SECTION F.— ECONOMIC SCIENCE AND STATISTICS. 



SCOPE AND METHOD OF ECONOMICS 



ADDRESS BY 



R. F. HARROD, 



PRESIDENT OF THE SECTION. 



In my choice of subject to-day, I fear that I have exposed myself to two 

 serious charges : that of tedium and that of presumption. Speculations 

 upon methodology are famous for platitude and prolixity. They offer 

 the greatest opportunity for internecine strife ; the claims of contending 

 factions are subject to no agreed check, and a victory, even if it could be 

 established, is thought to yield no manifest benefit to the science itself. 

 The barrenness of methodological conclusions is often a fitting complement 

 to the weariness entailed by the process of reaching them. 



Exposed as a bore the methodologist cannot take refuge behind a cloak 

 of modesty. On the contrary, he stands forward ready by his own claim 

 to give advice to all and sundry, to criticise the work of others, which, 

 whether valuable or not, at least attempts to be constructive ; he sets 

 himself up as the final interpreter of the past and dictator of future 

 efforts. 



My sense of immodesty is greatly enhanced by the occasion and place 

 of this gathering. As economists we are singularly happy in having this 

 meeting of the British Association in Cambridge. There is no need for 

 me to emphasise the unique contribution which this University has made 

 to economic studies in recent times ; the great names of masters dead 

 and living are in all our minds. And here I come, a tyro from a Univer- 

 sity, which, albeit the home of revered economists — may I be forgiven for 

 mentioning Locke, Senior, W. F. Lloyd and Edgeworth^must in the 

 modern period recognise its own juniority of status, and dare to lay down 

 the law in this holy of holies. In the sphere of methodology the Cambridge 

 economists have contributed much both by way of parenthesis in their 

 major works and by occasional papers. I must refer also to the classic 

 treatise on Scope and Method by Dr. John Nevile Keynes, who is still 

 happily with us. 



As a small extenuating circumstance I may mention that after taking 

 my degree at Oxford I spent an all too brief but highly stimulating period 

 here as the pupil of Mr. Maynard Keynes. And it is a source of par- 

 ticular pride and pleasure to me that on the first meeting of the Association 

 in Cambridge thereafter I should re-visit it in this honourable capacity. 



My substantial excuse for choosing methodology to-day is that I feel 



