ABSTRACT
Although the argument of Part I is (necessarily) pitched at a rather high level of abstraction it has been found to be sufficient to undermine the positivist conception in which the practices of mainstream economists are rooted. Before it is possible to pass commentary on alternative approaches to economics and to assess the real possibilities for economic conduct, however, it is necessary to develop a theory of social ontology at a somewhat more concrete level. I have already accepted as criterial for the social a 'dependency upon human intentional agency'. Of course, not everyone even accepts that people are intentional beings. This recognition must serve to remind us of the particularity (along with the fallibility and probable transience) of the account that is set out below. Yet without some theory of social ontology any assessment of the possibilities for economic conduct is bound to be more or less arbitrary or, at best, merely conventional.
