Материал: Smelser, Swedberg - The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Part 1. Introducing Economic Sociology

As a designated field of inquiry, economic sociology is not much more than a century old, even though its intellectual roots are identifiable in older traditions of philosophical and social thought.1 During the past quarter-century it has experienced an explosive growth, and now stands as one of the most conspicuous and vital subfields of its parent discipline. In this introduction we first define the field and distinguish it from mainstream economics. Next we trace the classical tradition of economic sociology, as found in the works of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Schumpeter, Polanyi, and ParsonsSmelser. Finally, we cite some more recent developments and topics of concern in economic sociology. Throughout our discussion in this chapter we emphasize the importance of paying attention to economic interests and social relations.

THE DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY

Economic sociology—to use a term that Weber and Durkheim introduced2—can be defined simply as the sociological perspective applied to economic phenomena. A similar but more elaborate version is the application of the frames of reference, variables, and explanatory models of sociology to that complex of activities which is concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of scarce goods and services.3 One way to make this definition more specific is to indicate the variables, models, and so on, that the economic sociologist employs. When Smelser first put forth that definition (1963, 27–28; 1976, 37–38), he mentioned the sociological perspectives of personal interaction, groups, social structures (institutions), and social controls (among which sanctions, norms, and values are central). Given recent developments, we would add that perspectives of social networks, gender, and cultural contexts have also become central in economic sociology (e.g., Granovetter 1974, 1985a, 1995; Zelizer 1988). In addition, the international dimension of economic life has assumed greater salience among economic sociolo-

gists, at the same time as that dimension has come to penetrate the actual economies of the contemporary world (Makler, Martinelli, and Smelser 1982; Evans 1995).

MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC

SOCIOLOGY COMPARED

We now compare economic sociology and mainstream economics as a way of further elucidating the sociological perspective on the economy. This is a useful exercise only if qualified by the caution that both bodies of inquiry are much more complex than any brief comparison would suggest. Any general statement almost immediately yields an exception or qualification. To illustrate the caution on each side of the comparison:

1. In economics the classical and neoclassical traditions have enjoyed a certain dominance— hence the label mainstream—but the basic assumptions of those traditions have been modified and developed in many directions. In a classic statement, Knight ([1921] 1985, 76–79) stressed that neoclassical economics rested on the premises that actors have complete information and that information is free. Since that time economics has developed traditions of analysis based on assumptions of risk and uncertainty (for example, Sandmo 1971; Weber 2001) and information as a cost (for example, Stigler 1961; Lippmann and McCall 2001). In addition, numerous versions of economic rationality—for example, Simon’s (1982) emphasis on “satisficing” and “bounded rationali- ty”—have appeared. Still other variations on rational behavior have been developed in behavioral economics, which incorporates many psychological assumptions at variance with the mainstream (Mullainthan and Thaler 2001; Camerer, Loewenstein, and Rabin 2004). Looking in the direction of sociology, some economics now incorporates “norms” and “institutions,” though with meanings different from those found in the sociological tradition.

4Smelser/Swedberg

2.Sociology lacks one dominant tradition. Various sociological approaches and schools differ from and compete with one another, and this circumstance has affected economic sociology. For example, Weber was skeptical about the notion of a social “system,” whether applied to economy or society, while Parsons viewed society as a system and economy as one of its subsystems. Furthermore, even if all economic sociologists might accept the definition of economic sociology we have offered, they focus on different kinds of economic behavior. Some do so following Arrow’s hint (1990, 140) that sociologists and economists ask different questions—about consumption, for example. Others, including what is called new economic sociology (see Granovetter 1990 for a programmatic statement), argue that sociology should concentrate directly on core economic institutions and problems.

These caveats recorded, a comparison between the central features of mainstream economics and economic sociology will clarify the specific nature of the sociological perspective. The following differences are most salient.

The Concept of the Actor

To put the matter baldly, the analytic starting point of economics is the individual; the analytic starting points of economic sociology are typically groups, institutions, and society. In microeconomics, the individualistic approach finds its origins in early British utilitarianism and political economy. This orientation was elucidated systematically by the Austrian economist Carl Menger and given the label methodological individualism by Schumpeter (1908, 90; for a history of methodological individualism, see Udehn 2001). By contrast, in discussing the individual, the sociologist often focuses on the actor as a socially constructed entity, as “actor-in-interaction,” or “actor-in-society.” Often, moreover, sociologists take the group and the social-structural levels as phenomena sui generis, without reference to the individual actor.

Methodological individualism need not be logically incompatible with a sociological approach. In his theoretical chapter introductory to Economy and Society, Weber constructed his whole sociology on the basis of individual actions. But these actions are of interest to the sociologist only insofar as they are social actions or “take account of the behavior of other individuals and thereby are oriented in their course” (Weber [1922] 1978, 4). This formulation underscores a second difference between microeconomics and economic sociology:

the former generally assumes that actors are not connected to one another; the latter assumes that actors are linked with and influence one another. We argue below that this difference has implications for how economies function.

The Concept of Economic Action

In micoeconomics the actor is assumed to have a given and stable set of preferences and to choose that alternative line of action which maximizes utility. In economic theory, this way of acting constitutes economically rational action. Sociology, by contrast, encompasses several possible types of economic action. To illustrate from Weber again, economic action can be either rational, traditional, or affectual (Weber [1922] 1978, 24–26, 63–68). Except for residual mention of “habits” and “rules of thumb,” economists give no place to traditional economic action (which, arguably, constitutes its most common form; see, however, Akerlof 1984; Schlicht 1998).

Another difference between microeconomics and economic sociology in this context concerns the scope of rational action. The economist traditionally identifies rational action with the efficient use of scarce resources. The sociologist’s view is, once again, broader. Weber referred to the conventional maximization of utility, under conditions of scarcity, as formal rationality. In addition, however, he identified substantive rationality, which refers to allocation within the guidelines of other principles, such as communal loyalties or sacred values. A further difference lies in the fact that economists regard rationality as an assumption, whereas most sociologists regard it as a variable (see Stinchcombe 1986, 5–6). For one thing, the actions of some individuals or groups may be more rational than others (cf. Akerlof 1990). Along the same lines, sociologists tend to regard rationality as a phenomenon to be explained, not assumed. Weber dedicated much of his economic sociology to specifying the social conditions under which formal rationality is possible, and Parsons ([1940] 1954) argued that economic rationality was a system of norms—not a psychological universal— associated with specific developmental processes in the West.

Another difference emerges in the status of meaning in economic action. Economists tend to regard the meaning of economic action as derivable from the relation between given tastes, on the one hand, and the prices and quantities of goods and services, on the other. Weber’s conceptualization has a different flavor: “the definition of economic

action [in sociology] must . . . bring out the fact that all ‘economic’ processes and objects are characterized as such entirely by the meaning they have for human action” ([1922] 1978, 64). Meanings are historically constructed and must be investigated empirically, and are not simply to be derived from assumptions and external circumstances.

Finally, sociologists tend to give a broader and more salient place to the dimension of power in economic action. Weber ([1922] 1978, 67) insisted that “[it] is essential to include the criterion of power of control and disposal (Verfügungsgewalt) in the sociological concept of economic action,” adding that this applies especially in the capitalist economy. By contrast, microeconomics has tended to regard economic action as an exchange among equals, and has thus had difficulty in incorporating the power dimension (Galbraith 1973, 1984). In the tradition of perfect competition, no buyer or seller has the power to influence price or output. It is also true that economists have a tradition of analyzing imperfect competition—in which power to control prices and output is the core ingredient— and that the idea of “market power” is used in labor and industrial economics (e.g., Scherer 1990). Still, the economic conception of power is typically narrower than the sociologist’s notion of economic power, which includes its exercise in societal (especially political and class), as well as market, contexts. In a study of the power of the U.S. banking system, for example, Mintz and Schwartz (1985) analyze how banks and industries interlock, how certain banks cluster into groups, and how banks sometimes intervene in corporations in order to enforce economic decisions. More generally, sociologists have analyzed and debated the issue of the political implications of wealth inequality and the extent to which corporate leaders constitute a “power elite” in the whole of society (e.g., Mills 1956; Dahl 1958; Domhoff and Dye 1987; Keister 2000).

Constraints on Economic Action

In mainstream economics, actions are constrained by tastes and by the scarcity of resources, including technology. Once these are known, it is in principle possible to predict the actor’s behavior, since he or she will always try to maximize utility or profit. The active influence of other persons and groups, as well as the influence of institutional structures, is set to one side. Knight codified this in the following way: “Every member of society is to act as an individual only, in entire independence of all other persons” ([1921] 1985, 78). Sociolo-

Introduction 5

gists take such influences directly into account in the analysis of economic action. Other actors facilitate, deflect, and constrain individuals’ action in the market. For example, a friendship between a buyer and a seller may prevent the buyer from deserting the seller just because an item is sold at a lower price elsewhere (e.g., Dore 1983). Cultural meanings also affect choices that might otherwise be regarded as “rational.” In the United States, for example, it is difficult to persuade people to buy cats and dogs for food, even though their meat is as nutritious and cheaper than other kinds (Sahlins 1976, 170–79). Moreover, a person’s position in the social structure conditions his or her economic choices and activity. Stinchcombe (1975) evoked the principle that structural constraints influence career decisions in ways that run counter to considerations of economic payoff. For example, for a person who grows up in a high-crime neighborhood, the choice between making a career stealing and getting a job has often less to do with the comparative utility of these two alternatives than with the structure of peer groups and gangs in the neighborhood.

The Economy in Relation to Society

The main foci for the mainstream economist are economic exchange, the market, and the economy. To a large extent, the remainder of society lies beyond where the operative variables of economic change really matter (see Quirk 1976, 2–4; Arrow 1990, 138–39). Economic assumptions typically presuppose stable societal parameters. For example, the long-standing assumption that economic analysis deals with peaceful and lawful transactions, not with force and fraud, involves important presuppositions about the legitimacy and the stability of the state and the legal system. In this way the societal parameters—which would surely affect the economic process if the political legal system were to disintegrate—are frozen by assumption, and thus are omitted from the analysis. In recent times economists have turned to the analysis of why institutions arise and persist, especially in the new institutional economics and game theory. They have varied the effects of institutional arrangements in various logical experiments (see, e.g., Eggertsson 1990; Furubotn and Richter 1997). Nevertheless, the contrast with economic sociology remains. When economists talk about institutions, norms, and the like, their vocabulary is identical to that of sociologists, but they often mean something quite different. It is still very common, for example, for economists to treat the economic arena as lacking

6 Smelser/Swedberg

norms and institutions. The latter only emerge when markets cannot be constructed or when traditional rational choice analysis fails. Economic sociology, on the other hand, has always regarded the economic process as an organic part of society. As a consequence, economic sociology has usually concentrated on three main lines of inquiry: (1) the sociological analysis of economic process; (2) the analysis of the connections and interactions between the economy and the rest of society; and (3) the study of changes in the institutional and cultural parameters that constitute the economy’s societal context.

Goals of Analysis

As social scientists, both economists and sociologists try to explain phenomena encompassed by their respective subject matters. Within this common interest, however, different emphases emerge. Economists tend to be critical of descriptions— they condemn traditional institutional economics as too descriptive and atheoretical. Instead they stress the importance of prediction. Sociologists, by contrast, offer fewer formal predictions, and often find sensitive and telling descriptions both interesting in themselves and essential for explanation. As a result of these differences, sociologists often criticize economists for generating formal and abstract models and ignoring empirical data, and economists reproach sociologists for their “post factum sociological interpretations” (Merton 1968, 147–49). Though these differences have become part of the professional cultures of economists and sociologists, it should be noted that the last 10 years have seen a new interest for model building and game theory among sociologists, and a new interest in culture and use of empirical material among economists (e.g., Greif 1998, forthcoming; Swedberg 2001). It is also possible that the fields of economics and economic sociology may one day agree on some methodological compromise, say along the lines of “analytic narratives” (Bates et al. 1998).

Models Employed

The emphasis on prediction constitutes one reason why mainstream economists place such high value on expressing hypotheses and models in mathematical form. Though the advantages of this formal theorizing are readily apparent, economists themselves have at times complained that it tends to become an end in itself. In his presidential address to the American Economic Association in 1970, Wassily Leontief criticized his profession’s

“uncritical enthusiasm for mathematical formulation” (1971, 1). When economists do turn to empirical data, they tend to rely mainly on those generated for them by economic processes themselves (for example, aggregated market behavior, stock exchange transactions, and official economic statistics gathered by governmental agencies). Sample surveys are occasionally used, especially in consumer economics and in labor economics; archival data are seldom consulted, except by economic historians; and ethnographic work is virtually nonexistent. By contrast, sociologists rely heavily on a great variety of methods, including analyses of census data, independent survey analyses, participant observation and fieldwork, and the analysis of qualitative historical and comparative data.

Intellectual Traditions

Sociologists not only rely on different intellectual traditions that overlap only slightly, but they also regard those traditions differently. Evidently influenced by the natural science model of systematic accumulation of knowledge, economists have shown less interest than sociologists in study and exegesis of their classics (with notable exceptions such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo). Correspondingly, economics reveals a sharp distinction between current economic theory and the history of economic thought. In sociology these two facets blend more closely. The classics are very much alive, and are often required reading in theory courses.

Despite these differences, and despite the persisting gulf between the traditions of economics and economic sociology, some evidence of synthesis can be identified. Major figures such as Alfred Marshall, Vilfredo Pareto, and Talcott Parsons have attempted theoretical syntheses. Certain other figures, notably Weber and Schumpeter, have excited interest among both economists and sociologists. In addition, economists and sociologists find it profitable to collaborate in specific problem areas such as poverty and labor markets. Later in the chapter we will reraise the issue of intellectual articulation among economists and sociologists.

THE TRADITION OF ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY

There exists a large and rich tradition of economic sociology, which roughly begins around the turn of the twentieth century. This tradition has generated both important concepts and ideas and