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