In the defence of Economics

IN THE DEFENCE OF ECONOMICS

Since the inception of the discipline of Economics, charges have been levied on it of being a ‘narrow-focused’ discipline. Critics are always delighted to point out that the so-called ‘economic man’ is rational to an unimaginable extent. The notion of self-interest and its persuasion by an individual to fulfil his own wishes is also often under attack. What follows is an attempt to justify the existence of this discipline on the basis of the premises it takes for granted.
First of all let us say that this discipline tries to analyze human behaviour. This I suspect should not create any problem for anybody. If it is a study of human behaviour; it should try to portray human behaviour as close as possible. So we need to take into account essentially the ways in which people behave when confronted with the situations demanding a decision.
I would like to recall a small anecdote here. Do you remember one of those Birbal-Akbar stories, wherein a mother monkey is made to stand with her younger one in a tub. Slowly tub is filled with water. Initially mother monkey does her best to protect her younger one. But as the water level starts rising and passes above her nose, she puts the younger one down, climbs on it and seeks some breath!! The point is as clean as a whistle. Primarily an individual would do everything to achieve his self-interest.
Let’s take another facet of it. Why would one have to ‘acquire’ virtues? Don’t we all possess them by birth? Mostly not. Virtue is an external quality so as to be displayed exclusively. E.g. if a person is lying injured on a busy road in the peak hours of the day- say by 10.15 a.m., how many of the passers-by would pay heed to him? I doubt not more than a very few- a handful of them would bother to stop and see what is wrong with the person. What is driving the remaining huge majority from not paying attention? Surely, the self-interest.
If this example is not convincing enough (even as I feel) you can come up with any other example. I am sure there are scores of them. The point I want to make here is this: the essential nature of human being is looking for self-interest. If a discipline is based on this very premise and tries to analyze human behaviour, how far can we call it wrong? It is showing really the essential nature of human being. If that is not acceptable, why blame the discipline?