----------------- 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]