerned with these areas but economics will be. Hence, economics is not business, we claim above.
But let's suppose there is a sociologist or a non-economic social scientist. For some reason, this person studies economics related to the above areas. As a sociologist (etc.), this person should have studied these problems (from sociology perspective) already. Now, he or she also studies how economics studies these areas. What he or she will find? Will he or she find that economics does the same as sociology (etc.) does? Of course not. But what would be the difference?
In fact, I guess he or she will think that the economics of these areas may simply be a businessmen's perspective on these areas. For example, a businessmen will emphasize cost-effectiveness in tackling poverty problem, etc. This is also what economics' approach to such a problem.
As an economist, will I agree with such a sociologist for this assessment? My answer is mix.
On one hand, I of course won't be so naive in equalizing economists' and businessmen's perspectives. On the other hand, the two perspectives are also closer to each other: economists' and businessmen's perspectives are closer while economists' (or businessmen's) perspective is not so close to sociologists' perspective.
Yes, economists are not like businessmen, who emphasizes a simpler criterion like cost-effectiveness. Economics has its own criterion, like efficiency. Yet, from sociologists' viewpoint, the criteria may not be so different. Efficiency, perhaps to them, is just another type of cost-effectiveness.
As an economist, I can defend further for economics' position. But one thing is clear: there is no other social science like economics that emphasizes so much on efficiency. When economists study equity, one major focus is that how equity may impact efficiency and so a trade-off between them must be considered. The result is, of course, in economics, equity can't be achieved to a very high degree (as if efficiency is not impacted). Yet, that's exactly what other social sciences may not agree as they don't place a high weight on efficiency (if they have ever had any concerns on efficiency).
Here, I won't try to defend economics' position. I simply point out the difference. In fact, economics and other social sciences do have a big difference.
