 Radical Individualism vs. Institutionalism, I The Division of Institutionalists into ‘Humanists’ and ‘Behaviorists’Paul D. Bush American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1981, vol. 40, issue 2, 139-147 Abstract: Abstract. David Seckler has filled an important gap in the methodological literature of economics by providing a “radical individualist” critique of American institutionalism (1). Seckler argues that institutionalists have been unable to develop a coherent methodology because of their ambivalence on the issue of “free will versus determinism.” Thorstein Veblen, he says, entertained both “humanistic” and “behavioristic” hypotheses in his explanations of human behavior and, consequently, descended into obscurantism. The institutionalist literature in general reflects these contradictory methodological tendencies; for example, John R. Commons was a “humanist”, whereas Clarence Ayres was a “behaviorist.” Seckler's critique is not, however, persuasive. He fails to recognize the difficulties inherent in the philosophical dualisms posited by “radical individualism,” and he employs them credulously in his critique of institutionalism. Equally damaging to his argument is his failure to give adequate consideration to the meaning and significance of the “institutional dichotomy” in institutional analysis. Date: 1981 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:40:y:1981:i:2:p:139-147 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from Access Statistics for this article American Journal of Economics and Sociology is currently edited by Laurence S. Moss More articles in American Journal of Economics and Sociology from Wiley Blackwell |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.