Assessing the New Synthesis of Economics and Sociology: Promising Themes for Contemporary Analysts of Economic Life. - Author/s: Dan Krier - ABSTRACT. In this essay, the emergence of the "New Synthesis" of economics and sociology is explored and analyzed in the context of the classical writings in economic sociology ("Old Synthesis"). findarticles.com/cf_0/m0254/4_58/58496754/p1/article.jhtml?term=sociology

Economic Sociology in Retrospect and Prospect: In Search of its Identity within Economics and Sociology. - Author/s: Milan Zafirovski - ABSTRACT. Theory and research in the field of economic sociology have seen steady advancements in recent years. Economic sociology has become a legitimate branch of sociology as well as of economics. Nonetheless, the treatment of economic sociology in both modern economics and sociology leaves much to be desired. Various formal-terminological confusions and theoretical-substantive misconceptions are still present in the field. The present article advances some proposals for remedying this situation. findarticles.com/cf_0/m0254/4_58/58496751/p1/article.jhtml?term=sociology

Conceptualizing Professionalism: Why Economics Needs Sociology. - Author/s: Jennifer Roberts, Michael Dietrich - ABSTRACT. The main argument presented here is that economics provides a necessary but not sufficient analysis of professionalism. A sufficient analysis can only be generated by recognizing the sociological significance of professionals, and in particular the institutionalization of a professional ethic. In this way we suggest that economics needs sociology to provide an effective conceptualization of professionalism as a form of organization and as a mode of behavior. findarticles.com/cf_0/m0254/4_58/58496769/p1/article.jhtml?term=sociology

The Changing Relationship Between Economic Sociology and Institutional Economics: From Talcott Parsons to Mark Granovetter [1]. - Author/s: Olav Velthuis - 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 Swedberg) rejects the division of labor proposed by Parsons. By providing substitutes rather than just complements to economics, it tries to counter economic imperialism. findarticles.com/cf_0/m0254/4_58/58496752/p1/article.jhtml?term=sociology

Crossing the Boundary of Economics and Sociology: The Case of Vilfredo Pareto. - Author/s: Patrik Aspers - ABSTRACT. The aim of the paper is to present the economic sociology of Vilfredo Pareto. We argue that Pareto represents a mode of thinking that has not been used in economic sociology and barely considered in the other branches of sociology. We reject the habitual bifurcation of Pareto into "the economist" and "the sociologist." Pareto stresses the non-logical parts of human life, and he provides empirical examples of this in his writing. He was occupied with the dynamics in society as a result mainly of non-logical actions. findarticles.com/cf_0/m0254/2_60/75451916/p1/article.jhtml?term=sociology

The Economic Sociology of Alfred Marshall: An Overview. - Author/s: Patrik Aspers - ABSTRACT. The aim of the paper is to present the economic sociology of Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), Three topics are discussed in the paper: Marshall's ideas of how preferences are generated, the theory of action, and finally the introduction of a fourth factor of production, organization. findarticles.com/cf_0/m0254/4_58/58496753/p1/article.jhtml?term=sociology

Enriching Exchange: Cultural Dimensions of Markets. Author/s: Lyn Spillman - ABSTRACT. As economic sociologists have been arguing for some time, markets are not to be abstractly opposed to other social relations but rather to be understood as embedded in them, and indeed subject to the same kinds of analysis as other social relations. However, many accounts of embeddedness explain it in structural terms and still operate with an impoverished notion of culture. On the other hand, relatively few cultural sociologists have considered cultural dimensions of economic action. I first argue that there is a rich agenda for cultural investigation which has yet to be fully exploited in economic sociology, and fascinating work on economic embeddedness which could be enriched with more culturally oriented analysis and research. findarticles.com/cf_0/m0254/4_58/58496772/p1/article.jhtml?term=sociology

Collateralized Social Relations: The Social in Economic Calculation. - Author/s: Nicole Woolsey Biggart, Richard P. Castanias - ABSTRACT. Traditionally, economists have viewed social relations as "friction" or "impediments" to exchange and have excluded social relations from their analyses by assuming autonomous actors. Recently, however, a number of scholars--economists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists--have begun to discuss the numerous ways in which social arrangements both prompt and channel economic activity. Rational choice theory, social capital and network analysis, and agency and game theory, are among those approaches that consider the effects of social relations on economic action. findarticles.com/cf_0/m0254/2_60/75451914/p1/article.jhtml?term=sociology

Economic sociology reformulated: the interface between economics and sociology.
Extract - The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Levine, Barry B.
Previous theoretical and empirical research on economic sociology leaves much to be desired in terms of consistently defining the agenda and objectives of the discipline. As a result, economic sociology often appears to lack a clearly defined mission and purpose. This is epitomized by various failures to establish adequate epistemological relations of the proper realm of economic sociology with those of economics and sociology, and especially with the domain of rational choice theory. This failure is compounded by a misplaced distinction between the subject matter of economic sociology and that of sociological economics, or socioeconomics. And some recent works in the discipline (including the ambitious Handbook of Economic Sociology) have not helped to remedy this situation. In this paper, we try to address this situation by suggesting some reformulations of the subject matter of economic sociology in relation to those of related disciplines. In addition, we attempt to redefine the field of the sociology of the market which is seen as the focal specialty of economic sociology.

