Duetch and The Fallacy of Composition

In the sprit of Kant. Duetch is an intergrationalist. I question weather Duetch faces the same theoretical short comings that Kant does.

I found it particularly interesting that to illustrate peasant opposition to integration(Duetche's study finds that peasants’ tend to appose integration) he points out that the abolitionist movement was stronger in rural upstate new york then in new york city. So what is the solution then, less peasents and rural folk? Again, although a longer explanation is necessary, Duetch like Kant finds that for integration elimination of difference in necessary. Then the question is, what difference, at what cost...

I think it is interesting that he abstracts from concentrated regional conflicts, civil wars ect, to larger regional conflict. (integration was the solution for civil wars, it will be the solution for regional conflicts) Waltz makes this same theoretical leap when he draws on Hobbe and Machiavelli as examples of political philosophers who were interested in eliminating wars. (see my last blog)

Econometricians must be weary of a logical problem called "the fallacy of composition." Just because something is true for its parts, even if it is true for all of its parts, it does not necessarily mean it is true for the whole. Think--Malthus' inadequate demand or Keynesian Microeconomics, in both cases, though thrift is good for the individual it can lead to under consumption and depression which is for bad for the group. So even if his findings are correct, I
question their applicability to the whole of Europe.