Within recent decades, scientific and technological achievements have immensely altered Western civilization. Based on current trends, one can predict that the wheel of progress shall continue to churn, never to be halted in the mire of impeding social institutions, but rather accelerating, and thereby, bringing continual improvements to our civilization. Recognition and evaluation of factors that affect the momentum of progress has and shall continue to captivate my thoughts.

Presently, economists approach the problems of society in different manners. Although variation can be beneficial, particularly for checking results, the inability to resolve even the most basic questions, such as the proper role of the economist, plagues the effectiveness of my particular field of interest. Thus, disagreements are not merely confined to semantics, but lead to divergent policy decisions.

One kit of analysis is price theory, which derives from such scholars as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Alfred Marshall; and used presently by the eminent Milton Freedman. Price theory, sometimes referred to as classical economics, primarily deals with the allocation of scarce resources among alternative uses. Since “economizing” played such an important role, price theorists attempted to determine the most efficient method of production. And classical scholars articulated their fain the perfect competition as the force which would eliminate wasteful exploitation of scarce resources. To the classical scholars, the market place should be the sole determinant of production and distribution; for the pecuniary resources of each individual determined the amount of his vote and his personal tastes dictated his choice. Thus, each person could satisfy his desires, knowing that he had attained maximum satisfaction within his budget.

Motivated by their assumptions, classical economists found a panacea for the materialistic aches of the world-governmental abstinence from the affairs of the business sector. To price theorists, the will of each individual, regardless of morals, were paramount; thus, production should be sensitive to consumer tastes. In respect to production, competition, not government, would eventually induce a state of equilibrium within all industries; that is, a state where all firms produce at the lowest point of the total cost curve and their remuneration merely justified continued operation in the present areas. Thus, price theory was employed as a tool of analysis, studying the operation of existing firms in terms of efficiency, and as a basis for laissez-faire government.

With the advent of the world-wide depression, price theory lost its eminent position. No longer could government leaders expect business activity to recover automatically. However, price theory can be useful in curing specific ills. For instance, in resolving the petroleum conservation question, it can be extremely beneficial. To be more specific, Dr. Stephen L. MacDonald, under whom I am a research assistant, employs the marginal utility and marginal cost concept in judging the relationship of our oil production methods. Likewise, he assumes that each firm within the industry tries to maximize their profits, but his self-interest, harnessed by competition, helps in part the obtainment of economic efficiency.

A conflict manner of approaching economic questions is frequently referred to as institutionalism. Initiated by Thorstein Veblein, this philosophy scoffs as the naïve faith of classical scholars in the market.  Rather than considering the market as the sole determinant of the type, quantity, and quality of commodity produced, the institutionalists consider science and technical skills as the prime factor. Besides differing with price theory in the significance of the market price, institutionalism welcomes rather than discourages governmental participation within the economy. That is, it fosters any action which removes impediments to technological and scientific progress. To men such as Thorstein Veblein, John Commons, and Clarence Ayers institutions ranging from the corporation to religion must be considered in terms of their responsiveness to innovation.

Certainly, both price theory and institutionalism have contributed to the analysis of the economy. For example, existing industries might be compared, while institutionalism serves as a guide for critically appraising the existing social institutions. And, indeed, there are prominent economists presently who combine the better features of both. For instance, Paul Samuelson knowing that the tax structure prevented firms who sought to enlarge their profits by investing in capital equipment, encouraged a reduction in taxes so that companies could expand their facilities.

As an undergraduate at the University of Texas, I have majored in economics, while minoring in mathematics and government. In regard to my major, I have taken both empirical and substantive courses. The former, such as Price Theory, Macroeconomics and Econometrics have provided me with the tools necessary to approach problems. Likewise, my mathematics enables me to employ more sophisticated models. On the other hand, the substantive courses such as Social Control of Industry and Latin American Economics depict areas where economic analysis is useful. Certainly, my advanced government courses, Constitutional Development, that traced the development of our constitution from its English origin to the Warren Court, and the Government of the Soviet Union could almost be included with my substantive economic courses—one described the flexibility of a capitalistic nation in resolving its problems, while the other depicted the responsiveness of a totalitarian regime to altering situations. In fact, institutionalists would deem it most beneficial to observe the ductility of the governmental apparatus, for a particular brittle social institution can not only hinder, but can actually prevent progress.

In any graduate studies, I shall continue to concentrate on economics, gravitating toward the substantive aspect of the field; and government, leaning in the theoretical area. With such a combination of subjects, I hope to attain the depth needed to properly utilize economic tools. Indeed, such training should help me perceive the relationship between the various pressures, formal and informal, which affect the actions of the individuals. Naturally, each community has its unique pressures; however, my education could enable me to decipher the more influential ones in every settlement.

Of course, philosophy, sociology, and psychology should all be studied in depth for economic activities are affected by an unselective environment. As this state, unfortunately, my acquaintance with these fields is limited to little more than introductory courses. However, my graduate training should some reduce my ignorance in these areas.

In conclusion, I hope to contribute to economic development, not through scientific discoveries per se but by making societies more adaptable to recent findings. By exposing and debilitating institutional arrangements that preclude efficient operation (acting in an academic or governmental capacity is inconsequential to me), I feel that these efforts will benefit mankind and provide personal satisfaction.