I guess a Marxist would have problems with the whole idea of methodological individualism, and a Galbraithian would have problems with the idea that self-interest can be defined without taking into account the ability of advertisers and so forth to shape preferences.
The author presents the negative public policy consequences and implications of adopting methodological individualism through a discussion on AIDS policies.
Thus methodological individualism is a slightly misleading term, since the goal is not to privilege the individual over the collective in social-scientific explanation, but rather to privilege the action-theoretic level of explanation.
Methodological individualism takes a position on the first of these, claiming that the explanation of the behavior of collective or corporate entities requires reduction to the beliefs, aims, and desires of individuals making up that collective.
He is able to offer a cogent account of why methodological individualism counts as a methodological constraint.
Thus the "individualism" in methodological individualism is more a byproduct of its central theoretical commitment than a motivating factor.
In other words, Popper's "methodological individualism" was actually a claim about what the world "really" consisted of, little more than a fancy way of saying "there is no such thing as society".
The recent emphasis on individual-based models, which embrace methodological individualism, should be viewed as a return of reductionism in ecology.
Nevertheless, the doctrine of methodological individualism became embroiled in a number of highly politicized debates during the 20th century, largely because it was often invoked as a way of discrediting historical materialism.
Francesco Di Iorio, a 2012-13 fellof of the HOPE Center, has published a new book that explores a variant of methodological individualism, which explains social realities in terms of the individuals who make up society.
