How do normative and positive economics differ in their approaches?

Normative economics is subjective and value-based, while positive economics is objective and fact-based.

Normative economics is essentially a value judgement. It is subjective and based on what the individual or society believes should happen. It involves statements that are opinion-based and cannot be tested or proven. For example, a normative economic statement might be, "The government should provide healthcare for all citizens." This statement is based on the belief that everyone deserves access to healthcare, regardless of their ability to pay. It's a statement about what ought to be, rather than what is.

On the other hand, positive economics is objective and based on facts. It involves statements that can be tested and proven or disproven. For example, a positive economic statement might be, "When the price of a product increases, demand for that product decreases." This statement can be tested by observing the market and collecting data. It's a statement about what is, rather than what ought to be.

The main difference between these two approaches is that normative economics is inherently subjective and involves personal judgement, while positive economics is objective and based on observable phenomena. Normative economics is often used to guide policy decisions, as it involves making value judgements about what economic policies should be implemented. Positive economics, on the other hand, is used to understand and predict economic behaviour.

In your studies, it's important to recognise the difference between these two types of economic analysis. When reading economic statements or theories, ask yourself whether they are presenting facts (positive economics) or expressing an opinion about what should be done (normative economics). This will help you to critically evaluate the information and form your own opinions.