Thanks, Lawrence, for the reference. I cannot speak  
for others but the main reason I skipped the previous  
literature is that it seems to me that it does not  
deal with the fundamental issue I raised. The study of  
economics is an action by an individual. I take it as  
fundamental that in discussing individuals' actions,  
we must presume purpose. We must assume that  
economists act purposefully and that their behavior is  
consistent with their purposes. [Otherwise, what's the  
point of discussion? This is not psychology.] Given  
this assumption, if we want to find a reason why  
economists use individualism as a method, we must  
locate their purposes. There are many "economists" and  
undoubtedly many purposes. But we want to confine our  
study to neoclassical economists and we want an answer  
that we can work with. So it seems to me that the  
expedient procedure is to focus on the major  
neoclassical economists: Jevons, Walras, Menger,  
Clark, Marshall, and their followers.   
  
[These, James, are the kinds of people I have in mind.  
If you have someone else in mind, then perhaps  
methodological individualism is not relevant. But  
then, at least to satisfy me, one would have to tell  
me their purpose. I don't believe that all economists,  
as you define the term, are individualists. Nor are  
they all Coaseans. What gave you the impression that I  
did?]  
  
What is missing, Anthony, from your Chapter 2 and the  
other chapters I scanned is an effort to identify the  
common purpose of these major neoclassical economists.  
In searching for whether you made such an effort, I  
encountered the following statement:   
  
"In effect, neoclassical theory is an institution  
which has its own aims -- namely, to demonstrate that  
it is possible to view society as the consequence of  
decisions made only by individuals" (page 40).  
  
Admittedly, this may be taken out of context. However,  
it represents my point that you may be neglecting the  
purpose of the major representatives of neoclassical  
economics. In other parts of your chapter, you quote  
and discuss a number of other economists, including  
Marshall, but you do not discuss their purposes.  
  
This is not meant as a criticism. I am just trying to  
redirect your attention to the question of whether  
methodological individualism is a more suitable means  
than alternatives of accomplishing the purposes that  
the main neoclassicals set out to accomplish.  
  
Pat Gunning