----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Alec, it seems to me that your well crafted question is nevertheless quite 
difficult to answer. This probably stems from the difficulty of 
communicating across disciplines -- in this case from natural science to 
social science. 
 
A major difficulty is the concept of certainty, which may refer to the mind 
of the scientist or, in social science, to the mind of the actor, or to 
both. The term "economy as a process" suggests that one is approaching 
economic phenomena on the assumption that the actor is uncertain not only 
about the material world but also about the actions that others will take. 
Given this assumption, the kind of closure you seem to be seeking is 
possible only to the extent that the economist feels comfortable in 
modelling inter-subject dealings under conditions of subjects' uncertainty. 
In this respect the phrase " a series of states or an aggregation of 
agent's decisions" is difficult to interpret. "Holism" in such a world of 
uncertain economic process would refer to the image that we build to enable 
us to conceptualize that interaction. 
 
Adam Smith's invisible hand was one of the first steps along the lines of 
building such an image. In the late 19th century, economists built a more 
complete image of an economy in which the concept of economic class was 
replaced by the concept of functions and roles. Individuals acting in the 
role of profit-maximizing producers were conceived as competing for 
resources in order to sell their products to individuals acting in the role 
of consumers. The producers buy resources from individuals acting in the 
role of resource suppliers, including workers. In the early 20th century, 
it was recognized that although such an image is necessary, one who uses it 
runs the risk of neglecting the differences between (1) profit-maximizing, 
utility-maximizing, and income maximizing roles and  (2) distinctly human 
action, which possesses the characteristics of creativity, inventiveness, 
and imagination and which always faces uncertainty in its appraisals of 
situations and decision making. In short, entrepreneurship was recognized 
as being missing from the more mechanical descriptions of the economic 
process. 
 
Regarding your use of the term "neoliberal," this has no significant 
meaning in economic theory. In my experience, it refers to a 
non-economist's ideologically-based caricature of certain policy arguments 
made by economists. It is unclear what you mean by a "neoliberal approach." 
Your last point seems to say that the image of the market economy referred 
to above has become more helpful in describing "the world economy" because 
of the increase in international trade during the last several decades. 
True enough. It would be relatively useless in describing a completely 
centrally planned global society or one that was at war. To deal with the 
question of whether this is a "contingent historical development" requires 
more time than I have at the moment. 
 
I hope this helps. 
 
Pat Gunning 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]