I - The Social Framework of Economic Processes
The subject matter of economic sociology can be defined as encompassing economic actions, relations, and processes within their social setting. Thus, economic sociology differs from economics, which deals with economic behavior per se (though some
economists use the concept of "social framework" often too narrowly, in the sense of the economic system and policy, c.f., Hicks 1959). Economic sociology also differs from general sociology in Weber's (1968) sense where sociology deals with all four types of social action (aim-rational, value-rational, traditional and emotional). And, economic sociology differs from rational choice theory, which focuses on the economic variables of social life. By contrast, economic sociology examines the sociological categories of economic life. Whereas, rational choice theory proposes the economic determination of society, economic sociology posits the social construction of the economy. Too often, conceptual relations between the disciplines have been confused or overlooked, not just by rational choice theorists but even by many economic sociologists themselves. One
prominent example of this is the Handbook of Economic Sociology in which the perspective of economic sociology and that of rational choice theory (including the "new institutional economics") are juxtaposed to each other without providing any criteria for
what belongs to economic sociology proper and what does not (for a general critique, cf. Piore 1996).

II - The Phenomena of Economic Sociology
The phenomena studied by economic sociology - the "total range of social-economic problems" - can, following Weber (1949: 64-66), be classified into three groups. The first group would include economic phenomena in the strict sense; those social phenomena whose "primary cultural significance" consists in their "economic aspect" as indicated by the scarcity of means in relation to ends. Included in the second are noneconomic phenomena with causal relevance for the economy (economically relevant phenomena): phenomena having some economic consequences, such as the effect of various religions on the economic system. Then, social phenomena affected by the operation of the economy (economically conditioned phenomena) constitute the third group, an example being the development of ideological orientations as conditioned by class factors. None of these phenomena of economic sociology can be treated as only economically conditioned - as argued by the materialist conception and by utilitarianism or rational choice theory - or as solely economically relevant - as claimed by "spiritualist" interpretations, which overemphasize the effect of cultural (including religious) factors on the economy.

III - The Impact of Noneconomic Phenomena on the Economy
Economic sociology tends to focus on the ways in which social, noneconomic phenomena interact with the structure and functioning of the economic system. By contrast, "pure" economics deals only with what Walras (1952) calls the "price determination under a hypothetical regime of absolutely free competition" or simply with the economy as a "self-referential" social system (Luhmann 1995). Rational choice theory, including its public or social choice versions, by extending the economic approach outside the economy, assumes that even noneconomic behavior is subject to the "laws" of economic determination or rationality qua utilitarian calculation (Becker 1991). However, unlike rational choice theorists trying to account for all social phenomena by relying on the principle of utility maximization as a deus ex machina, sociologists (as well as some sociologically minded economists) pay attention to the opposite influence of noneconomic phenomena on economic processes. We report some of their theoretical insights and empirical findings below.

IV - An Application of Economic Sociology: The Economy and the State
A major concern of economic sociology is the relationship between the market and the economic system, on the one hand, and the state and its institutions, on the other. In neoclassical economics, the dominant position on this matter has been a laissez-faire
attitude based on market maximalism and institutional minimalism. This view often takes the form of a Weltanschauung or a surrogate religion, even in most of modern economics. Economic sociology cannot, as it were, take this proposition or normative judgment at face value; needless to say, the state's economic function has historically and empirically tended to be more prominent than postulated or prescribed by the doctrine or ideology of laissez-faire (cf. Berger 1991; Block 1994; Morishima 1991). For that reason, the doctrine needs further reconstruction - or rather deconstruction from the combined viewpoint of economic sociology and the sociology of knowledge (an assessment of the social roots of the doctrine). The staunchest adherents of the doctrine of laissez-faire will need to revisit the teleological (conceptual) as well as the pragmatic origins of their
quasi-religion.

