The Experts below are selected from a list of 4269 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Christopher Cramer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Homo Economicus Goes to War: Methodological Individualism, Rational Choice and the Political Economy of War
World Development, 2002Co-Authors: Christopher CramerAbstract:Abstract Neoclassical economic theories of violent conflict have proliferated in recent years and, with their application to contemporary wars, have influenced donors and policy makers. This paper reviews the intellectual foundations and empirical substance of such theories and offers a critique drawing on a political economy perspective. There are strong grounds for arguing that orthodox economic theories of war are reductionist, speculative, and misleading. Theories that are driven by Methodological Individualism are compelled somehow to model “the social” as it affects contemporary war––for example, by appeal to indices of ethno-linguistic fragmentation––but do so in ways that fail to capture reality and its variations.
Jeroen Van Bouwel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Do Mechanism-Based Social Explanations Make a Case for Methodological Individualism?
Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 2019Co-Authors: Jeroen Van BouwelAbstract:Recently, we notice an increasing support for mechanism-based social explanations. Earlier pleas for social mechanisms were often closely linked to defenses of Methodological Individualism. However, more recent contributions by, e.g., Daniel Little and Petri Ylikoski, seem to be loosening that link and develop a more sophisticated account. In this paper, we review the impact of the social mechanisms approach on Methodological Individualism and draw conclusions regarding the Individualism/holism debate, severing the link between the social mechanisms approach and Individualism. Four steps will be taken: (a) there are more than two levels of social explanation; (b) levels of explanation are perspectival, neither absolute, nor unique; (c) seeking microfoundations has value, but so has seeking macrofoundations; (d) there are no general preference rules with respect to the level of social explanations. In conclusion, the answer to the title question is that the social mechanisms approach does not strengthen the case for Methodological Individualism.
-
Do mechanism-based social explanations make a case for Methodological Individualism?
2015Co-Authors: Jeroen Van BouwelAbstract:In the recent philosophy of social science literature, we notice an increasing support for mechanism-based social explanations. Earlier pleas for social mechanisms were often closely linked to defenses of Methodological Individualism. However, more recent contributions seem to be loosening that link and develop a more sophisticated account – ascribing a less important role to micro-foundations. In this paper, we want to review the impact of the social mechanisms-approach on Methodological Individualism and draw more radical conclusions with regard to the Individualism/holism debate, severing the link between the social mechanisms-approach and Individualism. Four steps will be taken: (a) there are more than two levels of social explanation; (b) levels of explanation are perspectival, thus neither absolute, nor unique; (c) seeking for microfoundations and macrofoundations as good heuristics; (d) there are no general preference rules with respect to the level of social explanations.
Julie Zahle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Agent-Based Modeling with and Without Methodological Individualism
Springer Proceedings in Complexity, 2020Co-Authors: Julie Zahle, Harold KincaidAbstract:Agent-based models are sometimes associated with a commitment to Methodological Individualism. In this paper, we explore this linkage through an examination of the following two claims: (1) agent-based models may only be used to provide individualist explanations, and (2) agent-based models should only be employed to offer individualist explanations. We argue that both these claims should be rejected.
-
Limits to levels in the Methodological Individualism–holism debate
Synthese, 2019Co-Authors: Julie ZahleAbstract:It is currently common to conceive of the classic Methodological Individualism–holism debate in level terms. Accordingly, the dispute is taken to concern the proper level of explanations in the social sciences. In this paper, I argue that the debate is not apt to be characterized in level terms. The reason is that widely adopted notions of individualist explanations do not qualify as individual-level explanations because they span multiple levels. I defend this claim relative to supervenience, emergence, and other accounts of the social world as levelled. Moreover, I discuss the consequences of this finding for the ongoing Methodological Individualism–holism debate.
-
Limits to Levels in the Methodological Individualism-Holism Debate
Synthese, 2019Co-Authors: Julie ZahleAbstract:It is currently common to conceive of the classic Methodological Individualism–holism debate in level terms. Accordingly, the dispute is taken to concern the proper level of explanations in the social sciences. In this paper, I argue that the debate is not apt to be characterized in level terms. The reason is that widely adopted notions of individualist explanations do not qualify as individual-level explanations because they span multiple levels. I defend this claim relative to supervenience, emergence, and other accounts of the social world as levelled. Moreover, I discuss the consequences of this finding for the ongoing Methodological Individualism–holism debate.
Andy Denis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Schumpeter and the Roots of Methodological Individualism
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015Co-Authors: Andy DenisAbstract:"Methodological Individualism" (MI) was first used in English in a 1909 paper by Joseph Schumpeter. MI is often invoked as a fundamental description of the methodology both of neoclassical and Austrian economics, as well as of other approaches. However, the methodologies of those to whom the theoretical practice of MI is ascribed differ profoundly on the status of the individual, some adopting an atomistic and others a more organicist standpoint. Considering the contributions of Joseph Schumpeter, the paper finds that he recommends a highly atomistic approach.
