It is perfectly normal to think that this question has an obvious answer. If you take the field of science in its strictest form, then economics has no part to play in it since economics neither has fixed, immutable rules nor any consistent and reliable means of experimentation. What choice would we have then but to classify economics as a member of the arts and humanities?

But if you consider the question words in a less rigid manner, and see science in a broader light, then we have a prickly issue to debate. Consider, for example, the fact that the University of Cambridge (UK) offers a Bachelor of Arts in Economics, while the London School of Economics (UK) offers a Bachelor of Science in Economics.

A typo¹? Or an indication of the division within the economics world on whether economics is more science or art?

With all the history (we have a whole division known as historical economics) and subjective opinions embedded within the study of economics - even at the A-Levels - it should not be surprising that economics has been labeled as an art. Economists wouldn’t be able to agree on a fixed rule for anything even if their lives depended on it. Sometimes you have your tutors spouting the Law of Demand - price is inversely related to quantity demanded. But ask Thorstein Veblen, and he’d tell you all about Veblen goods - products whose price is directly related to quantity demanded.

And Veblen goods are but one of the various anomalies attached to the “Law” of Demand. Look instead to the Newton’s Laws (a fundamental set of theories in the natural sciences) and you’ll notice that they hold (mostly) as true today as they did centuries back, and in almost any situation at all. Thus, if long-term immutability and complete consistency alone defines science, then economics clearly isn’t part of it.

But as we argued earlier, this level of rigidity is pointless. Many factors define a science. A level of subjectivity and a lack of consistent means of experimentation aren’t all. What about the methodical nature of economics? Like natural scientists, economists, to a large extent, follow a fixed analytical framework. We also place assumptions, formulate theories, create laws and construct models. We, like any physicist or biologist, can use our models to explain events that have occured and predict events that might occur - within the constraints of our assumptions, of course.

So, it should be obvious by now that economics has its roots in both art and science, and that any categorical assignment to either art or science would be incorrect (especially since the factors laid out above are but a drop in the ocean). This is probably why we have all taken the easy way out. Today, we categorise economics as a social science.

1. typographical error [↩]