Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

STEPHEN D.PARSONSof action ‘in terms of the meaning attached to it by theactor’.(Lachmann 1971:31)Lachmann takes this Weberian legacy seriously: the notion of a planprovides ‘a firmer and more convenient starting point for themethodology of the social sciences than the controversial notion ofthe Ideal Type’ (ibid.: 33). Lachmann thus appears to acceptSchutz’s (1972) criticism of Weber’s ‘ideal type’. For Weber, the‘ideal types’ were both methodological constructs that permitted thesocial scientist to investigate social life and yet were themselvesgenerated in social life. However, as Schutz noted, if ‘ideal types’were generated in everyday social life, then the social scientist hadno privileged access to them. Lachmann also intends his ‘plan’ tosignify a phenomenon generated by individual actors themselves(Lachmann 1971:29).However, although Lachmann’s explanation of human actioncan consequently be read as an advance upon, and improvement of,Mises’s own account, it generates certain problems of its own. Inattempting to extend Weber’s own analysis, Lachmannacknowledges that Weber identified purposes as causes of action.Lachmann situates this concern for a causal explanation within hisexploration of the significance of plans as follows:It is readily seen (with the benefit of hindsight) that thisconception of the nature of causal explanation of humanaction in terms of purposes would have provided a firmer andmore convenient starting point for the methodology of thesocial sciences than the controversial notion of the Ideal Type.It is also easy to see how it is naturally linked to our concept ofPlan. In fact, ‘plan’ is but a generalization of purpose.(Lachmann 1971:33)However, Lachmann appears to be unaware of the extent to whichhis incorporation of the ‘plan’ into the investigation seriouslydisrupts the possibility of introducing causal explanation in therequired form. Lachmann argues that the coherence of any plan canbe tested on two levels:1 whether the purposes he ascribes are in fact consistent with oneanother and fit into the framework of a general plan, theexecution of which would account for the known facts;50