This thesis argues for the fundamental importance of the opposition between holistic and reductionistic world-views in economics. Both reductionism and holism may nevertheless underpin laissez-faire policy prescriptions. Scrutiny of the nature of the articulation between micro and macro levels in the writings of economists suggests that invisible hand theories play a key role in reconciling reductionist policy prescriptions with a holistic world. An examination of the prisoners' dilemma in game theory and Arrow's impossibility theorem in social choice theory sets the scene. The prisoners' dilemma epitomises the collective irrationality coordination problems lead to. The source of the dilemma is identified as the combination of interdependence in content and independence in form of the decision making process. Arrovian impossibility has been perceived as challenging traditional views of the relationship between micro and macro levels in economics. Conservative arguments against the possibility in principle of a social welfare function are criticised here as depending on an illicit dualism. The thesis then reviews the standpoints of Smith, Hayek and Keynes. For Smith, the social desirability of individual self-seeking activity is ensured by the 'invisible hand' of a god who has moulded us so to behave, that the quantity of happiness in the world is always maximised. Hayek seeks to re-establish the invisible hand in a secular age, replacing the agency of a deity with an evolutionary mechanism. Hayek's evolutionary theory, criticised here as being based on the exploded notion of group selection, cannot underpin the desirability of spontaneous outcomes. I conclude by arguing that Keynes shares the holistic approach of Smith and Hayek, but without their reliance on invisible hand mechanisms. If spontaneous processes cannot be relied upon to generate desirable social outcomes then we have to take responsibility for achieving this ourselves by establishing the appropriate institutional framework to eliminate macroeconomic prisoners' dilemmas.

Doctor Pharmaceuticae - Dpharm / The brain laterality of pharmacists may influence where the pharmacists are best suited to work. Brain laterality refers to the asymmetry of the hemispheres of the brain with regard to specific cognitive functions, such as objectivity and emotion. The left hemisphere functions objectively and rationally, whereas the right hemisphere is subjective and non-rational. Animal behaviour in the literature demonstrated an influence of brain laterality, thus selecting an ideal work environment may also be driven by brain laterality bias. Further support for the research included: amblyopia; hemiplegia; the WADA test. The research question investigated the matching of the brain laterality groups of pharmacists to their ideal work environments. The aims investigated: ear, eye, hand and foot dominance in determining brain laterality; influence of brain laterality and reductionistic variables on job choice; location of emotion generation and job choice. Five objectives investigated these aims: influence of brain laterality alone; influence of brain laterality and reductionistic variables; influence of a new brain laterality determining continuum; Propinquity Principle in achieving data; correctness of the Right Hemisphere Theory (RHT) or the Valence Theory (VT). The RHT suggests that the right hemisphere is dominant in processing all emotion. The VT argues that the left hemisphere is specialised in processing the positive emotions while the right hemisphere is specialised in processing the negative emotions. The resulting Null Hypothesis posits that there is no statistical difference between the different brain laterality groups enabling pharmacists to work competently in any placement. The Alternative Hypothesis was that there is a statistical difference between the brain laterality groups, thus brain laterality can be used to best place pharmacists into ideal placements.

Doctor Pharmaceuticae - Dpharm / The brain laterality of pharmacists may influence where the pharmacists are best suited to work. Brain laterality refers to the asymmetry of the hemispheres of the brain with regard to specific cognitive functions, such as objectivity and emotion. The left hemisphere functions objectively and rationally, whereas the right hemisphere is subjective and nonrational. Animal behaviour in the literature demonstrated an influence of brain laterality, thus selecting an ideal work environment may also be driven by brain laterality bias. Further support for the research included: amblyopia; hemiplegia; the WADA test. The research question investigated the matching of the brain laterality groups of pharmacists to their ideal work environments. The aims investigated: ear, eye, hand and foot dominance in determining brain laterality; influence of brain laterality and reductionistic variables on job choice; location of emotion generation and job choice. Five objectives investigated these aims: influence of brain laterality alone; influence of brain laterality and reductionistic variables; influence of a new brain laterality determining continuum; Propinquity Principle in achieving data; correctness of the Right Hemisphere Theory (RHT) or the Valence Theory (VT). The RHT suggests that the right hemisphere is dominant in processing all emotion. The VT argues that the left hemisphere is specialised in processing the positive emotions while the right hemisphere is specialised in processing the negative emotions. The resulting Null Hypothesis posits that there is no statistical difference between the different brain laterality groups enabling pharmacists to work competently in any placement. The Alternative Hypothesis was that there is a statistical difference between the brain laterality groups, thus brain laterality can be used to best place pharmacists into ideal placements. Global warming questions in the questionnaire determined positive and negative emotion as well as enthusiasm for global warming problems. In South Africa, probability cluster sampling was applied utilising postal and email methods. In the UK, non-probability purposive sampling was applied utilising four methods: snowballing, email, postal, and convenience sampling. Both countries produced similar results for the same sample size.