The central thesis of methodological individualism is that only individuals have aims and responsibilities, purposes and plans, in short - only individuals choose*. According to Jon Elster this is "trivial", according to others it's incorrect. My point here is that it matters. Recently I was listening to the 5 Live phone in, and the topic was the 60th anniversary of the founding of the NHS. One caller claimed that:
The NHS saved the life of my wife
It might be the case that this is short hand for saying that a number of doctors and nurses, working for the NHS, saved his wife's life. But not only is a literal interpretation untrue, it dangerously affects the rhetoric of debate. At its heart this is a comparative institutional argument, and the pragmatist (and good scientist) will weigh up the theory and evidence for and against public provision. But by attributing outcomes to the institutional structure itself (rather than the individuals who act within it) this value-neutral analysis becomes hazy. The discussion should be about which institutional structure has the information and incentive mechanisms that make doctors and nurses perform well. By attributing action to the institutional structure itself, the debate turns into which is better. This is an open invitation to allow value frameworks (such as libertarianism or collectivism) to dictate the proceedings.
I believe that health services would improve if the provision was more market-oriented, and the evidence for this lies in how individuals (i) are motivated; (ii) uncover information as part of social groups. It is almost impossible to have an open debate if it's framed in such a way that my argument is an attack on something that saves lives. Finally, a couple of quotes from Joseph Agassi to demonstrate that MI as institutional individualism is not the same thing as reductionism:
- [Popper] asserts that 'wholes' do exist (though, of course, not in the same sense in which people exist), but they have no (distinct) interests [p.247]
- According to holism society is a super-individual; according to psychologistic individualism society is the sum-total of individuals' interations; according to intitutionalistic-individualism society is the conventional means of co-ordination between individual actions [p.264]
Agassi, Joseph (1960) 'Methodological Individualism’, British Journal of Sociology, 11(3), September, pp. 244-70
*Another reason I link to the papers section of my website rather than the actual file is so that people can still access it when there's a new draft/it's in print
aeFS5H At last, someone comes up with the "right" answer!
Posted by: Jeanette | April 09, 2011 at 02:33 PM