V - Sociology of the Market
Some sociologists (Swedberg 1987, 1994; White 1990) have recently complained that there exists as yet no neoclassical economic or sociological theory of the market, especially of production or factor markets. Fortunately, this complaint cannot be entirely sustained. First and foremost, given the preeminence of the market in the modern economy, the sociology of the market tends to constitute the main subfield of economic sociology (Boulding 1970: 153-155; also Fligstein and Brantley 1992; Podolny
1993). This contrasts with the tendency for public or social choice theory - as an economic theory of politics - to become one of the main specialties of rational choice theory in its wide application of the economic approach to all social life (Buchanan 1991;
Dowding 1991; Kiser and Hechter 1991; McGuire and Olson 1996; Opp 1989).
Ever since Smith, classical political economy has been a theory of the operation of the "invisible hand" of the market. The essence of neoclassical economics has always been a theory of the (free) market, or the "theory of price determination under a
hypothetical regime of absolutely free competition" (Walras 1952), a theory of market equilibrium (Pareto 1927), or catallactics - a theory of market exchange (Mill 1884; yon Mises 1966). Although emphasis on the pure and perfect market has more recently been mitigated by the theories of imperfect and/or monopolistic competition, the theory of the market or market structures - pure competition, monopoly, oligopoly, imperfect markets, etc. - still remains the core of economic theory, especially microeconomics.
Even within neoclassical sociology one can discern a relatively developed, though different, theory of the market. The crucial difference is that between the status of the market as a pure economic phenomenon (exchange and resource allocation mechanism) and its treatment as a social institution. The market has been a major concern not just of economics but also of economic sociology, and theories of the market abound, as substantiated below. Of these, the sociological theory of the market will be of greatest concern to us here.

VI - Conclusion
In this paper, an attempt has been made to redefine the agenda of economic sociology, including the sociology of the market as its principal subdiscipline. Some drawbacks in defining the subject matter of economic sociology have been identified, in particular the confusion between its realm and that of rational choice theory, as well as the spurious distinction between those of economic sociology and sociological or socioeconomics. These are major impediments to giving economic sociology a proper place and identity within the social sciences. For example, its identity is lost if economic sociology is identified with, or subsumed under, rational choice theory, as has been attempted by adherents of the latter. On the other hand, viewing economic sociology as different from, or just a branch of, socioeconomics (in the sense of an overarching economic analysis), implies an unclear and restrictive specification of its subject matter. It is a distinction without a difference.
Unlike in rational choice theory, but just as in sociological economics, the agenda of economic sociology refers to the social setting of economic variables and processes. Failure to see that the realm of rational choice theory in sociology (i.e., the economic dimensions of social, noneconomic processes) is different from that of economic sociology is one of the unfortunate consequences of the expansion of the economic approach throughout social science. This has been exemplified by studies of the
relationship of the economy and the state: while economic sociology views the state as one of the exogenous factors of economic reality, rational choice theory treats it as a mere appendix of the economy, just as vulgar historical materialism used to call it an
"epiphenomenon". On the other hand, failure to realize that there are no essential differences between the subject matter of economic sociology and sociological economics can be attributed to the tendency for trivial terminological distinctions to be
made between the two.
We have also attempted to show that recent complaints by economic sociologists about the absence of a genuine theory, economic and/or sociological, of the market are probably unjustified. Moreover, it has been indicated that the sociology of the market tends to become the most important and elaborated specialty of economic sociology, just as the "pure" theory of markets has been the hard core of economics. The sociology of markets would have to go in a somewhat different direction than the economics of markets, however, by focusing on the market as a social structure rather than as an exchange mechanism or an instrument of resource allocation. We hope that this attempt at reformulating the agenda of economic sociology will prompt further debate on the matter.
COPYRIGHT 1997 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

The Economic Sociology of Alfred Marshall: An Overview.

Extract - The American Journal of Economics and Sociology;
ASPERS, PATRIK
ABSTRACT. The aim of the paper is to present the economic sociology of Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), Three topics are discussed in the paper: Marshall's ideas of how preferences are generated, the theory of action, and finally the introduction of a fourth factor of production, organization. Throughout the paper Marshall's broad perspective is demonstrated. It is argued that Marshall's approach encourages a closer connection between sociologists interested in economic phenomena and economists.
This conclusion is strengthened because of the resemblance of Marshall's analysis to those offered by Max Weber and Thorstein Veblen.

