**3. New economic sociology: The labyrinth?**

Understandably, key sociological thinking on economic life did in fact emerge from beyond the Parsonian current. Besides the various sociologists of "Marxist", "institutionalist", "ethno-methodological" or "eclectic" trends, mostly located in the academic periphery, worthy of particular attention within this framework are the currents known as "rational choice theory" and "new economic sociology".

The meta-theoretical intent of Parsons in this period above all relates to the undeniable problem deriving from a fundamentally *post festum* theoretical position: Parsons and Smelser enable us to perceive to what extent this or that consensus makes sense, how this or that problem necessarily results from a diversity of particular perspectives susceptible to concerting. However, in no way do they seem able to pre-empt genuine theoretical development or significant changes in the problematic issues and this thus restricts them to following the current of facts while rising above them to proclaim their allegedly superior vision. If we compare the theoretical economic panorama on which the two authors report in the 1950s with that now prevailing, we easily understand the truth of this. As regards economic issues, the usual criticism concerning the works of Parsons proves particularly valid, seeing in it little more than an immense general framework for classification and categorisation and furthermore fundamentally insusceptible to testing due to its incapacity to generate predictions even while also endlessly inclined towards reformulations designed

Furthermore, and of equal importance, his partial *mea culpa* in the 1950s is based upon the still only implicit recognition of the essential lack of validity of the criticism he previously made of "heterodox" authors, when accusing them of idealism and anti-analytical tendencies (misplaced concreteness) or of any other "sins". These repeated accusations above all reflect the trend for Parsons himself to engage in abusive simplification of the theoretical range of problems faced by sociology and reducing them to the famous "Hobbesian problem of order", while at the same time aiming at a reconciliation with mainstream economic science through symbolically "serving up the heads" of representatives of

This state of play resulted in an unfortunate relative under-development of economic sociology within the scope of Parsonian theoretical thinking. As recognised by authors who nevertheless remain very charitable towards the overall project, the main initiative of Parsons in this and subsequent periods falling within the scope of economic issues did not extend much beyond the aforementioned attempt to produce a sociological theory of money as a component of a general theory of media (cf. Beckert, 2006, particularly section IV; Zafirovski, 2006: 81 and seq.). Indeed, and according to Zafirovski, "Parsons conceives of economic sociology in terms of a sociological analysis of the economy, including markets (...) In general, his economic sociology is an analysis of the relations between economy and society (…) especially of the impact of the latter on the former. Adopting socioeconomic holism exemplified in a systems approach to these relations, the hallmark of Parsonian economic sociology is treating the economy as a particular social system in relation to the other, noneconomic subsystems of a society" (2006: 75). Nevertheless, and as the same author candidly adds, "Curiously, Parsons rarely uses the term economic sociology and seldom explicitly defines its subject and scope, usually defining it by implication", etcetera.

Understandably, key sociological thinking on economic life did in fact emerge from beyond the Parsonian current. Besides the various sociologists of "Marxist", "institutionalist", "ethno-methodological" or "eclectic" trends, mostly located in the academic periphery, worthy of particular attention within this framework are the currents known as "rational

"heterodox" or "dissident" trends of this latter field (see Graça, 2008b: 483 and seq.).

to nurturing the impression of some "global synthesis"…

**3. New economic sociology: The labyrinth?** 

choice theory" and "new economic sociology".

The "rational choice theory" (RCT) basically attempted to transport the "rational actor" of economics into the centre of the entire sociological problematic (cf. Boudon, 1977, 1979; Coleman, 1990, 1994). While recognising that, as an alternative proposal to Parsonian thinking, RCT represents an experience with at least the merit of striving for unification through logical coherence of the different academic fields, we also need to register that the very foundations of the project were simultaneously being submitted, and at its very disciplinary core, to criticism of currents of economics that had recuperated various forms and themes mostly within the scope of traditional "institutionalism": imperfect and asymmetrical information, agent-principal relationships, interdependence and the endogenous character of preference-functions, the dynamics of social networks, "strong reciprocity" and thus the themes commonly associated with names such as Richard Titmuss (1997), Oliver Williamson (1985, 1993), Herbert Simon (1957), Joseph Stiglitz (1994), Ronald Burt (1992), Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (2004), among others. In truth, even within economic analysis in its strict sense the weighting of simplifying hypotheses associated to the "rational actor" model (as is the case in particular with the independence of actor functions-utilities and with perfect information) overwhelms the rational core with a series of "as ifs*"* that point to the supreme irrelevance or "autism" of the intellectual effort (cf. Hodgson, 1994). The alleged theoretical rigour of the reasoning is combined with the utter arbitrariness of the results in practical terms and which all becomes so much clearer in case we seek to generalise that analytical framework to the broader extent of human existence.

