The evolving role of organizational theory within economic sociology

Organizational theory was one of the roots of the “new” economic sociology. In recent years, a set of complementary research programs have come to the fore that augment our understanding of the social structuring of markets. These include an interest in the role of conventions and commensuration, market devices, the performativity of economics, and the role of morality in the construction of markets. These other interests have come to enrich our conception of the ways in which “the social” structures market activities. While this has decentered some of the emphasis on organizations, there are still active research programs pushing forward new ideas that are focused on organizations, institutions, and networks in economic sociology. We discuss some of the recent work on organizational logics, inter‐ and intra‐organizational networks, and social movements and organization. We note there has also been some hybridity as scholars borrow from each other's toolkits in order to deepen our knowledge of the way the economy works. Organizational theory remains a main theoretical mainstay of economic sociology, but it has now been joined by additional perspectives.     

CRITIQUING THE NEW EPISTEMOLOGIES: TOWARDMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF FAMILY THERAPY*

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the structures of the new epistemologies. Epistemology is a technical term within the field of scientific philosophy. When it is used looselyby family therapists, confusion results. The central argument of the present author is that the new epistemologies are, in fact, weak theories. It is suggested that the practice of using the term “epistemology” to denote theory or paradigm, be discontinued. A more limited and narrowly defined use for the term “epistemology” is proposed. Specifically, this paper presents: (a) a discussion ofthree areas of philosophy that serve as foundations for the construction of scientific theory, (b)a critical analysis of the new epistemologies, (c) a logical structure for scientific family therapy theory, and (d) minimum requirements for a scientific theory of family therapy.     

Economics as a Multi-Paradigmatic Science: the ‘Best Kept Secret’ of Irrational Choice

The article reexamines the prevailing perception of traditional economics as the science of rational choice among contemporary economists and sociologists, especially rational choice theorists. It proposes that conventional economics is not exclusively the theory of rational choice but also one of irrational choices in the economy. The article aims to contribute toward a fuller understanding and appreciation of classical and neoclassical economics, especially among sociologists, as composite rational choice-irrational choice theory and in that sense a multi- rather than single-paradigm science, thus no different from sociology and other social (and physical) sciences. This may be relevant or interesting to sociologists given that their rational choice colleagues, like economists, extol the “virtues" of conventional and modern economics as a single-paradigm, theoretically unified science around “rational choice” and criticize the “vices” of sociology as plagued by competing paradigms and theoretical disunity. The article supports many economic sociologists’ view or intuition of conventional economics as complex rational-irrational choice theory and multi-paradigm science, and disconfirms rational choice theorists’ interpretation and generalization of it as “rational choice theory” only and single-paradigm unified science.     

What is the Main Significance of Economic for Sociological Theory?

This paper reconsiders classical and neoclassical economics’ significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory. The paper identifies certain types or elements of classical and neoclassical economics that are potentially significant or convergent with sociological theory: pure market economics, the economics of society cum the “rational choice model”, and social or sociological economics. First, it argues that as pure economics economic theory’s significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory is low because the first is inconsistent with or divergent from the latter, notably theoretical economic sociology. Second, the paper suggests that as the economics of society economic theory’s significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory is non-existent or minimal, because the “rational choice model” is missing or an exception within conventional economics. Third, the paper proposes and demonstrates that classical and neoclassical economics’ main significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory lies in social economics as its second ingredient, alongside market economics. The paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between economic and sociological theory and economics and sociology overall.     

Organizational theory in political sociology

Organizational theory and research has been enormously generative for political sociologists, if not always as fully centered as it might be, relative to broader notions of political power, economic resources, culture, and their interplay. This review both calls attention to the ways that organizational theory continues to inform political sociology and sets an agenda for how this interchange can be productively extended in various ways in scholarship on states, political parties, advocacy organizations, and business influences in politics. I highlight the genealogy of the new institutionalism and its variants (World Polity and institutional logics), population ecology (and the growing interest in both categories and audiences, alongside studies of the “ecology of ideology”), and research that follows in the broad tradition of resource dependence theory (and the link to more management-oriented approaches such as “non-market strategy” and stakeholder theories of organizational political activities). I also emphasize how novel theories of social movements and fields have offered innovative insights that incorporate organizational and political processes. I conclude by elaborating an agenda for how political sociologists can go further in maintaining and extending their highly productive and rewarding engagements with organizational theory.     

