722 REPORT— 1894. 



and amended economic doctrine, as it appears to-day, seems to require further 

 expansion and readjustment. 



In tlie first place I cannot feel that there is any adequate expression of the 

 ultimate dependence of economics on that larger subject of study which treats of 

 society as a whole. It is no doubt true that our leading economists state very 

 distinctly the great importance of a science of society could it only be brought into 

 a healthful existence ; but such general confessions lose most of their value when 

 accompanied by a very pronounced scepticism as to the establishment in the present 

 or near future of any sec of doctrines worthj^ of the nime of sociology.^ The very 

 danger of this attitude lies in the fact that in one way it is so undeniably correct. 

 When some of the more vehement assailants of the old political economy sought 

 to contrast it to its disadvantage with a supposed social science into which it was 

 to be absorbed, it was very natural to reply that political economy, however defec- 

 tive, was a fact, while sociology ' was best described as an aspiration.' There was 

 no difficulty in showing that the so-called systems of sociology consisted of imper- 

 fectly collated facts and daring — often most unlucky — guesses as to the course of 

 future events. The strict economist stood on very safe ground in contending 

 against the dogmatism of the ' Positive Folity.' But though the best attempts at a 

 systematic treatment of social science have hitherto been grossly defective, this 

 affords no excuse for neglecting a statement and analysis of the fundamental con- 

 ceptions appropriate to social study and presupposed in all more special inquiries. 



Political economy, like jurisprudence or political science proper, requires as its 

 basis a fairly accurate comprehension of these preliminary parts of sociology. The 

 questions — ' What is a society ? ' ' What are the conditions necessary for its ex- 

 istence ? ' * In what manner the chief social structures are produced ? ' — and many 

 others of the same class should, I believe, be discussed as an introduction to the 

 narrower economic problems. Moreover, some topics that seem purely economic 

 have really a far wider significance. ' Division of labour,' ' Supply and demand,' 

 and ' The population question,' must be regarded in a broader way than is possible 

 within the limits that logical symmetry prescribes to the economist. In fact, the 

 greater part of the matter to be found in the division of our text-books devoted to 

 the subject of ' Production' is only Introduced to supply the want of a due preparatory 

 study of the leading features of what I may lor the moment call the ' social 

 organism.' That expression has unfortunately some unsatisfactory implications. 

 It seems to give support to the idea that the social and political sciences may be 

 regarded as mere appendices to biology, and that by a liberal adoption of the 

 technical terms of that science we can turn out a complete and definite system 

 without the trouble of continued effort applied directly to the study of social phe- 

 nomena. This belief seems to me to be hopelessly mistaken, and I would protest 

 as strongly as anyone against the ' manipulation of biological ideas and phrases ' '* 

 as a mode of dealing with either economic or social questions. But the general 

 conceptions which are needed to realise the broad features of social structure are 

 not the peculiar property of any single science. Division of labour, e.g., was 

 recognised as a social truth long before its Importance for the vital sciences was 

 appreciated. It is therefore quite possible, without any illegitimate borrowing or 

 routine Imitation of Inappropriate methods of exposition, to provide a satisfactory 

 groundwork of social doctrine on which our economic theories can be securely 

 based. Such a change in the usual method of treatment would be in harmony with 

 the development of economics during the last twenty years, and could be attained 

 without any sacrifice of the valuable material stored up in the standard treatises. 

 Nor Is it merely at the outset that systematic reference to social structures and 

 conditions is required ; all through the course of investigation that the economist 

 has to pursue he will find that fresh light is thrown on even the minutest details 

 by continvually keeping in mind and striving as far as possible to realise the com- 

 plete life of the society which exhibits them as one part of its varied activities. 



' See Sidgwick, ' Scope and Method of Political Economy,' in Statistical Society's 

 Journal, vol. xlviii. p. G12; Marshall, Principles, Book I., chap. v. § 1 ; Nicholson, 

 Principles, pp. 11-14. 



- Nicholson, Principles, p. 12. 



