 This module deals with the decision or the discussion that what is positive economics and what is normative economics. Under the subject matter of economics, we mostly see the same thing, but from the various lens. So, we describe the explanation of the various factors under the two types of the school of thoughts or the two lenses. One is called the positive economics and the other is called the normative economics. So, when we say the positive economics, it means it deals with what is or how an economics problem facing a society is actually solved. So, when we see that problem, it can be solved in various ways. So, but out of those various ways, one way will be actually adopted. So, certain resources, they can be utilized in various ways, but the one way will be actually in which the production will be dealt or there can be the various viable policies or certain solution of the certain problem, but which policy was actually adopted that will give the shape of the positive economics. So, this positive economics, it deals with the objective analysis of economic behavior. It will not deal with the subjective part of the thing and subjective means that what should be. And this positive economics theory was explained by the Robbins and Robbins explained that the economics was purely a positive science and economics should be neutral and economics economists, they should be silent. So, when we have to explain any part of the economy, so positive economists, they will only and only deal with the factors of production. They will deal only with the facts. They will measure the events in the form of the units. They will measure only and only in the form of the positive thinking. And they will not be the judgmental. They will not say that this thing was good for the health of people. They will not say that what should be for the society and we will not say that what can be improved. So, here it deals with the actual utilization. It deals with the actual production. It deals with the actual policies and it deals with the actual consequences and without any type of the judgmental either positivity or the negativity. And here any commodity will not be attributed with any positive or the negative feature. And its examples, when we say, I will say that Pakistan is a populated country. It means we will not say that either it is an active or the positive. It means it is highly populated. So we have to accept the fact when we say that there was a decrease in the price of the good and due to this decrease in the price of the good quantity demanded of that good increase. Or if we take any other example, so we say that there was the month of Ramzan or there was the event of the Eid. So due to the increased demand, now the price of the commodity increased. So it will relate cause and the effect in the form of the facts. It will not relate through the judgmental or any type of the recommendation or any type of the positivity or any type of the negativity. So we will say a profit maximizing firm. So when there is a profit maximizing firm, what it will set? It will set certain rules for the factors of production to purchase. It will set certain marginal revenue. It will decide through marginal benefit. So the basic decision mode, the basic decision rule through which that has to be decided that will be the facts, that will be the actual event, that will be the available data and that will be the actual outcome. On contrary, when we have to deal with the normative economics, we say that it deals with what ought to be or what should be, what can be. It is not related to that what actually was set, rather it gives that what we can do, that what were the available viable solutions for a problem. So if we say in other words, then normative economics tells us about possible avenues. Those avenues that are available today and those that we can force in the future or available technologies, available costs, instead we say that what can be possible. So positive economics will only talk about available but normative economics will only talk about what might be possible. In normative economics, Alfred Marshall and Pigo did the most work and they gave normative group of economics postulates in this regard. And that is why when we talk about what should be, we will talk about society and social structure. Rather, a producer has to produce more, okay, that is rational. A producer has to attain more profit, it is actual. But a producer should sacrifice certain production. A producer should reduce the price. So when we say that for the betterment of the society, a producer should prioritize other than its rational thinking. So that will be under the welfare economics or that will be under the normative economics. So this normative economics is that aspect of the economic thinking that gave path to the development of our welfare economics. And after this welfare economics, if we explain, this is further explained in the form of divine economics and it is also explained in the form of Islamic economics where we sometimes differ from the basic and the traditional school or the thoughts of the economic and we go again the positivity side, rather we go for the normative and should be are the viable solutions. So in this normative economics, we are not going to have any type of the reservation or the hindrance that we don't have to explain the things from the mirror or the lens of should be. We have to explain, yes, we can pass value judgment. We can say that output of the producer was more, but he should not do this because by this, he has utilized or wasted many resources that can be utilized for our future generation or any type of the consumption that a consumer has utilized for its own attainment of the utility. But in normative economics, we can say that it was not good either for the society or either for the health of the consumer. If we take an example of this, if we say that some people listen to music and feel happy, then we will say that in the form of positive economics, they are enhancing their utility. And positive economists can't judge them on that. But normative economists say, okay, the consumer is going to attain the utility, but he should not do keeping in view the welfare and the human rights of the other companion neighbors, which may be for those who are in the form of music, noise pollution. Now, when we come to examples of normative economics, we will say that government should guarantee minimum wage for every worker. Now, here we do not say against the positive, what is the actual minimum wage available? Similarly, when we say that Pakistan should reduce the amount of loan, if we say that the tax should be increased, we say that the rich people should be taxed more, so they can be able to produce more revenue for the economy. And through that revenue, government should be able to compensate certain, we can say, the migratory amount of the people or the poor setup. And the free education that is not mostly available, we can say that the free education, it should be given to the poor. So all the things that we say a producer should do, when we say a consumer should do, a consumer that who is going to utilize certain amount of the cold drink, who is going to consume certain amount of the chips, we say that okay, he is allowed to utilize, but at least he should deposit or he should drop that bottle or the empty packet in the dust bin. So he should do this to keep the environment clean. So here the social value judgment is the broader aspect that we have to deal. And it gives a beautiful picture of the future and the beautiful picture of the economy. And it provides the viable solution and the broader picture to the economy and the economic agents. Thank you.