Loading...
Comments on John B. Davis, he Theory of the Individual in Economics. Identity and Value
Bouvier, Alban
Bouvier, Alban
Author(s)
Author(s) (Additional)
Illustrator(s)
Producer(s)
Contributor(s)
Contributor(s) (Other)
Editor(s)
Advisor(s)
Contact(s)
Data Collector(s)
Keywords
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Online Access
Abstract
"The Theory of the Individual in Economics by John B. Davis provides a rich synthesis of a vast literature in economics, sociology and philosophy and displays an impressive perspective, encompassing essential issues in the social sciences. It is rare to read such a well-informed book that covers such a broad spectrum. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with what I take as the main idea of the book, that is the idea of the limits of methodological individualism (MI) (even more than the limits of orthodox economics) and therefore the necessity of adopting methodological holism (MH) (even more than heterodox economics). I will briefly discuss the conception of the debate between the two paradigms and contest the idea that MI has reached a stalemate, which Davis suggests in various ways and which ought to lead to a paradigm “shift” (as in Kuhn’s model). I do not contest that it is probably a priori possible to construct a social science (including economics) taking MH as its point of departure, which, however, I define differently than Davis, although I am sceptical of the aptitude of MH to compete with MI, given the strong development of economics (and social sciences) within the MI framework. But I will only make a defence of MI itself here – which I also define a little differently than John Davis – and of its aptitude to widen its scope in order to offer a more realistic idea of individuals in economic and social life. John B. Davis opposes “the two main conceptions of the individual in economics – the familiar orthodox conception associated with neoclassical and mainstream economics and a less sharply articulated conception associated with dissident traditions in heterodox economics” (p. 2). Actually, the two conceptions at issue do not only apply to economics but to sociology as well. This is obvious when Davis introduces the heterodox conceptions since the main leading figures of this tradition he quotes are Marx and Durkheim themselves (6.1, pp. 109-111) and the main contemporary leading figure in the same tradition is the sociologist Anthony Giddens, whose structure-agency model plays a major role in Davis’s book (6.2, pp. 111-114)"(pg 1)
Note(s)
Topic
Type
Article
Date
2005
Identifier
ISBN
DOI
Copyright/License
With permission of the license/copyright holder