Re: individualism vs holism.

[Lawrence Boland <boland@xxxxxx>]

Ted Winslow wrote:

> I would say Keynes is an "individualist" but not an "atomist".  The usual
> treatment of "methodological individualism" conflates "individualism" with
> "atomism" i.e. with the idea of individuals as having essences which are
> independent of their relations.  The contrasting position to atomism is
> "organicism" rather than "holism", where by "organicism" is meant the idea
> that individuals owe their essential qualities - their "being" - to their
> relations so that these qualities change with changes in the relations on
> which they depend.

My argument is that Keynes is a methodological individualist [MI] -- but it is
important to recognize that long-run neoclassical economics is consistent only
with what I call 'psychologistic individualism [PI]'. The methodological issue is
about what exogenous variables are allowable in any explanation [see chapter 2].
PI is a stronger requirement than MI. Short-run neoclassical explanations satisfy
MI but not PI. PI allows only nature given exogenous variables (viz. preferences
and resources from Nature). MI allows other exogenous variables (e.g., constraints
that are the result of past decisions).

Later in the book I make the case that neoclassical economics needs [Keynesian?]
macrofoundations more than microfoundations [see chapter 5].

Those who are interested can download my 1982 book from my web page. It's free,
too.

LB

--
Lawrence A. Boland, FRSC
Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby BC Canada V5A-1S6
ph: 604-291-4487, web: http://www.sfu.ca/~boland