In order to create and maintain a prosperous and highly functioning society, the aggregation process is widely seen as a fundamental necessity. Within political economy, aggregation is an important process that creates cohesion by combining competing viewpoints and preferences in both the political and economic spheres. Through the lens of methodological individualism, this essay will argue that there is often a lack of clarity and coherence in aggregation which results in pitfalls, leading to problematic or ineffective systems of organization. To better understand the macro, it is helpful to look at the micro. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Simply put, aggregation can be defined as “a group, body, or mass composed of many distinct parts or individuals.” “There are many possible lenses through which to study aggregation. However, for 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 valuable, as they provide a legitimate critique of methodological individualism's axiomatic understanding of aggregation. But for the sake of this study I will focus on methodological individualism as it can provide a concise view of both the composition of groups and their inherent flaws by considering the whole through the sum of its parts. The term “methodological 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 decision-making unit is the individual, who makes the choices and constitutes the entity for which the choices are made. These individual agents are believed to display traits of the "economic man" who, as stated by Elinor Ostrom, is believed to have a "rational strategy […] in every situation [in order] to maximize expected utility. The sorting of preferences is an important part of the aggregation. The individual agents all have distinct goals and motivations, which leads to an internal competition of preferences in the group and, therefore, the result that not everyone gets what they want. So why join the group first? As Buchanan and Tullock state, “The collectivization of an activity will be supported by the utility-maximizing individual when he expects the interdependence costs of this collectively organized activity […] to be lower […] than those involved in the private voluntary organization of the activity. Therefore, even if individual agents may at certain times lose ground compared to others in the group, their membership is based on the awareness that, overall, the benefits deriving from being part of the group outweigh. the costs. The aggregation of individuals into organizations and institutions can be seen as a key characteristic process and necessity for an effective society. Within the book Violence and Social Orders, North et al. carry out 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 concept of aggregation and the formation of organizations: “A healthy capitalist economy is one in which there will be sufficient social capital in the underlying society to enable businesses, companies , networks and the like self-organize […] The same propensity for spontaneous sociality that is the key to building lasting businesses is alsoindispensable for putting together effective political organizations. “The ability of people to form groups creates cohesion and organization, allowing for collective action in which the aggregate can achieve goals more efficiently than the individual actors themselves. An organization is an aggregation of individual agents pursuing a variety of different goals but using their resources and numerical strength to their advantage. Like North et al. state: “Organizations coordinate the actions of their members, so 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 preference sorting can be carried out on a collective level. While aggregation is a central trait of a successful company, it is not without its challenges. One of the central problems of aggregation is the collective action dilemma, in which groups often have little impetus to act in their own self-interest. Olson states that “large groups, at least if composed of rational individuals, will not act in the interests of their own group. This is because, although it would be rational to act on a collective (macro) level, it would be irrational on an individual (micro) level. Within a group, an individual's actions that would improve not only his own situation but that of the entire group means that his sacrifice for the cause will result in “reaping only a small portion of the gains [while] those who do not contribute in no way to the effort earning as much as those who did. Overall, it makes sense to share the sacrifice just as you would share the rewards. However, if an agent sacrifices itself, there is a low chance of achieving success, and even if it does, that success is shared equally among all members of the group, allowing for free-riders. This is particularly visible in strikes or boycotts, where benefits will accrue to the entire workforce despite often being won by a smaller group of activists. The most famous example of aggregation 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, which results in collective exploitation and the ultimate depletion of a resource. The rational individual would not stop drawing on the resource at the micro level, since others (at least in the short term) will reap all the gains of their sacrifice, and therefore no one does anything to prevent the impending “tragedy”. This can be clearly seen in the current overfishing problems. There is currently a “scallop war” going on between British and French fishermen. In the English Channel, French fishermen have limited the times they can harvest shellfish to maximize reproduction. However, British fishermen, who are not bound by the same rules as the French, began fishing for scallops in this area to increase their catches and, of course, decrease the resources to be shared with the French. Another example can be seen from US President Donald Trump's action to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement in June 2017. Even examining collective data can often lead to problems and misconceptions in the study of 'aggregation. The “ecological fallacy” can be defined as “the reasoning error that occurs when making an inference about an individual based on data aggregated for a group. William S. Robinson's study of illiteracy and immigration in the United States in the 1930s stated that on a macro level there was a negative correlation between illiteracy and US immigration. However, at the micro level, individual immigrantsthey were more likely to be illiterate. This misleading correlation was due to the fact that immigrants typically settled in high-literacy states, which in turn skewed the data. This “Robinson Paradox” was a seminal work in the critique of aggregate data. This highlights the possible pitfalls of using methodological individualism to study aggregation, as it uses the macro-level outcome to make claims about the micro, and not necessarily taking into account other independent variables that may influence 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 says his theory is based on “optimal exclusion as well as 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 where there is parity of efficiency between the members and the size of the swimming pool. Therefore, the possibility of exclusion must be possible to prevent exploitation. As Buchanan states, “If individuals think that exclusion will not be possible at all, that they can expect to gain 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 possible exclusion from a club 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 of which both Jean Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel are members. . Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán is causing divisions and tensions within the EPP which, according to the Financial Times, "has proven to be an invaluable club for Orbán since he joined in 2000", thanks to its high-profile members and good contacts. . Following the recent publication of the Sargentini report, his party, Fidesz, is alleged to have "cracked down the media, academics and non-governmental groups and denied the rights of minorities and migrants", which goes against significantly with the supposed collective vision of the EPP. . Orbán was able to act with impunity because, according to Buchanan, he was unlikely to be banned from the club, and therefore there was less pressure on him to comply with the club's rules. There are many reasons why Orbán felt safe from exclusion, which highlights how aggregation can be significantly ineffective. First of all, the EPP is currently the 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 (the EPP) within a club (the European Parliament) has proven to be challenged by competition with other clubs. Hence the question of the Sargentini report, 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 both are selfish groups competing with each other 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 made up of seventy-seven internal groups from different countries with different objectives and motivations, so reaching consensus is proving to be a challenge. Orbán is putting the EPP in difficulty, undermining the club's values, damaging its reputation and challenging EU institutions. To avoid further damage, the most effective reaction would be exclusion from the club..