I - Introduction
ONE WAY OF DESCRIBING ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY is to say that it is about how to bring the social element into the analysis of economic phenomena. Various ways of how the social can be brought in have been suggested.
In the new economic sociology movement, the revitalized concept of Polanyi, embeddedness, has been the key concept (Granovetter 1985). Other suggestions of how this can be accomplished, among them rational choice theory, have been put forward, for example, in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by Smelser & Swedberg. [1] Another approach would be to rake classical writers, sociologists and economists, as the point of departure when analyzing the economy. [2] The relevance of these writers to a broader perspective on the economy is high. Indeed, it is an approach not yet applied enough by economic sociologists. [3] Classical economists are interesting partly because they appeared at the scene one hundred years ago, and discussed in an atmosphere that included issues not often regarded by economist of today as relevant.
There exist a vast number of well-known economists to study, but clearly, one of them is Alfred Marshall (1842-1924).
Marshall is recognized as one of the founding fathers of neoclassical economics, and many of his ideas are integrated in contemporary theory presented in standard economic textbooks, though the direct references to him are less frequent. Anyway, Marshall is rightly recognized by economists for his contributions to economics (Blaug, 1985, 1986). Beside the economic kernel of Marshall's theory, h is writings contain topics less discussed today, that are more likely to be labeled as, for example, sociology.
The aim of the paper is to present the economic sociology of Alfred Marshall. Three topics are discussed in the paper. In relation to a paper on Marshall's sociological contribution, one must mention Talcott Parsons analysis, which is the only major attempt to view Marshall first and foremost as a broad social scientist. Before my discussion of the sociological themes begins, some prefatory stages are needed. The most important of Marshall's principles are presented, then his relation to sociology is briefly discussed. The paper then turns to the first sociological theme, Marshall's theory of how preferences are generated, followed by a scrutiny of his idea of economic action, and the rationales of the actors' motives are discussed. The last theme discussed at some length is Marshall's usage of a fourth factor of production, organization. The paper ends with a concluding section, which includes some outlines of further topics in Marshall's writing that can be useful to sociologists.

II - Central Ideas
A GOOD POINT OF DEPARTURE in order to understand Marshall's writing is to present some of the fundamental principles that underpin his entire scientific production. These are important, regardless of whether one's field of interest is sociology or economics. The first "principle" discussed is his definition of economics. Marshall used a broad approach to economics and he preferred to label his work "economics" or "social economics" rather than political economy, which, according to him, was too narrow (Marshall 1920a. 43). The following definition reflects his broadness of scope: "Political Economy or Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of well-being. Thus it is on the one side a study of wealth; and on the other, and more important side, a part of the study of man." (1920a, 1, see also 1879, 4-5).

III - Marshall on Sociology
NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE SOCIOLOGY at the time when Marshall wrote is different from the sociology in vogue today. However, it is still worthwhile to briefly discuss Marshall's relation to sociology, though one should be clear about the fact that the numbers of passages that cover this topic are few. By discussing this topic our understanding of the sociological relevance of Marshall will be increased. In addition, it illuminates Marshall's view about the relation between economics and the other social sciences and in particular sociology. We recognize the views of three sociologists in Marshall's writings: August Comte, Herbert Spencer, and Karl Marx. Spencer was probably the sociologist that Marshall knew best, and he had all Spencer's books and kept them at his library where they were bound with a special cover. It is clear that Marshall was influenced by Spencer (Groenewegen 1995, 167).
Marshall says that Spencer's ideas on biology and Hegel's ideas on philosophy and history, are the major sources of influence in the Principles (1920a, ix). [5]

IV - Generation of Preferences
IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT Marshall is better known as an economist than as a sociologist. This does in no way contradict that he may serve as source for sociologists, and in particular sociologists interested in the economic part of social life. The paper now turns to a discussion of three main sociological themes in Marshall's writings. These are not discussed from a historical perspective, but from a perspective that attempts to find ideas and theories that can be utilized in order to improve the present state of economic sociology, and sociology at large. Economists usually take preferences for given in their analyses. This is an accepted method in science when one is involved in a particular study; no explanation can be self referential (Nozick 1981, 116).
However, few economists bother with the issue of how preferences are generated at all, instead the problem is pushed over to psychologists (Rosenberg 1992), though Gary Becker (1976, 1996) is an exception. He discusses the formation of preferences, even though it is not a major topic in his writings. It is interesting that Becker's source on this issue is Alfred Marshall. That Marshall discussed the formation of preferences, or wants, to use his word, also occupies several pages in Talcott Parsons' important analysis of Marshall. The idea plays a pivotal role in the theoretical edifice built by Marshall. Obviously, the generation of preferences is an issue that is of interest both to economists and sociologists, and cooperation about this would most likely bring the two disciplines closer together.

V - Economic Motives
MARSHALL SAYS, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, that man's preferences are generated by his activities (production).
Consumption means that man satisfies his preferences. When a preference becomes "active", so to say, we may speak of motives. That motives, together with opportunities, can be seen as reasons for actions is not explicitly stated by Marshall, but it is a reasonable interpretation. This view is presented by D. Davidson (1980), and discussed by J. Elster in a more social context. Consequently, man's activities lead, eventually, to motives of his actions. Marshall's critical views about bomo economicus were mentioned, and together with his empirical approach--that the scientist must take man as he is (1887, 212)--we can sketch his theory of action. A theory of action is the fundamental building block of all theories based upon the idea of methodological individualism (for example Weber 1922, Coleman 1990, and of course, neoclassical economics), As is known, methodological individualists try to explain macro level outcomes, by starting at the micro level.
Marshall is best described as a methodological individualist, but, as will be shown, he is no hard-nosed neoclassical economist that stresses egoistic and atomized agents.