The emergence of "New Economic Sociology" (NES), primarily associated with names such as Mark Granovetter (1973, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1990) and Richard Swedberg (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2006), is a fact of primordial relevance and meaning. This is an officially sociological current and, even while partially based upon the Parsonian tradition, NES broke away from the strict tradition of the "grand theory" whether due to the diversity of approaches that it assumes and seeks to incorporate or due to the irreverence displayed regarding dialogue with economic science. Contrary to any mere division of tasks scrupulously respecting disciplinary competences as Parsons recommended, NES threw itself into directly challenging, even if on a limited scope, some of the assumptions and methods of academic economics. However, NES was also swift to establish guidelines on the extent of its conceptual disagreement, once again tending to return to the traditional selflegitimating allegation of the existence of diverse perspectives or angles of analysis, with its own representing nothing more than another to juxtapose over, rather than contradict, economics.

NES is above all based upon the idea, certainly reasonable while also openly doctrinal and simultaneously somewhat vague, of a "middle-of-the-road" or a "third way" between the utilitarian behaviour of the "rational actor" of mainstream economics ― and RCT, its sociological corollary ― and the cultural determinism of Parsonianism (cf. Marques, 2003). Returning to questions of order generally associated with the studies of Mark Granovetter, who may be said to have indeed founded NES: do agents operate within "pure" environments? No, they are intensely embedded in social networks (Granovetter, 1973, 1983, 1985). Hence, it is neither accurate to suppose a "rational actor" proceeding in a "market" that is in turn completely disembedded from the rest of social existence nor to go to the opposite extreme and assume the "cultural dopes*"* corresponding to the "cultural determinism" of Parsonian tradition. In attempting to derive a methodologically *juste milieu* 

Furthermore, just what do expressions like "sociological frames of reference" or "sociological perspective" actually mean? Is the objective here to return to the Parsonian idea of the study of "ultimate ends"? The authors do not propose any such clarification, limiting themselves to referring, based upon earlier work by Smelser, "(…) the sociological perspectives of personal interaction, groups, social structures (institutions), and social controls (among which sanctions, norms, and values are central). Given recent developments in sociology as a whole and economic sociology in particular, we would specify that the particular perspectives of social networks, gender and cultural context have also become central in economic sociology (...). In addition, the international dimension of economic life has assumed greater salience among economic sociologists, at the same time as that dimension has come to penetrate the actual economies of the contemporary world" (Smelser & Swedberg, 1994b: 3). The 2005 edition, it should be emphasised, retains this definition *ipsis verbis*. This is, as is noted, a definition based upon highly evasive generic formulas, meanwhile prudently opting for the method of merging them into an *open list*  regime: economic sociology is, in fair truth, whatever proves convenient to recognise as such

These difficulties, however, really derive from well before, with the *Handbook* editors welcoming them in and doing their best to appease them ― and the admission of a broad plurality of approaches, irrespective of the reasons underlying, is no doubt to be recognised as something to be welcomed ― without nevertheless attempting to resolve it. We would furthermore highlight how, based upon 1) the "departmentalised" notion of the Comtean social type of the last turn of the century; substituting this by 2) the idea of the young Parsons of the existence of diverse groups of variables according to different academic fields but reporting on a single reality; before moving onto 3) the notions of later Parsons of a sociology interested *in everything*, overarching (supposedly interpreting and transcending it) an economics confined to a limited group of aspects, we would finally now seem to return to 4) a discreet affirmation of the existence of a plurality of diverse perspectives, each corresponding to a different academic field (hence, fundamentally the perspective of Parsons in the 1930s). This affirmation of plurality is nevertheless complemented by the idea of there being a distinctly economic "sector" to the social (the Comtean idea), and also by the additional conception that a sociological perspective might, in some cases, lead to direct confrontation, indeed correction and perfection of theoretical outputs of the academic

It does not meanwhile seem to take a particularly suspicious outlook to begin to mistrust, beyond these rather loose and oscillating allegations, somewhat underlying them, a concern for institutional legitimating: an issue less bound up with strict rationality and perhaps more the subject matter of sociology of science in its proper sense; or in the sense given by Charles Camic when referring to the struggle for academic recognition experienced by the young Parsons and the logic of "selecting predecessors" ― less on the grounds of the appropriateness of contents but rather out of concerns to bask in shared glories and recognised prestige ― that obviously presided over his conduct throughout this period (cf.

