I may be displaying a naivety here, but I agree.

I would argue that our economy is the metabolism of our society.  Thus it is the labour, material, and energy flows into, through, and out of our communities.  Economics would be the study of this.  Money would be a indicator, but not a major part of the understanding of this metabolism - it is the grease in the cogs, not the machine itself.

A 200 kg couch potato may have the same metabolism as a 50kg Olympic gymnast, but does either have the output we as a society are wanting to have?  Maybe we want the output from a 100kg lumberjack instead.  The Invisible Hand assumes that all metabolism is good, and eating more is better than eating less.  But if the invisible hand can not distinguish between the outcomes of the alternatives, conventional economics will fail to deliver what we need when we need it. 

Can economists say 'if you want this outcome, this is the best policy', and be right most of the time?  I don't know.  I think we're going to see a peak in the world ecological footprint in the next few years - can economists predict what that would mean?  What do we need to do to maximize the benefits that come from such a change?  Hard to answer any of that.

Arjun, what is New Economic Order of World? Do you mean some plan (if so, which?) or current reality?

Douglas, clearly metabolism plays its role. But economics is not about that. Rational agent knows how much to eat optimally, and if he has some money left, he will buy a car, build a house, travel somewhere.

I want to mention that there are other branches that discuss similar topics. Like these:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_the_individuals_and_their_self_interests_exhaust_economics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_the_economists_most_disagreeing_among_themselves

We need an economics based not on the premise of more of a good is good but more of a social good is good.

 Dear Dr. Arjun

Your publications indicate that you are mostly concerned with that side of economics that is concerned with the common men and their problems. I, for one, highly appreciate your concerns.

You have mentioned sustainable and inclusive development in the context of the new world order as the explanatory variable/contexts for your question which is really a big and serious issue. I do suppose that by a new economic order you wish to refer to the neo-liberal orthodoxy advocated by the World Bank and the associated organizations. This has taken place in the overarching epithet of the liberalization, privatization, and globalization (LPG). Summarily, this is the neo-classical mainstream marketism.

If you wish to have another definition of economics, your wish is commendable. But, dear Dr. Arjun, please, let us know what the alternative definitions can be plausibly designed/defined and be acceptable against the mainstream definition of economics as concerned with resource allocation and decision making.

There are many alternative definitions of economics, for instance, in the various strands of the heterogeneous and non-mainstream economic analysis. The Marxian economics, behavioral economics, new economic history, institutional economics, evolutionary economics, moral economics, etc.etc. present varied perspectives and paradigms. But it is the mainstream that rules the world of economic analysis. It is not easy to find a viable and equally acceptable alternative economics. 

Moreover, do you want a redefining within the mainstream or outside it? Or, do you need a new definition for analytical efficiency or for a shift of emphasis any economic analysis should have?

As for as my personal opinion is concerned I will support a programme of redefining along many perspective and requirements. Preferably, I would argue that economics should be rewritten with a greater emphasis not only on efficiency and sustainability but also on distribution and economic justice and it should be more occupied with the philosophical aspects of the economic essentials. It may run like not only what, how, and how much to produce but also why and why not to produce and why and why not to consume and what to leave for others to share or have?

With best regards

Sir Yuri

I am thankful for your references. One more is added here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_the_economists_define_self-interest_and_rationality#view=567b0d8a6225ff60b48b45eb

Regards

Thanks dear Douglas N. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion on 'need for redefinition of economics'. We have moved from individual level welfare to national and world level welfare of human race as well as other living beings and environment protection. Your definition "our economy is the metabolism of our society"  that should include the study of  labour, materials, energy and money to give good results to society is really thought provoking.

Thanks dear Yuri Yugorov. Yes it is current reality.Since the establishment of WTO, globe has became 'A small village' Most of the countries brought economic reforms to suit the new world economic system. But it has given birth to various issues such as social justice, economic justice,protection of good living conditions, international peace-welfare etc. .We have to take world economics as a relevant unit to study the metabolism/mechanism of the world society.

Yes, just read Polanyi The Great Transformation and Steeve Keen Debunking Economics.