VI - Organization as the Fourth Factor of Production
THE COMMON VIEW AMONG ECONOMISTS is that there are three different factors of production--land, labor, and capital--that are used to produce goods and services in order to satisfy wants (Lipsey et al 1990). Marshall, however, recognizes an additional factor, organization (Schumpeter 1954, 557), though it is equally correct to say that he divides capital into different parts (Marshall 1920a, 138-139.) The two most important parts of the fourth factor are knowledge and organization. It is according to Marshall not difficult to determine knowledge and organization: "If the character and powers of nature and of man be given, the growth of wealth and knowledge and organization follow from them as effect from cause" (1920a, 139).
So, what has been said above about man's character and faculties as a result of his activities has a strong bearing on what Marshall has to say about organization.

VII - Conclusion
THIS SHORT PAPER CAN DO NOTHING but touch on some of the most interesting themes in the writings of Alfred Marshall from a modern economic and/or sociological perspective. It goes without saying that there are more topics to be found in Marshall that are relevant from a sociological point of view. One example is his view on the entrepreneur, though the sociological relevance of this partly falls within what this paper labels "economic motives." Marshall's concept of class, which is a profound sociological concept, though not at the top of the agenda of economic sociologists, is another track where he may be followed. [16] The ideas highlighted in this paper are all relevant to the ongoing discussion in economic sociology. The very foundation of his theory, the theory of action, contains a sociological dimension, and is similar to Weber's idea. The discussion of wants and activities opens the way for collaboration between economists and sociologists.
Finally, the idea of a fourth factor of production is sociologically interesting, because the economy is studied in relation to a broader social framework. The topics discussed underline Marshall's idea that man is the center of every study aiming at understanding society. But Marshall's man is not an egoistic and atomized economic man, quite the contrary.
COPYRIGHT 1999 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

Social Inequality and the Sociology of Life Style: Material and Cultural Aspects of Social Stratification. (Focus on Economic Sociology).
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Bogenhold, Dieter
ABSTRACT. The rising importance of dimensions such as age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, political attitudes, and multiple choices to organize the notion of "life course" has made the older class concept appear obsolete to the research sociologist. My thesis is that the current expanding discussions of life styles are not necessarily a substitute but a valuable supplement to social stratification theory. Life style research can contribute to the question of the relevance of the class concept. The result of my investigation shows that life style research, when connected to the writings of Thorstein Veblen, Georg Simmel, and Max Weber, can enrich research in the social sciences.

I - Introduction
MANY PEOPLE HAVE ARGUED that the semantics of class has lost its earlier attractiveness. The rising importance of dimensions such as age, gender, nationality, race, political attitudes, and the multitude of choices in organizing one's life course has rendered the debate about the concept of class obsolete. Some argue that the semantics of class no longer seems appropriate for analyzing and interpreting society. This perception is closely connected to the emergence of entirely new topics such as individualization and the plurality of life styles. My main thesis is that the currently expanding discussion on life style is not necessarily a substitute but an important supplement to the tradition of social stratification research. What people "are" and what people "do" can no longer be conceptualized by a simple one-to-one-fit. The concept of life style can provide a link between social rank and social practice. The logic of how people organize their leisure time and how they spend their income is not a simple mirror of income level but must be regarded as being embedded in social behavior.

II - Social Stratification
THE DEBATE ABOUT THE RELEVANCE of the concept of class is unresolved at the end of the 20th century. The past 100 years have witnessed the establishment of a capitalist society that has, on balance, revealed a strong bond between creativity and
destructiveness. This bond is a source of innovation and prosperity (Bogenhold 1995). Average living standards within the population continuously improved during the 20th century. Economic growth triumphed while average weekly working hours were reduced. One question about class concerned the social distribution of economic wealth among different population segments. The visibly increasing rise in disposable time that people won during this historical process and the rise in income that allowed them to develop new patterns of personal consumption and leisure activities, patterns of behavior that had already been revealed with a strange ambivalence by Riesman and colleagues (1950) during the middle of this century, are worth noting.
From a historical perspective, we see production and consumption constantly changing (Becher 1980). This is reflected in a rapidly changing succession of topics in the history of economic and social thought (Stihler 1998). Whereas Max Weber attributed the success of the industrial revolution to the Protestant ethic, our contemporary understanding of
that success is different. Economy and society are increasingly dependent on the levels of effective consumer demand. A constant rise in the production of goods must find a market outlet (Camphell 1987; Mason 1998). If ascetism served as a foundation for the development of a capitalist economic system in Max Weber's world, then the connection between production and demand, that is the cycle of production, sale, and consumption, has in our understanding become the foundation for the modern economic society: no production without demand and vice versa.

