<p>Robbins's famous quote can be interpreted very differently. For me, all he tried to suggest with this is that economics is the study of how you choose.</p>

<p>Most textbooks would say that if you have something for free, it is not a matter for economics to study. For instance, you can freely sunbathe, so the amount of time you spend sunbathing is not an economic problem. However, Robbins's definition claims that <em>it can be</em> a matter for economics, even if it is free. If you have to choose between sunbathing and going to the movies, the relevant resource you are allocating is not only money but also time.</p>

<p>In sum, given that doing A implies sacrificing doing B instead of A Lionel Robbins is defining economics as the science that studies human (purposeful?) behavior.</p>

<p>Btw: <a href="https://mises.org/system/tdf/Essay%20on%20the%20Nature%20and%20Significance%20of%20Economic%20Science_2.pdf?file=1&amp;type=document" rel="nofollow">the original text</a>, and, therein:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Scarcity of means to satisfy ends of varying importance is an almost
  ubiquitous condition of human behaviour (Robbins, 1945, p. 15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>PS: I don't believe that Robbins is suggesting that one focuses on efficiency as opposed to distribution. If the distribution affects choices, then it is a matter for [Robbins's] economics; if by distribution you are asserting that <em>this</em> distribution of income is <em>better</em> than <em>that</em> one, than it is true that Robbins does claim </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What is of relevance to the social sciences is, not whether individual
  judgments of value are correct in the ultimate sense of the philosophy
  of value, but whether they are made and whether they are essential
  links in the chain of causal explanation. (Robbins, 1945, p. 90)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>PPS: Reading now, this sounds too pompous, but at least I hope it's helpful:)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-18T13:13:07.420Z
No, it wasn't pompous - it was very intellectual and great insight!
Carlos Carlsen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-18T02:44:45.363Z
2016-05-18T02:44:45.363Z
user_newbie10
<p>Lionel Robbins once said, "<i>Economics is the study of scarce resources which have alternative uses.</i>"<br></p>

<p>Would someone mind explaining what he meant by this? <br>
I, as a naive 14 yr. old, think about this economics quote as meaning 'a person studying how to use scarce resources in any context and those resources have many uses'. <br>e.g. It is cold outside and I don't have enough money to buy gloves, but I do have an extra pair of socks, thus I use socks as gloves. 
<br>
<br>
If you cannot understand this, please let me know and I will clear it up!
 Thanks for your time -</p>

<reference-request>
What does this phrase about economics mean [Lionel Robbins]?
Carlos Carlsen
# What does this phrase about economics mean [Lionel Robbins]?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-05)

Lionel Robbins once said, "*Economics is the study of scarce resources which have alternative uses.*"

Would someone mind explaining what he meant by this?   
I, as a naive 14 yr. old, think about this economics quote as meaning 'a person studying how to use scarce resources in any context and those resources have many uses'.   
e.g. It is cold outside and I don't have enough money to buy gloves, but I do have an extra pair of socks, thus I use socks as gloves.
  
  
If you cannot understand this, please let me know and I will clear it up!
Thanks for your time -

**Tags:** reference-request

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-05-18. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Robbins's famous quote can be interpreted very differently. For me, all he tried to suggest with this is that economics is the study of how you choose.

Most textbooks would say that if you have something for free, it is not a matter for economics to study. For instance, you can freely sunbathe, so the amount of time you spend sunbathing is not an economic problem. However, Robbins's definition claims that *it can be* a matter for economics, even if it is free. If you have to choose between sunbathing and going to the movies, the relevant resource you are allocating is not only money but also time.

In sum, given that doing A implies sacrificing doing B instead of A Lionel Robbins is defining economics as the science that studies human (purposeful?) behavior.

Btw: [the original text](https://mises.org/system/tdf/Essay%20on%20the%20Nature%20and%20Significance%20of%20Economic%20Science_2.pdf?file=1&type=document), and, therein:

> Scarcity of means to satisfy ends of varying importance is an almost
> ubiquitous condition of human behaviour (Robbins, 1945, p. 15)

PS: I don't believe that Robbins is suggesting that one focuses on efficiency as opposed to distribution. If the distribution affects choices, then it is a matter for [Robbins's] economics; if by distribution you are asserting that *this* distribution of income is *better* than *that* one, than it is true that Robbins does claim

> What is of relevance to the social sciences is, not whether individual
> judgments of value are correct in the ultimate sense of the philosophy
> of value, but whether they are made and whether they are essential
> links in the chain of causal explanation. (Robbins, 1945, p. 90)

PPS: Reading now, this sounds too pompous, but at least I hope it's helpful:)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: No, it wasn't pompous - it was very intellectual and great insight!  

---

