economics 101

[GREG RANSOM <GRANSOM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The recent post of Gregoire de Nowell mentioning
the work of Anthony Downs & Mancur Olson raises a very
basic issue, esp. in the context of the constant
references to the poverty of theory without history,
and esp. theory which develops an 'atomistic' individual.
My question is a very basic one for economists.  Do
we really need the 'high theory' of so-called 'rational
choice theory' with its highly artificial 'atomistic'
individual to have access to the rather pedestrian wisdom
contained is, say, Nowell's explication of Downs insight
into the limited time, knowledge, and focus of interest &
attention possible on the part of a voter?  And where does
the 'theory' / 'history' issue come in here, or similarly
the Marxist categories of class, 'superstructure' and 'sub-
structure'?  That is, do these 'high theory' distinctions
between 'atomism' and 'holism' or 'theory' and 'history'
really have any place in helping us to understand what Joe
in the gas station can understand?  My experience with folks
attempting to develop insights available to everyone into
grand 'high' theory is that stuff which everyone can recognize
as true gets turned into stuff which everyone sees as having
deep problems.  And i often see attempts to bail out these
anomoly beset efforts with appeals to conceptual efforts which
are either in even more trouble themselves, or which simply
make matters more obscure.  E.g. attempts to bail out the in-
tractable difficulties with rational choice theory with the equally
troubled 'behaviorist' program in psychology (something I saw
Dennis Mueller once attempt).

So the question is, do we need 'high theory' to have access to the
sort of insights recently recounted by Gre Nowell on the limits
of knowledge & interest & time, etc. which beset any voter in any sort
of institutional framework.


Greg Ransom
http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm