Interpenetration Versus Embeddedness

A bstract .   The economy and economics are important fields in Talcott Parsons's work. Parsons's contributions on this subject were, however, mostly critically received in the new economic sociology. In this article, main points of criticism of Parsons's economic sociology will be discussed and the question asked whether the importance of Parsons's works in economic sociology was adequately treated. It will be demonstrated that the critical assessments was based for the most part on theoretical conceptions Parsons developed during his structural-functionalist period. Hence the assessments neglected to discuss the theory of expressive-symbolic communication of affect that Parsons developed in his later systems-functionalist period. However, precisely these later theoretical developments correlate directly with the concept of social embeddedness as a key concept in the new economic sociology. A stronger linking with this development in Parsons's theory could bring economic sociology closer to finding a foundation in action theory, which has been missing up to the present.     

The Changing Relationship Between Economic Sociology and Institutional Economics

A bstract In his early work. Talcott Parsons severely criticized Old Institutional Economists like Thorstein Veblen and Clarence Ayres. Parsons'main objection was that institutional economics had a misconceived view on the scope of economics: institutions, being the embodiment of values, were the proper subject of sociology rather than economics. By arguing for a clear-cut division of labor between economics and sociology. Parsons legitimated the divide between the two disciplines that came into being in the years to follow. Recently however, the relationship between economic-sociology and institutional economics has changed dramatically. New Economic Sociology (advocated by scholars like Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberig) rejects the division of labor proposed by Parsons. By-providing substitutes rather than just complements to economics, it tries to counter economic imperialism. This creates significant similarities between New Economic Sociology, Old Institutional Economics and the recent return of institutionalism in economic theory. However, the quest for a division of labor between economics and sociology remains unfinished.     

On Teasing Out Sociology from Economics

A bstract .   Of the many interesting pieces of information that can be found in Parsons's March 10, 1973 seminar at Brown University, one concerns his relationship to Schumpeter, and it is to this that this brief note is devoted. Parsons and Schumpeter knew each other for some 20 years, and one of the many things that Schumpeter taught Parsons was that one can read the texts of economists for the sociological insights that they contain. In Parsons's formulation from the seminar: "economists must have some sociological ideas."     

Pareto, Parsons, and the Boundary Between Economics and Sociology

A bstract .   Recent discussions of the separation bUniversity of Bremenetween economics and sociology in the United States highlight the way Talcott Parsons used Vilfredo Pareto's Trattato di Sociologia Generale to propose that economics study logical actions and sociology study nonlogical actions. This article argues instead that in Pareto's treatise: (1) sociology is a synthetic discipline concerned with the study of human society in general; (2) human behavior is nearly always logical from a subjective point of view; and (3) sociology studies both logical and nonlogical behavior judged from an objective viewpoint. Thus, Pareto is an important intellectual ancestor for economic sociology.     

Max Weber

A bstract .   This paper argues that Weber's outline and research program is only of limited relevance for present-day economic sociology and heterodox economics because Weber had a rather narrow and static understanding of rationality and the economy. Uncertainty, both as a basic fact of economic life and in the interpretation of what rational action means in specific contexts, is missing in his approach. After a short discussion of the secondary literature on Weber's methodology, the paper focuses on the most important writings of Weber on methods and economics (e.g., his outline and some parts of Economy and Society ). The result of our investigation is that Weber shared a rather narrow, neoclassical understanding of the Austrian variant of economics. His important construction of goal-oriented behavior as the major methodological advice to analyze human action presupposes the idealized assumptions of perfect knowledge. His understanding of the market exchange process, price setting, and the functioning of full competition are rather conventional and elementary. Weber's genius did not materialize in the field of economics, but in his sociology of religion and law and in his sociology of domination.     

John R. Commons's "Five Big Years": 1899–1904

Economics should be built upon a sociological foundation, believed John R. Commons. While pursuing this conviction his chair in sociology was terminated in 1899. From then until 1904, exiled from academia, he investigated afield for the U.S. Industrial Commission and the U.S. Bureau of Labor and participated in the National Civic Federation, amassing first–hand knowledge of conflict resolution arranged by capitalists'"combinations" and by labor unions' bargaining with employers. These experiences inspired ideas concerning sociology and economics and beliefs that public policy should turn away from antitrust law and instead attempt to create counterbalancing power in the economic system. He published his ideas in various journals and magazines, and in nearly three dozen unsigned editorials in The Independent . This essay critically examines his thought during this period that he brought with him when he began the work based in Wisconsin that would carry him to fame.     

Parsonian Economic Sociology

A bstract .   This article focuses on Parsonian economic sociology and its actual or potential bridges and contributions to contemporary economics. These bridges are methodological or epistemological and theoretical or substantive ones. A relevant instance of the methodological bridges is socioeconomic holism, epitomized in the systems approach to economy and society. An important case of the theoretical bridges is sociological institutionalism. The holistic systems approach is a pertinent methodological bridge in that it treats the economy as an integral element of society as a larger system, and consequently treats economics as part of the complex of social sciences. Sociological institutionalism is an important theoretical bridge to (especially institutional) economics by virtue of its emphasis on social institutions and their economic significance. Some other methodological and theoretical bridges of Parsonian economic sociology to contemporary economics are also identified and discussed.     

Franz Oppenheimer's (1864–1943) Social Economic Approach to Health

The idea of scholarly synthesis was central to the founders of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Franz Oppenheimer (1864–1943) in fact impersonated the idea of scholarly synthesis. Being the son of a Reformist rabbi—these religious roots provided the impulse for his work—he started out as a physician in the industrial suburbs of Berlin; his diagnosis was that he faced social and not medical disease, which consequently brought him to the study of economics. But unlike many mainstream economists today, he insisted on the necessary cooperation between economists and sociologists, ideally in one person. His chair in Frankfurt, showing his own handwriting, was denominated for economic theory and sociology. In this article, I show his contributions with respect to economic aspects of health. These are not well known. Part of the reason is that the field of health economics as it is taught now is very narrow. Therefore, Oppenheimer's health economic contributions tend to be overlooked.     

Henry George

A bstract . It is contended in Part I that Henry George should be recognized as an original American social theorist. He was a pioneering postmodern contributor to social theory who criticized the linear idea of progress and anticipated Durkheim's concept of the "collective consciousness," He recognized the fateful consequences of the separation of political economy into "economics" and "sociology." These include the loss of moral considerations from political economy , and the rise of a sociology that culminates in the proliferation of meaningless abstractions because it is premised on amoral economic assumptions. His theory' of speculative land value as the cause of civilizations' decline is recapitulated and shown in a larger context. The congruence between George's and Weber's concerns and conceptions is detailed. Part 11 (in the April 1995 issue) concludes by tracing the tragic consequences for modern American social theory, from Spencer to Parsons , that result from confusing the value of commodities with the value of land, of private wealth with social value.     

Henry George and Social Theory

A bstract . It was contended in Part 1 (in the January, 1995 issue) that Henry George should be recognized as an original American social theorist. He was a pioneering postmodern contributor to social theory who criticized the linear idea of progress and anticipated Durkheim's concept of the "collective consciousness."
He recognized the fateful consequences of the separation of political economy into "economics" and "sociology." These include the loss of moral considerations from political economy , and the rise of a sociology that culminates in the proliferation of meaningless abstractions because it is premised on amoral economic assumptions. His theory of speculative land value as the cause of civilizations decline is recapitulated and shown in a larger context. The congruence between the concerns and conceptions of George and Weber is detailed.
Part II concludes by tracing the tragic consequences for modern American social theory, from Spencer to Parsons , that result from confusing the value of commodities with the value of land, of private wealth with social value.     

Max Weber as an Economist and as a Sociologist

A bstract In this article I first give a picture of Weber as an economist, mainly by focussing on a text which he distributed to his students when he taught economics in the 1890s. From this text it is, for example, clear that Weber was positive to the use of marginal utility theory in theoretical economics, but also felt that this approach was insufficient, by itself, to analyze empirical phenomena. I then outline Weber's work in economic sociology, relying primarily on Economy and Society and its central Chapter 2 ("Sociological Categories of Economic Action"). The differences between the approaches of economic theory and economic sociology, as seen by Weber, are summarized, and an account is given of some of Weber's most suggestive concepts in economic sociology. In the concluding section the question is raised as to when the analyst, according to Weber, should use economic sociology rather than economic theory, and vice versa. Weber's ideas about a broad economic science–what he termed Sozialökonomik or social economics–are also presented.     

Fritz Redlich, 1892-1978: The Man and the Scholar

A bstract . Fritz Redlich (1892-1978) played a leading role in the development of the analytic approach in history and in establishing the new institutional history that combines entrepreneurial and business history and sociology. A member, in economics , of the German historical school , he spent 16 years in the chemical industry before the triumph of Nazism forced him to emigrate from Germany in 1936. After teaching at various colleges until 1942, he spent the rest of his life doing research in the libraries of Harvard University , producing several notable works in economic history , including a classical study of American banking , and pioneering in entrepreneurial history.     

Radical Individualism vs. Institutionalism, I The Division of Institutionalists into 'Humanists' and 'Behaviorists'

A bstract . David Seckler has filled an important gap in the methodological literature of economics by providing a "radical individualist" critique of American institutionalism (1). Seckler argues that institutionalists have been unable to develop a coherent methodology because of their ambivalence on the issue of " free will versus determinism." Thorstein Veblen, he says, entertained both "humanistic" and "behavioristic" hypotheses in his explanations of human behavior and, consequently, descended into obscurantism. The institutionalist literature in general reflects these contradictory methodological tendencies; for example, John R. Commons was a "humanist" , whereas Clarence Ayres was a "behaviorist." Seckler's critique is not, however, persuasive. He fails to recognize the difficulties inherent in the philosophical dualisms posited by "radical individualism," and he employs them credulously in his critique of institutionalism. Equally damaging to his argument is his failure to give adequate consideration to the meaning and significance of the "institutional dichotomy" in institutional analysis.     

Max Weber and Economic Sociology

A bstract .   Peukert (2004 ) argues that Weber's work is only of limited relevance to present-day economic sociology because it incorporates "a rather narrow and static understanding of rationality and the economy." This article disputes that claim. It is argued that Weber differentiates between economic and sociological perspectives on the economy through incorporating uncertainty into the latter. Hence Weber's economic sociology develops the distinction between "before" and "after" perspectives on action, incorporates expectations, and defines capital with reference to time and uncertainty. Furthermore, Weber's analysis of formal rationality presupposes uncertainty. Weber's economic sociology thus assumes a dynamic economy, where uncertainty is prevalent, and formal rationality can reduce uncertainty. Peukert's analysis thus (a) fails to consider Weber's differentiation between economic and sociological investigations, and (b) does not engage with Weber's knowledge of Austrian economics.     

The Economics of Edward Alsworth Ross

A bstract . Edward Alsworth Ross gained fame as a founding father of American sociology; however, he was trained as an economist by Richard T. Ely and made significant contributions in economics before he moved into sociology. Ross was the John Kennneth Galbraith of the popidist-progressive era. The similarity in background, methodology, Weltanschauung , and controversial academic and political styles of these men is discussed. Ross became a cause célébre after his dismissal from Stanford University in 1900 which became a major academic freedom case. Although he was a professional economist for only six years, Ross made original contributions in the areas of taxation, debt management, value theory, uncertainty , and location theory. The discussion of uncertainty as a factor in production precedes Knight's concept of risk and uncertainty and challenges neoclassical policy conclusions in a dynamic environment. His treatment of location theory includes a discussion of agglomeration, externalities, regional dualism, factor endowment, and comparative advantage to explain economic mobility.     

