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
|