-
Methodological Individualism and society hayek s evolving view
2014Co-Authors: Andy DenisAbstract:A core topic of the present volume is the Methodologically individualist approach of the Austrian School. In particular, we are concerned to understand how—and whether—this individualistic methodology can help us to understand the workings of society. To address this we turn in this chapter to Friedrich Hayek’s lucid discussion of the matter in the Economica articles published during the Second World War (Hayek 1942, 1943, 1944) and subsequently collected in the Counter-Revolution of Science (1979), first published in 1952. We are particularly concerned with chapters 3 and 4, “The Subjective Character of the Social Sciences” and “The Individualist and ‘Compositive’ Method of the Social Sciences” (1979: 41–60 and 61–76). The conclusion drawn is that there is much to commend Hayek’s vision of the operation of social science—indeed this is a sophisticated and illuminating discussion. Nevertheless, it is marred by his Methodological Individualism—the idea that social science must start with parts and reconstitute the whole, while natural science starts with wholes and by analysis attempts to retrieve the parts. A particular feature of Hayek’s discussion is his deployment of what Daniel Dennett has come to call the “intentional stance.” A discussion of Hayek’s application of this approach to social evolution in his later works shows how he himself breaks with the mistaken precepts of his individualist methodology. Other chapters in this volume, particularly those by diZerega and Nell, also take up aspects of Hayeks intellectual journey, which led him to question or abandon elements of traditional Austrian methodology.
-
Methodological Individualism and society: Hayek’s evolving view
Austrian Economic Perspectives on Individualism and Society, 2014Co-Authors: Andy DenisAbstract:A core topic of the present volume is the Methodologically individualist approach of the Austrian School. In particular, we are concerned to understand how—and whether—this individualistic methodology can help us to understand the workings of society. To address this we turn in this chapter to Friedrich Hayek’s lucid discussion of the matter in the Economica articles published during the Second World War (Hayek 1942, 1943, 1944) and subsequently collected in the Counter-Revolution of Science (1979), first published in 1952. We are particularly concerned with chapters 3 and 4, “The Subjective Character of the Social Sciences” and “The Individualist and ‘Compositive’ Method of the Social Sciences” (1979: 41–60 and 61–76). The conclusion drawn is that there is much to commend Hayek’s vision of the operation of social science—indeed this is a sophisticated and illuminating discussion. Nevertheless, it is marred by his Methodological Individualism—the idea that social science must start with parts and reconstitute the whole, while natural science starts with wholes and by analysis attempts to retrieve the parts. A particular feature of Hayek’s discussion is his deployment of what Daniel Dennett has come to call the “intentional stance.” A discussion of Hayek’s application of this approach to social evolution in his later works shows how he himself breaks with the mistaken precepts of his individualist methodology. Other chapters in this volume, particularly those by diZerega and Nell, also take up aspects of Hayeks intellectual journey, which led him to question or abandon elements of traditional Austrian methodology.
-
A century of Methodological Individualism part 2: Mises and Hayek
2010Co-Authors: Andy DenisAbstract:2009 marks the centenary of Methodological Individualism (MI). The phrase was first used in English in a 1909 paper by Joseph Schumpeter in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Yet after 100 years there is considerable confusion as to what the phrase means. MI is often invoked as a fundamental description of the methodology both of neoclassical and Austrian economics, as well as of other approaches, from New Keynesianism to analytical Marxism. However, the methodologies of those to whom the theoretical practice of MI is ascribed differ profoundly on the status of the individual economic agent, some adopting a holistic and some a reductionist standpoint. The purpose of the research of which this paper is part is to uncover and evaluate some of the meanings of the phrase Methodological Individualism (MI). The first paper in the series, "A Century of Methodological Individualism Part 1: Schumpeter and Menger" (Denis, 2009), considers the contributions of Joseph Schumpeter, who was the first to use the term, and of Carl Menger, considered by many to be the founder of MI. The present paper considers the contributions of von Mises and Hayek. The conclusion drawn is that Mises and Hayek based their Methodological stance on fundamentally different ontologies, with von Mises building on the reductionism of previous writers such as Schumpeter and Menger, and Hayek, on the contrary, adopting a holistic ontology more in line with Adam Smith, Marx and Keynes. From an ontological perspective this leaves Hayek as something of an outlier in the Austrian tradition.
-
A century of Methodological Individualism part 1: Schumpeter and Menger
2010Co-Authors: Andy DenisAbstract:2009 marks the centenary of Methodological Individualism (MI). The phrase was first used in English in a 1909 QJE paper by Joseph Schumpeter. Yet after 100 years there is considerable confusion as to what the phrase means. MI is often invoked as a fundamental description of the methodology both of neoclassical and Austrian economics, as well as other approaches, from New Keynesianism to analytical Marxism. However, the methodologies of those to whom the theoretical practice of MI is ascribed differ profoundly on the status of the individual economic agent, some adopting a holistic and some a reductionist standpoint. The purpose of the research of which this paper is part is to uncover and evaluate some of the meanings of the phrase Methodological Individualism (MI). This first paper considers the contributions of Joseph Schumpeter, who was the first to use the term, and of Carl Menger, considered by many to be the founder of MI. The approach adopted is to apply the intellectual apparatus developed in Denis (2004) to the arguments of these writers. This constitutes a test of that apparatus: is it able to clarify the standpoints to which it is applied? The conclusion reached is that both Schumpeter and Menger adopt a reductionist ontology in the sense of Denis (2004).
Robert Sugden - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Ontology, Methodological Individualism, and the Foundations of the Social Sciences
Journal of Economic Literature, 2016Co-Authors: Robert SugdenAbstract:This is a review essay based on a critical assessment of The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences by Brian Epstein. Epstein argues that models in the social sciences are inadequate because they are based on a false ontology of Methodological Individualism, and proposes a new model of social ontology. I examine this model and point to flaws in it. More generally, I argue against Epstein's Methodological approach, which treats social ontology as prior to social scientific modeling and as certifying the "building blocks" that modelers then use. I argue that modelers can legitimately shape the building blocks for their own models.