III - The Analysis of Life Styles
CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION of the pluralization of life styles reflects the fact that the level of vertical differentiation in terms of financial resources has little to do with the level of cultural expression as a form of individual life practice. Ulrich Beck's (1986) book Risk Society holds the view that the evidence within life practice for bonding in a specific class constellation has disappeared. His opinion is that biographies are becoming even more "open." Societies that are becoming increasingly complex multiply the possible life courses of individuals and thus, due to institutional handicaps and handicaps in life-history, result in "kits for possible biographic combinations" (Beck 1986:217).
It is of utmost importance that the question of choice of life styles is connected to the diversification and individualization of life situation: The more distinct autonomy becomes in reference to the use of time and money, the more open-ended the question becomes in which concrete practice this use materializes. Benjamin Zablocki and Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1976) clearly pointed this out more than two decades ago. This is the perfect link to the discussion of life styles, which presently seems to be held with growing enthusiasm.

IV - Distribution and Status
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN material "possession" and its appropriate use in terms of a concrete cultural use of material resources was a topic in the sociological contemplations of the classic authors whose pioneering works do not always seem to
gather the necessary attention today. The insights propounded by Georg Simmel, Max Weber, or even Thorstein Veblen, whose ideas developed in completely different contexts in styles of life, have not been systematically pursued and have been revived in
connection with Bourdieu's socio-cultural studies.
While Veblen pointed out the "conspicuous consumption" of the upper classes in his Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), Simmel was generally more interested in the outlines of the modern style of life in a time when society was not only experiencing cultural
change but was also going through turbulent economic changes as well. For example, in Simmel's The Philosophy of Money (1978), he examined in detail this modern "style of life," which complicates human relationships. Complications are seen in the ever increasing detachment in social circles and the replacement of traditional rhythms in social life by more complex forms as well as in an increase in the tempo in which society was changing. These distinctions in every day culture can be seen in Simmel (1978) as a growing "multiplicity" of cultural styles that are forever changing. This led to Simmel's following definition of life styles:
Indeed, the mere existence of style is in itself one of the most significant instances of distancing. Style, as the manifestation of our inner feelings, indicates that these feelings no longer immediately gush out but take on a disguise the moment they are revealed. Style, as the general form of the particular, is a veil that imposes a barrier and a distance in relation to the recipient of the expression of these feelings. (1978:473)

V - Life Style Research
MANY FEATURES OF LIFE STYLE research still seem rather indefinite. The semantic delimitation of life styles compared with other categories such as mentalities, mileus or sub-cultures does not seem to exist. A greater part of the discussions on life styles is due to the discomfort with vertical stratification models. Since the forms of possession in vertical class situations are not inevitably transposed into the presumed corresponding sociological practice forms, the need for innovatative sociological tools for theoretical and empirical surveys on the organization and articulation of life has now arisen. However, the latter forms will not necessarily become empty and obsolete due to the former; both can complement each other wisely.
COPYRIGHT 2001 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

Economic Sociology in Retrospect and Prospect: In Search of its Identity within Economics and Sociology.

Extract - The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

ZAFIROVSKI, MILAN

ABSTRACT. Theory and research in the field of economic sociology have seen steady advancements in recent years. Economic sociology has become a legitimate branch of sociology as well as of economics. Nonetheless, the treatment of economic sociology in both modern economics and sociology leaves much to be desired. Various formal-terminological confusions and theoretical-substantive misconceptions are still present in the field. The present article advances some proposals for remedying this situation. In particular, it provides clarifications of and amendments to the current treatment of issues, such as the relationship between economics and sociology, the character of economic sociology, its links to economic theory, socio-economics, and rational choice theory, as well as the question of the old versus the new economic sociology. Special emphasis is placed on the relationships between economic sociology and rational choice theory, given the latter's claims to universality. It is hoped that the article will the reby redress certain inconsistencies found in some previous treatments of economic sociology as well as stimulate further refinements.

I - Introduction

THERE HAS BEEN A TENDENCY toward theoretical-methodological separation between economics and sociology since their inception. The tone was set by the founders of both economics and sociology. For example, this tendency was exemplified by Smith's differentiation between the "theory of moral sentiments" as some kind of pre-sociology and the "theory of wealth" as economic science. It was also implied in Comte's status of economics as just a distinct branch of sociology. Such a treatment was based on the view that "there can be no scientific study of society if it is separated into portions, and its divisions are studied apart [but] viewing each element in the light of the whole system" (Comte 1983, 226-229). Reminiscences of both positions can be found in neoclassical and modern social theory. As an illustration, Smith's position has been reflected in Pareto's (1932, 1594-1595) division of labor between economics and sociology on the basis of a dichotomy between logico-rational and non-rational actions, respecti vely. This division is characteristic for most contemporary economists (Samuelson 1983, 90-92). Then most sociologists and some economists (like the Austrians) tacitly follow Comte by placing economic theory within an overarching sociological framework, be it the theory of social institutions and structures, the theory of social action, or the theory of the social system.