Organizations and Learning: A Critical Appraisal

Discussions about organizations and learning continue to attract critical interest. Since the emergence in the 1970s of the notion of the “learning organization,” notions of systems’ learning, knowledge management and lifelong learning have progressively entered into the debates. Earlier debates, which drew on education and psychology fields as well as organization and management studies, frequently explored plural objectives for learning occurring within organizational and workplace arenas. They included emphasis on workers’ as well as managerial interests in various forms and objectives of learning. Latter debates on organizational learning appear predominantly shaped by a distinctive economic rationality and management interest. This article, from a sociological vantage point, reviews key thematic issues and critically explores some current questions in regard to organizations and learning. It proposes that a prevailing economic model in accordance with generalized policy objectives evident across the advanced economies for a neo‐liberalized “knowledge‐based economy” and “learning society” poses a particular set of contemporary issues and problems. The current juncture may, however, stimulate further innovation in models of learning organizations that widen agenda and prospects for learning.     

Presidential Address Rural Sociology at the Crossroads*

Abstract A complex array of socio‐historical, demographic, and organizational factors have combined in recent years to threaten both the current status of and future prospects for the discipline of rural sociology, and for the Rural Sociological Society (RSS). This paper examines the somewhat problematic recent trajectories of the RSS as a professional organization and of rural sociology more generally and notes a degree of disciplinary and organizational inertia that have limited the pursuit of new directions. It also presents a discussion of selected factors that have contributed to these concerns, including both “external” factors that are largely beyond the organizational reach of RSS and “internal” factors that are more directly linked to organizational characteristics and actions. Drawing upon the distinctions between “red ocean” and “blue ocean” strategies outlined by market strategists Kim and Mauborgne, the discussion then shifts to a focus on action alternatives that, if pursued, could help to create an expanded set of opportunities and a brighter future for rural sociology, and for the Rural Sociological Society.     

Toward a dual motive metaeconomic theory

In light of recent findings in neuroscience and experimental economics research, as well as new understandings about Adam Smith and Darwin, the paper seeks a new synthesis in a “metaeconomic” theory that recognizes dual motives. The “meta” suggests the need to go beyond and transcend microeconomic theory while still retaining its main features. New findings suggest it is human nature to not only have the tendency to pursue self-interest but to also condition that pursuit with the sentiments, as Smith suggested. In modern terms, this means to condition the egoistic–hedonistic tendency with the empathetic–altruistic tendency. This also means individuals seek the survival of not only self but also the group, as Darwin understood it. Metaeconomics recognizes the inherent conflict in doing both simultaneously. The economic goal shifts to maximizing peace of mind both within and among individuals rather than maximizing one of the interests. Value emerges on a higher plane.     

Endocrine state is the physical manifestation of subjective beliefs

Over the past two decades, economists have begun to incorporate evidence from neuroscience into applied economic research. While some progress has been made, the wider economics profession has yet to embrace the new field of “neuroeconomics.” I argue here that a broad reconciliation of emerging evidence from neuroscience with conventional economic decision theory can be achieved by emphasizing the critical role of neuroendocrine signaling molecules and their receptors. Many of these molecules are amenable to measurement and manipulation in laboratory settings, and most have – when viewed in light of their natural history – a parsimonious interpretation as representing what economists refer to as subjective beliefs.     

Vernon Smith: economics as a laboratory science

Vernon Smith shared the Nobel Prize in 2002 with Daniel Kahneman. This article surveys Smith’s contributions to economics. His early efforts led to greater understanding of markets and market institutions, which developed into important contributions to the design of new markets. Subsequent research focused on the complexity of behavior in simple games, including recent forays into “neuroeconomics”. The impact of his work on economic thinking and economic theory is substantial.     

