<Li> to designate the application of economic theory to the interpretation and explanation of particular economic phenomena, without any necessary reference however, to the solution of practical questions; </Li> <Li> to mark off the more concrete and specialized portions of economic doctrine from those more abstract doctrines that are held to pervade all economic reasoning . (1917, 58--59) and applying theories of economy on what we have in reality to get a healthy enterprise and business prosperity . </Li> <P> Léon Walras, for example, planned to organize his main work into volumes on "pure," "applied," and "social" economics . Jaffé (1983) describes Walras's plan as involving making a distinction between that which is true, is useful, and is just . In using the term true, Walras referred to propositions that necessarily followed from the nature of things . Pure economics then involves pure logic . Applied economics involves examining ways to achieve practical goals and requires the making judgments about whether or not the logic of pure economics was relevant to the real world . Social economics also presumed pure economics, but dealt with a different range of questions than did applied economics . </P> <P> Vilfredo Pareto ((1906) 1971, 104) follows as similar usage suggesting economics might begin by eliminating that which is inessential to examine problems as reduced to their principal and essentials . He distinguishes between "pure economics" from "applied economics" with pure economics containing only the principal lines of argument and applied economics involving supplying the details . </P>

What is the difference between pure economics and applied economics
find me the text answering this question