In his 1992 article “Congress is a ‘They,’ not an ‘It’: Legislative Intent as Oxymoron” (Worldwide Assessment of Regulation and Economics 12 (2)), Harvard College political scientist Kenneth Shepsle opens:
An oxymoron is a two-word contradiction. The declare of this transient paper is that legislative intent, together with navy intelligence, jumbo shrimp, and pupil athlete, belongs on this class.
I agree and add that any type of group habits (legislative intent, market intent, Supreme Courtroom intent, and so forth) belong on this record. On this put up, I’ll focus totally on financial causes for methodological individualism, however because the title states, the evaluation can (and may) be broadly utilized.
Methodological individualism is the concept the dynamics of a bunch can greatest be analyzed by trying on the actions of the people that make up the group. Methodological individualism doesn’t deny the existence of teams—in fact teams exist. Certainly, there are occasions when it is sensible to discuss with the group as one thing that achieved a aim given the inherent complexities of life. For instance, we’d say “the agency produced the pencil.” Sure, many people toiling away at varied levels labored to make a pencil, however the agency is the framework, or the coordinating mechanism, that introduced the pencil into existence. Making use of methodological individualism implies that particular person habits is the main focus of our evaluation. The structure of the group emerges out of the habits of the people who make up the group.
Moreover, the connection is bidirectional. Particular person habits displays the structure of the group, and the structure of the group influences the habits of the person. As Adam Smith discusses in The Principle of Ethical Sentiments, our interactions with each other train us what behaviours are applicable and which aren’t. We study conventions, customs, and self-control by our interactions with our friends.
Understanding group habits as the results of interactions amongst people is essential to understanding the character of market habits. A while in the past, I mentioned the distinction between financial theories and accounting identities. The dialogue was primarily targeted on technical variations, however methodological individualism, correctly understood, leads us to a different necessary distinction: markets don’t pressure individuals to do something. The connection between financial variables doesn’t characterize compulsion. Behaviors and outcomes are noticed and defined, not imposed, by financial concept. There isn’t any pre-existing equilibrium worth, or optimum stage of output, that the market needs or strikes towards. Somewhat, these outcomes emerge from the actions of people. Persons are not profit-maximizing (which means {that a} pre-existing stage of revenue is understood and that people act to maximise it), however fairly profit-seeking (which signifies individuals act in pursuit of revenue). Within the former description, persons are passive. Within the latter, they’re lively.
It is a great distance of claiming that those that deal with economics, markets, or any group habits as mechanistic basically misunderstand the mandatory methodology of study.[1] Somewhat, group habits is natural and emergent. Methodological individualism helps us see this emergent nature.
—
[1] No less than in economics, there are different issues with a non-individualist strategy to group habits. I’d posit that your complete argument depends on an noticed contradiction: teams are modeled as rational, however are noticed as irrational. However that could be a dialog for one more time.