Rational Choice Theory or Pretense? The Claims,Equivalences, and Analogies of the “Economic Approach to Human Behavior”

The article argues and demonstrates that classical–neoclassical economics generally does not pretend or claim that its principles apply to domains beyond the economy, specifically wealth, and does not equate the economic and the noneconomic, and the rational and the nonrational. By contrast, the “economic approach to human behavior” or “rational choice theory” precisely does this to legitimize itself by invoking classical–neoclassical economics as supreme authority and its representatives as venerable precursors. The article reveals the economic approach to human behavior as a set of grand theoretical and methodological claims, equivalences, and analogies from the standpoint of conventional economics itself, as well as sociology and other social sciences. It identifies and examines certain indicative instances of such tendencies. The article aims to contribute to understanding better the relations—or rather lack thereof—between conventional economics and contemporary economic and sociological rational choice theory. The economic approach to human behavior is not new, even outside the market sector. The rational choice model provides the most promising basis presently available for a unified approach to the analysis of the social world by scholars from different social sciences. — Gary Becker With respect to those parts of human conduct of which wealth is not even the principal object, to these political economy does not pretend that its conclusions are applicable. — John S. Mill But economy does not treat of all human motives. There are motives nearly always present with us, arising from conscience, compassion, or from some moral or religious source, which economy cannot and does not pretend to treat. These will remain to us as outstanding and disturbing forces; they must be treated, if at all, by other appropriate branches of knowledge. — William Jevons A science, therefore, based on the hypothesis (of universal rationality) would yield a general form of the social phenomenon having little or no contact with reality … — Vilfredo Pareto     

Cultural heritage as multi-dimensional,multi-value and multi-attribute economic good: toward a new framework for economic analysis and valuation

The purpose of the paper is to review critical issues concerning the economic dimensions of cultural heritage, in order to show that—tangible and intangible—“cultural economic” goods and services, as provided by cultural institutions, may be analysed and valued in a multi-dimensional, multi-attribute and multi-value socio-economic environment. On this multi-dimensional and multi-attribute setting, a conceptual framework for analysing cultural services and cultural capital is established. The paper is speculative in nature, suggesting new prospective for evaluation and empirical inquiry. The work is divided in three parts. The first part begins by surveying the literature on merit goods, re-examining how different paradigms, neo-classic and more unconventional, have dealt with the issue, and assessing why, and to what extent, merit good is a proper economic notion. The second part focuses on the role merit good theory should play in cultural economics, and specifically how it is possible to integrate the merit good and the mixed good theoretical and conceptual framework. Cultural resources are to be defined ideally as joint merit-mixed good, on a multi-dimensional scenario. Cultural capital offers and “produces” services and functions, providing private, public and merit good elements of benefit (value). The multi-dimensional framework also entails a multi-paradigmatic perspective, bringing together neo-classic and non-neo-classic elements. The last section summarises and concludes that such an established conceptual framework indicates and supports new routes for economic valuation and policy making concerning the cultural field and cultural institutions. Disaggregating cultural activities into many services and functions allows the analysis to focus on single components of “benefit” supplied by cultural institutions and demanded by users. Valuing culture as a non-holistic resource might help economic analysis and decision-making processes. The main emerging results are: (i) the notion of merit good is relevant for cultural economics and cultural policy, and it represents a relevant ideal “metaphor” and an important dimension of value associated to “cultural functions”; (ii) the inclusion of merit good theory gives the possibility to define cultural stock and services as a compelling case of multi-dimensional categorisation of private, public, mixed and collective services, where different theoretical perspectives are integrated with each other as far as possible; (iii) being intrinsically placed in a dynamic and uncertain setting, merit good theory demonstrates to be, in theoretical and policy term, the necessary a priori for the theory and policy of mixed good provision, both at macro and microeconomic level. Policies motivated by the merit good issue should aim at providing the necessary collective tangible and intangible investments on which long run effects of cultural policies rely; (iv) special effort should be devoted to the study of “demands” associated to cultural goods, emphasising the role of valuation analysis, supported by the conceptual framework here developed. The work intends to constitute a point of reference for future research, generating some controversy and stimulating further contributions.     

The kitsch-organization 1

The paper discusses kitsch as the discourse of depriving experience of beauty and surprise. It argues that people often construct kitsch when they organize. Three different Kitsch-Organizations are depicted: the Polish communist youth organization from the 1950-ties, a foreign enterprise operating currently in Poland, and a school of organizational behavior.

Kitsch, not being equivalent to “low” or “popular” culture is a degrading construct. Adopted as a second level metaphor to the studies of organizations, it can be of use for critical social constructivist analysis.     