The division of economics and sociology from each other continues today. Some recent trends such as the extension of the economic principle or rational choice theory to all social life have only exacerbated this condition because of the perceived theoretical imperialism of such efforts. Most sociologists experience these attempts as economic imperialism triggering defensive reactions on their part and thus further alienating their discipline from economics. In this sense, rational choice theory has not yet proven to be the link between economics and sociology as many have hoped. [1] (Granovetter and Swedberg 1992) Moreover, in its hard line formulations, rational choice theory effectively denies the need of sociology and any social science other than an "economic approach to human behavior."

However, not everything has been lost in this regard. For many economists and sociologists alike, a discipline has always held promise for overcoming the isolation of economics and sociology. That discipline is economic sociology. In certain strands of economics and sociology, economic sociology has been viewed as a possible bridge between the two social sciences. Such a prospect has been shared by various economists and sociologists, as shown by the origins and development of economic sociology in each of the two disciplines. For example, many economists treat economic sociology--also called social economy/economics and socio or sociological economics--as a legitimate branch of economic science. On the other hand, most sociologists regard it as a sociological discipline par excellence. This paper offers some clarifications of and amendments to the current status of economic sociology in economics and sociology. These refinements pertain to issues such as the relationships between economics and sociology, th e nature and development of economic sociology, the connection of economic sociology with economic theory, socio-economics and rational choice theory, and the distinction between the old and the new economic sociology. In doing so, the paper tries to rectify certain omissions and commissions made in previous conceptions and reviews of economic sociology. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, the relationships of economics and sociology are examined. This is followed by an investigation of the nature of economic sociology and its relations to economic theory, socio-economics and rational choice theory, with particular attention to the degree of its affinity with the latter.

II - Searching for a Bridge between Economics and Sociology

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMICS and sociology involves cooperation and complementarity, rather than competition and substitution, as many exponents of the economic approach to human behavior assume. Often purely economic analyses need to be supplemented by a sociological perspective on economic phenomena. Even some neoclassical economists (Pareto 1932, 1317) warn that analyses of many economic phenomena cannot be done without using sociology to examine "a great number of elements of complex phenomena." The key difference between economics and sociology results from their respective subject matter. Within the economic system and economics, logical-rational actions prevail, so equilibrium is determined by the relationships between "tastes and obstacles," i.e., between utility or demand and scarcity or supply. However, the social system and sociology exhibit a greater complexity, including both rational and non-rational actions, though the latter are prevalent.

III - Origins and Development of Economic Sociology

THE ORIGINS OF ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY can be traced both to neoclassical economics and sociology, a fact overlooked by most reviews focusing on its origins within sociology. This shows that the need of such a discipline has been felt not only by sociologists but also by economists. Ironically, the very term of "economic sociology" can probably be credited to Jevons, one of the founders of marginal economics as a putative exemplar of "pure" theory. Of course, the concept and subject already were implicit in the thinking of Comte, Mill and even Smith (as argued by Schumpeter 1949, 60). However, accounts of the origin and development of economic sociology routinely omit Jevons. This is not a trivial omission; not only was Jevons a pioneer of neoclassical economics, who had considerable impact on many economists (e.g., Marshall [10], Wicksteed, Wicksell, Bohm-Bawerk, J. B. Clark, Fisher), but he also envisioned the possibility of economic sociology. Jevons (1909, 76-77) in his Theory of Political Economy (first publi shed in 1871) considered economic sociology a branch of economic science, alongside, for example, commercial statistics, mathematical theory of economics, systematic economics, descriptive economics, and the science of finance. He was so enthusiastic about economic sociology that he attributed to it an almost messianic mission vis-a-vis economics, hoping that it could save the latter from its "confusion." This initial enthusiasm almost overwhelmed his follower Wicksteed (1934, 783 ) who thought that "economics must be handmaid of sociology." (Wicksteed was so strongly influenced by Comte's treatment of economics as the integral part of sociology that he used the Comte's views as the motto of his major work.)

IV - Economic Theory and Economic Sociology

AS TO THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN economic theory and economic sociology, two polar standpoints exist. The first includes all attempts to apply the economic approach, utilitarian principle, or rational choice model to all social life, and so to effectively dispense with the need of (economic) sociology or any social science other than economics. This tendency would transform economic sociology into a "derivative of economics and a lot of it simplistic" (Piore 1996). The second, less common, standpoint is to interpret economic sociology as an all-round discipline that displaces narrow economic theory. Between these two points lies the middle ground of conceptual interdependence and affinity.

