chapter  3
Methodology and the Kaleidic Hyperstructure (KH) model
Pages 19

Ideal types and complex geometry Sociological and economic ideas expressed by Walter Eucken and Max Weber in the middle of the twentieth century are fundamental to my method. Eucken viewed the challenge of grasping economic reality in a general theoretical context as the “second main problem of economics,” which he dubbed the Great Antinomy. We cannot understand history without theory but, of course, theory alone is not sufficient. Therefore, the economist’s task is to define “pure forms” (ideal types) that can be applied generally to explain interactions and the course of events (Eucken 1950: 41-50, 60-3, 232, 241).1 Ideal types aid interpretive understanding of social action. Analysis of behavior must identify causes; selective generalization assists qualitative comparative static techniques by isolating deviations (Weber 1947: 88-92). The KH model is a framework for understanding institutional effects on performance of the complex federal system, given our knowledge of bureaucratic behavior as discussed in Chapter 2. The model serves the purpose of testing propositions regarding new rules and information by defining agents and their relationships under the status quo using a limited number of groups or types of each. We know that all people are not alike, but we can surmise that most people in a specific power relationship with certain constraints will tend to make similar choices.2