We need to do a different type of economics, focus on human development. Make research with quality, originality, but mainly social relevance. Also "think for ourselves", create our own theory from developing countries. 

I'm an engineer, and I haven't taken any of this in school.  I feel, as I read much of what is said, that there must be something in First Year Economics that is explained to all of the students, and it is taken for granted by everyone else, but I've missed.  And in this conversation, I think I found it - it's the concept of the Rational Man.

Reality isn't that simple - we respond physically, rationally, emotionally, and spiritually, at all times, in all situations.   

There is a Zen story about a farmer who gains a horse, loses a horse, gains 2 more horses, his son is injured, etc.  And each time, the neighbours say 'Oh, that's good luck', or 'Oh, that's bad luck' as appropriate.  Each time, the farmer says 'Oh, is it?', and each time the bad luck would turn out to be lucky, and vice versa.  The rational decision can only be observed after the fact - there is no way to know ahead of time what the best decision will be.  We can only base our decisions on experience, and Hope.  And Hope isn't rational.  Which is why we are suckers to marketing, and fashion, and we make irrational decisions during stressful situations. And also why there is Fundamentalism (be it economic, religious, Western, or whatever) to ensure that our experience from yesterday still is valid tomorrow.

I'd be willing to bet that a portion of the conflict of the world is based on a contrast between a western concept of 'rationality' separated from spirituality, and an Islamic concept that isn't so separated.

Maybe we need to think about the 'whole person' instead.

There is definitely a need to redefine 'economics' today. The new definition should take into consideration of fluctuating markets, downsizing economies, varying consumption levels, aging populations, changing employment rates, growing industries, vanishing industries, reducing core sectors contributions, increasing new economy sectors such a knowledge sectors, etc.

New economics should be inclusive starting from the bottom of pyramid till the capitalization contributing to the national and global economy with transparency and value addition at each level. 

All the best.

 Thanks Fayyaz Baqir, economics should focus on the problem of choice between private-good and social good; since the welfare of the global people is being the main object of the world community then policies should concentrate more on social goods.The rational consumers group is more active factor than rational individual consumer in market decision making. The global economic reforms  moved the thinking from individual interest to society interest.

I think that there is no need to reject existing economics as a science. It managed to address many questions mentioned for example by Goparaju. There is a branch Economic Demography dealing with fertility, aging population and related economic processes. There is a theory of market shocks and volatility. Literature in industrial organization and development study growing and vanishing industries. I think that the main problem is that many journals publish mainly mainstream models of neoclassical economics where some assumptions and methodologies are not allowed. This is very different from applied mathematics where all mathematical tools are good if they describe or model reality correctly.

Thanks Mohammad I K. The hints you have give '...the mainstream that rules the world of economic analysis' could be the main focus of the mainstream economics. The mainstream economics should give basic principles and analysis that cover the all branches of economics, all systems of economics and all approaches and capable to give sustainable development with peace. Most of the approaches of rich/advanced countries are to internationalize scares resources of the world, particularly middle east and poor countries but this has become cause for unrest and terrorism in the world. The common principles are required to answer such questions. We need common yardstick to explain and explore the world economy.

Thanks Bernard. P. for suggestion.

Yes, and as always, the beginning is a very good place to start. The origin of wealth, what is wealth in the new context and the constant need on improvements to the measurement of wealth. If wealth is the goal then there are myriad problems in the design of mechanisms  to ensure the resilience of the wealth of regions, nations, businesses and individuals. A lot of mechanisms such as incentives we have used and regarded as of paramount importance is getting outdated, but those that derive from human psychology seems to be the most resilient. The revamp forces us to think more clearly of who we are as human beings and not just as a cog, number, or resource.

I agreed  with Yuri Yegorov there is no need to negate the  existing economics as a science, since it has addressed many economic questions. But the mainstream economics should consolidate in handling the complexity of choice between private-good and social good as has been opined by many.

Dr. Arjun,

Exactly, there is a need for redefining 'Economics' under the present context. In my personal opinion is more important to find a solution for economic crisis in the world.