V - The Old and New Economic Sociology: A Spurious Distinction

SOMETIMES A DISTINCTION IS MADE between the old or classical and the new economic sociology. The distinction is based on the view that while the first is residual, complementary, or too respectful vis-a-vis economic analysis, the second attempts to escape this status by centering on the hard core of economic variables. Presumably, the new economic sociology's "key notion is that many economic problems that by tradition belong to the economists' camp can be fruitfully analyzed with the help of sociology." (Granovetter and Swedberg 1992, 2) Although going thereby further, the new economic sociology would still coherently follow the sociological perspective on the economy as originated in classical economic sociology. Such a distinction between the old and the new economic sociology, though with some formal merits, is neither clear nor relevant from a substantive perspective. For the issue is not whether economic sociology centers on residual or core economic problems, because it does both. Rather it is whether it treats these problems from a sociological standpoint, as what Weber (1968, 63) calls "sociological categories of economic action," in light of the importance of "sociological relationships in the economic sphere." For example, this importance is illustrated by the role that "sociological relations" (Wieser 1967, 151) play in the domain of market values or prices, since these are results of social interactions, and thus "social values" (Aftallion 1948).

VI - Economic Sociology and Sociological Economics

IN MODERN ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY, there often exists a confusion between economic sociology and socio(logical) economics, as shown by various attempts to distinguish the two. This is curious since in both historical and formal-substantive terms, economic sociology and socioeconomics tend to be in essence isomorphic disciplines both involving a sociological perspective on the economy. In this sense, attempts at their conceptual differentiation lack firm grounds.

Economic sociology can more plausibly be viewed as part of economics or of sociology than of social economics, unless the latter is stretched so as to include every economic discipline--e.g., economic theory, political economy, economic history, and economic sociology--becoming a new overarching or interdisciplinary economic science (Etzioni 1991; Smelser and Swedberg 1994; Swedberg 1991).

VII - Economic Sociology and Rational Choice Theory

NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMISTS' PROPOSAL FOR ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY as a bridge between economics and sociology contrasts the return of most contemporary economists to pure theory. Pure theory is subsumed under the principle of utility maximization and optimizing behavior generally treated as an explanatory deus ex macbina for all social phenomena, including institutions, politics, law, the family, morals, religion, and so on.

This theoretical program, called rational choice theory or the economic approach to all human behavior (Becker 1976, 3-9), exhibits no affinity with economic sociology. Proponents of economic sociology focus only on the definite social conditions of economic life. By contrast, rational choice adherents try to explain all social life by means of economic principles, attributing "rationality to everyone, as though all individuals act like highly trained economists." (Buchanan 1991, 62-63) While recognizing this conceit, rational choice theorist also argue that "nonetheless, working out the analysis under such extreme rationality assumptions is also useful." Not without irony, such assumptions of extreme rationality or hyper-rationality (Elster 1989b)--i.e., what J. M. Clark ridiculed as "the irrational passion for impassionate rationality"--and thus "current economic models of selfish behavior" (Palfrey and Prisbrey 1997, 829) have been subsumed under an overarching "charity principle" intended to serve as a c onceptual panacea.

VIII - Conclusion

IN THIS PAPER, a case has been made for further refinements of the conception of economic sociology in modern sociology and economics. Despite a long development of economic sociology within both economics and sociology, a clear and consistent conception of what this discipline is precisely about is still in the making. This state of affairs is indicated by formal-substantive confusions or and unnecessary distinctions between economic sociology and seemingly related fields. In particular, such confusions are epitomized by the treatment of economic sociology as a subsidiary or an equivalent of the economic approach to social action, usually termed rational choice theory, with its ramifications in sociology including models of social exchange, collective action, social choice, and so on. On the other hand, the distinction between economic sociology and socio-economics exemplifies these unnecessary distinctions. The same can be said of that between the old and the new economic sociology. In addition, the key sou rces and the character of economic sociology as a distinctive discipline have not always been accurately defined.

Besides identifying the main deficiencies in the current status of economic sociology, this paper has outlined proposals for their correction. First, the associations as well as the dissociations between economic science and sociology have been reconsidered, in the light of viewing economic sociology as a bridge between the two. Second, the sources and development of economic sociology have been re-examined with the view of its double legacy from economics and sociology. Then, the boundaries between economic sociology and economics and/or rational choice theory have been partially redrawn. In turn, those between economic sociology and socio-economics have been abolished. And the spurious dilemma of the old vs. the new economic sociology has been put in a proper perspective. Since economic sociology is one of the most promising disciplines of sociology as well as of economics, our hope is that this endeavor will stimulate further refinements of the discipline by sociologists and economists alike.