Professor Ludwig M. Lachmann (1906-1990): Scholar, Teacher, and Austrian School Critic of Late Classical Formalism in Economics

Ludwig M. Lachmann was born in Berlin in 1906 and died in Johannesburg in 1990. For more than forty years, until his retirement in 1972, Lachmann established himself as a prominent South African economist and for a time served as head of the economics department at the University of Witwatersrand. From 1974 to 1987, he worked with Professor Israel Kirzner in New York City to give new shape and life to the older Austrian school of economics. Lachmann influenced a small army of modern Austrians to discard the elaborate formalisms of orthodox economics for a "radical subjectivism" that had its roots in the teachings of the founder of the Austrian school, Carl Menger. Here a small platoon of scholars offer their thoughts about Lachmann, his contributions to economic reasoning, and his eccentric but engaging character. First hand reports explain what their mentor taught and what his students took away. Lavoie makes the case that Lachmann's "radical subjectivism" took a rhetorical turn toward the end of Lachmann's career in New York City. In addition, Kirzner reports on his long and most productive relationship with Lachmann and provides additional insights about the seminal role of the Austrian Economics Seminar at New York University from 1985 to 1987 in giving shape to the modern Austrian revival. This article is the written version of a "Remembrance and Appreciation Session" held on June 28, 1999 at the History of Economics Society meeting at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro. It is one of an ongoing series that appears in the July issues of this journal.     

Bell, Merton and Mills as Veblen Critics: A Comment

A bstract . Professors Tilman and Simich offer some thought provoking and reasoned criticisms of the analysis and applications of Veblen's social theory by Bell, Merton and Mills. However, while Tilman and Simich identify some key concepts and ideas central to Veblen's social theory development, they fail to articulate the inner logic of Veblen's paradigm which integrates and amplifies the individual concepts and ideas: the genetic, evolutionary development of the life process. Veblen's evolutionary paradigm not only challenges but threatens the very legitimacy of much of orthodox analysis in such disciplines as sociology, economics and political science.     

Examining the Federal Reserve

A bstract . Vritz Redlich (1892–1978) played a leading role in the development of the analytic approach in history and in establishing the new institutional history that combines entrepreneurial and business historv and sociology. A member, in economics , of the German historical school, he spent 16 years in the chemical industry before the triumph of Nazism forced him to emigrate from Germany in 1936. After teaching at various colleges until 1942, he spent the rest of his life doing research in the libraries of Harvard University , producing several notable works in economic history , including a classical study of American banking, and pioneering in entrepreneurial history.     

Spreading the Word: Transaction Cost Economics in the Conversation of Economics

Transaction cost economics is a key topic in many conversations in business and economics related disciplines, much as a result of Oliver Williamson's intellectual crusade. By claiming a “distinct worldview,” he develops arguments of association and differentiation to established worldviews, like traditional microeconomics, earlier institutionalism, Austrian and radical economics, and also within the new institutional economics itself, in order to advance his theory. His resourcefulness defies straight argumentative decisions, catering to different audiences whilst trying to break new ground. Surely Williamson has not pleased everyone, but his discourse is greatly responsible for placing TCE in the everyday parlance of economics.     

A Socio-Dynamic Understanding of Markets

A bstract    Economic sociology furthers a healthy alternative to price-theory–oriented economics as it sets out to remedy the invisibility of the market within the latter. There is, however, no doubt that such a market-oriented sociology is still in its infancy, given among other issues its inability to shoulder market change. The void thus recognized opens up the potential for a market idea with both social and dynamic properties. There is good reason to believe that such an endeavor would benefit from the constructive blending of economic sociology and Austrian economics. This paper argues that such a "socio-Austrian" connection is in the position to enrich the socioeconomic discourse in general and its market conception in particular.