The concept of a “merit good” the ethical dimension in economic theory and the history of economic thought or the transformation of economics into socio-economics

The purpose of this paper is to defend the concept of a “merit good” and to expand its application. This is achieved by using a Kantian philosophical argument applied to the writings of foundational economists such as Adam Smith and Henry Simons (and Walter Eucken in the German literature). As a result the concept of a “merit good” is used to classify and argue for a number of governmental tasks such as the institutional arrangements to make a free market economy work, work efficiently and work in a humane way. Methodologically, this paper connects—as the work of Joseph A. Schumpeter already has—economic theory, the history of economic thought and institutional economics and thereby demonstrates that economics is necessarily about socio-economics.     

Globalized Hopes and Disillusions

In contrast to the common tendency to see war as the result of leadership decisions based on risk assessments, and political and economic considerations about gains or losses, we use a constructivist and institutional perspective to historicize and politicize the way “nation‐state interests” and “nation‐state preferences” even in a decision to go to war are socially constructed and culturally embedded. We maintain that with the end of the Cold War, many societies found themselves at a crossroads where they had to resolve internal conflicts in regards to neoliberal globalization. These internal conflicts and a crisis of identity, between those who supported the principle of globalization and regarded it as a promise for democracy, openness, liberty and peace, and those who saw it as a danger to their exceptionality and distinctiveness, ended in wars (either internal wars or external wars) when the objectors of neoliberal globalization succeeded in creating an institutional turn which presented war as the “efficient,” “necessary,” “legitimate”, or “desired” solution to the new threatening reality. We demonstrate the validity of this argument by using Israel as a test case, examining how institutional changes in the 1990s, arising from internal societal conflicts around the Oslo Agreements, led the state to move from the brink of peace to new wars despite exogenous objections to its policy.     

The Moral Effects of Economic Teaching

Over the past 2 decades, dozens of studies have explored the relationship between exposure to economics and antisocial behavior. With a few exceptions, these studies find the economists and economics students are more likely to exhibit a range of “debased” moral behavior and attitudes, both in the controlled environment of the laboratory and in the outside world. This article presents a review of these studies. It draws on the various studies to address the question of whether the found differences are due to a selection effect—that is, those with antisocial tendencies tend to study economics—or an indoctrination effect whereby exposure to economic theory causes antisocial behavior. The article suggests there is evidence that both effects play a role in explaining the debased behavior of economists and students of economics.     

Contesting Imperial Epistemologies: Introduction

This special issue addresses the Eurocentred nature of knowledge production by examining alternative loci of knowledge production and the consequences of subverting standard narratives of particular events and conceptual paradigms through a focus on “other” places and traditions of thought, especially those formed in colonial encounters. In contesting imperial epistemologies, this special issue draws together contributors working on a variety of globally located phenomena and also seeks to re-examine how “foundational” concepts and events within social theory and historical sociology are understood differently once we start from locations and traditions other than the typically hegemonic West.     

Twenty Years of Economics Curriculum: Trends,Issues, and Transformations?

This is a comprehensive review of literature related to K-12 economics curriculum spanning 20 years, from 1998-2018. The search for literature revealed 18 articles and book chapters in peer-reviewed journals and volumes related to social studies and economics education. The study revealed several trends and issues related to K-12 economics textbooks, including publishing trends, the extent to which economics curriculum is relevant and enactive, and the influence of neoclassical economic theory in serving as the “official knowledge” undergirding the curriculum. The review presents debates in the field related to these issues. The study also reveals the possible influence of the 2008 financial crisis, revealing that economics curriculum seems to have changed little, although the number of scholars critiquing the curriculum has risen dramatically.     

Towards a “New” outrageous public choice

Public choice theory has identified and emphasised “failings” in political processes. However, an assessment of “failure” is sensitive to the framework used for evaluation. Recent developments in cognitive psychology and in experimental economics suggest that “deficiencies” in the political process (ie. “defects” that weaken the link between self interest and policy outcome) are, instead, attractive attributes (which safeguard individuals from the costs of “anomalous behavior”). A “new” public choice perspective (outrageously!) identifies “strengths” (as well as “failings”) in democratic political processes when what has been regarded as “anomalous” behavior is deemed relevant.