In order to create and maintain a prosperous and successful society, the process of aggregation is widely considered a fundamental necessity. In the context of political economy, aggregation is an important process that creates cohesion by combining competing views and preferences in politics and economics. Through the lens of methodological individualism, this essay will demonstrate that there is often a lack of clarity and consistency in aggregation, resulting in pitfalls, leading to problematic or ineffective systems of organization. To better understand the macro, it helps to look at the micro. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayIn simple terms, aggregation can be defined as “a group, body, or mass composed of many distinct parts or individuals . “There are many possible perspectives for studying aggregation. However, given the limited scope of this investigation, I will focus on methodological individualism. This is not to say that other methods, such as New Institutionalism, are not useful, insofar as they provide a legitimate critique of methodological individualism's axiomatic understanding of aggregation. But for the purposes of this study, I will focus on methodological individualism because it can provide a concise view of the composition of groups, but also their inherent flaws, by considering the whole through the sum of its parts. Individualism” was coined by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, analyzing the actions of the entire collective through the motivations of individual agents. They state: “The unit of decision-making is the individual, who both makes the choices and constitutes the entity for whom the choices are made. » These individual agents are supposed to exhibit the traits of the “economic man” who, as Elinor Ostrom puts it, is supposed to have a “rational strategy […] in each situation [in order] to maximize expected utility. “Preference ordering is an important part of aggregation. Individual agents all have distinct goals and motivations, which leads to an internal competition of preferences within the group and, therefore, results in not everyone getting what they want. So why join the group in the first place? As Buchanan and Tullock state: "The collectivization of an activity will be supported by the individual maximizing his utility when he expects the interdependence costs of that collectively organized activity [...] to lie below […] of those involved in the private voluntary organization of the activity. activity. » Thus, although individual agents may lose out at times to other group members, their membership is based on the understanding that, overall, the benefits of being part of the group outweigh the costs. The aggregation of individuals into organizations and institutions can be seen as a key trait and necessity of an effective society. In the book Violence and Social Orders, North et al. conduct an in-depth study on the importance of organizations in an “open access” democratic society, showing a marked correlation between the number of organizations in a society and the extent of economic and political development. According to Francis Fukuyama, the development of modern politics and economics can be traced back to the notion of aggregation and the formation of organizations: "A healthy capitalist economy is one in which there will be sufficient social capital in society underlying to allowto businesses, businesses, networks, etc. to self-organize […] The same propensity for spontaneous sociability that is essential to building sustainable businesses is also essential to building effective political organizations. "The ability of individuals to form groups creates cohesion and organization, enabling collective action in which the whole can achieve goals more effectively than individual actors themselves. An organization is an aggregate of agents individuals who pursue varied goals but use their resources and strength in numbers to their advantage. As North et al. state: "Organizations coordinate the actions of their members, so that the actions of an organization are more than the sum of the actions of individuals. “These organizations in turn establish a modus operandi, incorporating rules, norms and understandings through which the ordering of preferences can be carried out at a collective level Although aggregation is a central feature. of a prosperous society, it is not without challenges. One of the main problems of aggregation is the collective action dilemma, in which groups often have little incentive to act in their own self-interest. Olson states that “large groups, at least if they are composed of rational individuals, will not act in their collective interest. “Indeed, if it would be rational to act at the collective (macro) level, it would be irrational at the individual (micro) level. Within a group, an individual's actions that would improve not only his own situation but that of the group as a whole mean that his sacrifice for the cause will result in "reaping only a tiny share of the gains [while ] those who contribute nothing to the effort earn as much as those who did. “Overall, it makes sense to share the sacrifice as you would share the rewards. However, if an agent sacrifices himself, there is little chance of success and even if he does, this success is shared equally among all members of the group, allowing for free riders. This is particularly visible in strikes or boycotts, the benefits of which will go to all staff, even if they are often won by a small group of activists. The most famous example of aggregative traps can be seen through the "tragedy of the commons", in which individual agents of a group will continue to act in their own self-interest, resulting in collective exploitation and, ultimately, the depletion of a resource. The rational individual would not stop drawing on the micro-level resource, because others would (at least in the short term) reap all the gains from their sacrifice, and so no one would do anything to prevent the impending "tragedy." » This is clearly seen in the current problems of overfishing. There is currently a “scallop war” between British and French fishermen. In the Channel, French fishermen are limited in mollusc harvesting times in order to maximize reproduction. However, British fishermen, who are not subject to the same rules as the French, began fishing for scallops in this area to increase their catches and, of course, reduce the resource to share with the French. Another example can be seen in US President Donald Trump's action to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement in June 2017. Looking at collective data can also often lead to problems and Misconceptions in the study of aggregation. The “ecological fallacy” can be defined as “the failure of reasoning that occurs when an inference is made about an individual based on aggregate data for a group.” » William S. Robinson's study of illiteracy andimmigration to the United States in the 1930s indicated that at the macro level there was a negative correlation between illiteracy and American immigration. However, at a microeconomic level, individual immigrants were more likely to be illiterate. This misleading correlation was because immigrants typically settled in states with high literacy levels, skewing the data. This “Robinson’s paradox” was a seminal work in the critique of global data. This highlights the possible pitfalls of relying on methodological individualism to study aggregation, as it uses macro-level findings to make claims about the micro, without necessarily taking into account other potentially independent variables. to affect the results. Buchanan's "club theory" can also be seen as highlighting how and why aggregation is so central to the field of political economy. Buchanan asserts that his theory is based on “optimal exclusion and inclusion” in which members of a group reap the benefits of goods that are neither public nor private. Buchanan uses the example of a swimming pool in which there is a balance between efficiency between members and the size of the pool. Therefore, the ability to exclude must be possible in order to prevent exploitation. As Buchanan says: "If individuals believe that exclusion will not be fully possible, that they can expect to enjoy benefits as free riders without actually becoming full contributing members of the club, they may be reluctant to voluntarily enter into cost-sharing arrangements. . "A current political example of a possible club exclusion can be seen in the European Parliament within the European People's Party (EPP). The EPP is one of the most influential caucuses in European politics, with Jean Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán provokes divisions and tensions within the EPP which, according to the Financial Times, "has proven to be an invaluable club for Mr Orbán since he joined in 2000", because of its prestigious and well-connected members. After the recent publication of the Sargentini report, it is alleged that his party, Fidesz, "repressed the media, academics and non-governmental groups and denied the rights of minorities and minorities. migrants", which contrasts sharply with the supposed collective vision of the EPP. Orbán was able to act with impunity because, according to Buchanan, he was unlikely to be expelled from the club and therefore there was less pressure on him to do so. that he obeys the rules of the club. There are many reasons why Orbán felt safe from exclusion, as highlighted how aggregation can be very ineffective. Firstly, the EPP currently has a majority in the European Parliament (with 219 seats out of 751) and with the expulsion of Orbán and Fidesz there is a potential loss of influence (5 seats). This club (EPP) within a club (European Parliament) has proven to be severely tested in the face of competition from other clubs. This brings us to the question of the Sargentini report, which was written by Judith Sargentini of the Green-Left party, and not a member of the same “club”. This can be seen as problematic as it fuels rivalry, as they are both competing interested groups in Parliament. Olson's theory about the need for homogeneity within the group is also clearly visible in this case. Olson states that “heterogeneous groups make goals more difficult, reduce consensus, and make collective action even less likely.” "The EPP is a group composed of seventy-seven internal groups from different countries with objectives and.