Agreeing With Omar

15 February 2007 at 9:32 am Leave a comment

| Nicolai Foss |

Geoff Hodgson is in many ways an extremely interesting scholar. His work is penetrating, he is extremely widely read, his critique of mainstream economics is often well taken, and he is a lucid writer. However, he (like all of us) entertains at least one heavy idiosyncracy, namely a chronic penchant for picking on the notion of methodological individualism. Some of us think methodological individualism is almost trivially true, but  Hodgson certainly wouldn’t agree. Many of his writings contain attacks on MI.  A recent issue of Organization Studies contains a major diatribe against MI penned by Hodgson.

Apparently prompted by Hodgson’s piece, Brayden at orgtheory.intranet (;-)) declares that he has “not (and never will be) a methodological individualist.” He quotes Hodgson’s invocation of the familiar regress problem. In two characteristically acerbic comments, Omar characterizes Hodgson’s piece as belonging to “a disturbing genre of post-Giddensian British social theory which is so concerned with scholastic matters of definition and conceptual refinement that it is seldom able to make any clear analytical points.” Omar argues, rightly IMHO, that

the infinite regress assumption is as much a problem for structuralistas as it is for meth-(ind)-heads. . . . In fact, I would argue that the infinite regress assumption is much more of a problem for any ontological structuralist account than from an ontological individualist story, since structures cannot (by definition) be foundational entities (while individuals may be but not always); they must be generated from some other set of simpler components (individuals may be this component, but not necessarily). Thus any generative structuralist stance truly worth its salt cannot be satisfied with pointing the finger at the meth-heads for having the logical difficulty of infinite regress.

Read the entire exchange. It is quite illuminating. And it is great to agree with Omar for once (cf. these posts). Hey, Omar, what are you doing over there with those muzzy sociologists?

Entry filed under: - Foss -, Methods/Methodology/Theory of Science.

Breaking Up (Used to Be) Hard to Do Intellectual Property: Who Needs It?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Nicolai J. Foss | home | posts
Peter G. Klein | home | posts
Richard Langlois | home | posts
Lasse B. Lien | home | posts


Former Guests | posts


Recent Posts



Our Recent Books

Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Peter G. Klein and Micheal E. Sykuta, eds., The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics (Edward Elgar, 2010).
Peter G. Klein, The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations and Markets (Mises Institute, 2010).
Richard N. Langlois, The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and the New Economy (Routledge, 2007).
Nicolai J. Foss, Strategy, Economic Organization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Coordination of Firms and Resources (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Raghu Garud, Arun Kumaraswamy, and Richard N. Langlois, eds., Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks and Organizations (Blackwell, 2003).
Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, eds., Entrepreneurship and the Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization (Elgar, 2002).
Nicolai J. Foss and Volker Mahnke, eds., Competence, Governance, and Entrepreneurship: Advances in Economic Strategy Research (Oxford, 2000).
Nicolai J. Foss and Paul L. Robertson, eds., Resources, Technology, and Strategy: Explorations in the Resource-based Perspective (Routledge, 2000).