This suspicion only deepens on observing how much of the corresponding literature for divulgation and institutionalisation deliberately deals with building up a typical family portrait in which, based upon the immensely diverse and even broadly contrary theoretical

to the extent that time passes by...

economic science.

Camic, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992; Graça 2008b: 471).

between "individualist" and "holistic" currents, Granovetter also highlights that, contrary to the classical opinion of Karl Polanyi, the process of economic "disembeddedness" or "deincrustation" vis-à-vis society in general should in fact be considered a far from complete process. This methodological "third way" thus assumes the decisional framing of social actors, that is, rationality is exerted within a specific institutional or cultural environment that simultaneously supports and conditions actions. Indeed, NES methodological discourse, in suggesting an institutional framework for decisions, significantly converges with recurrent (and nowadays fashionable) sociological themes such as "reflexivity" and "agency".

As the defining characteristics of NES, we thereby attain: a) an open challenge to official economics in terms of disputing the validity of its core arguments and the research results produced by, and thus differing from the Parsonian prescriptive tradition; b) the halfway position proclaimed between "methodological individualism" and the sociological "holisms" of a cultural tendency; c) an undeniable imprecision about its scope and range in all matters intended to be more than a generic notion of as a tendency being in an (in)disciplinary region, "between economics and sociology", a no-man's land thus susceptible to transformation into an every-man's land within which all transactions ― and therefore also contraband ― would thus prove feasible (see also Granovetter 1987, 1990; Granovetter & Swedberg, Eds., 2001).

Meanwhile, and beyond more limited definitions of NES as a "school", in which is perhaps the most crucial step concerning the academic recasting of economic sociology, Neil Smelser and Richard Swedberg dare defining it as the study of economic facts from the perspective and within the scope of the sociological framework. In fact, that is the title of the introduction to the first edition of the 1994 handbook: *The Sociological Perspective on the Economy* (Smelser & Swedberg, 1994b: 3). This line of argument continues in the body of the text, setting out the purpose of generating a "sociological perspective applied to economic phenomena"; or furthermore, and more elaborately expressed as the "application of frames of reference, variables and explanatory models of sociology to that complex of activities concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of scarce goods and services" (ibid.: 3). This is, nevertheless, merely an apparently simple definition that in fact elicits diverse problems.

Firstly, just what does the expression "economic phenomena" actually mean? Should we trawl the manuals, whether for economics or for sociology, we soon run into multiple circular and ambivalent definitions. However, in this case the most relevant aspect is that the definition put forward by Smelser & Swedberg does seem to indicate a return to a "substantivist" attitude, characteristic of a pre-Parsonian period. It is true that economic sociology now differentiates itself from economics out of a question of perspective but this does not rule out, please note, and actually assumes the existence of the economy as something distinct that *is there*, objectively speaking. This is indeed somewhat comparable to the aforementioned "facts of nutrition" of Comtean certainty, now "that complex of activities concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of scarce goods and services". However, and as we saw, it was, above all, against this conception of the economy as a "department" distinct to social reality, supposedly relative to business, at which Parsons (1934: 530) tilted with such vehemence in his 1930s writings.

between "individualist" and "holistic" currents, Granovetter also highlights that, contrary to the classical opinion of Karl Polanyi, the process of economic "disembeddedness" or "deincrustation" vis-à-vis society in general should in fact be considered a far from complete process. This methodological "third way" thus assumes the decisional framing of social actors, that is, rationality is exerted within a specific institutional or cultural environment that simultaneously supports and conditions actions. Indeed, NES methodological discourse, in suggesting an institutional framework for decisions, significantly converges with recurrent (and nowadays fashionable) sociological themes such as "reflexivity" and

As the defining characteristics of NES, we thereby attain: a) an open challenge to official economics in terms of disputing the validity of its core arguments and the research results produced by, and thus differing from the Parsonian prescriptive tradition; b) the halfway position proclaimed between "methodological individualism" and the sociological "holisms" of a cultural tendency; c) an undeniable imprecision about its scope and range in all matters intended to be more than a generic notion of as a tendency being in an (in)disciplinary region, "between economics and sociology", a no-man's land thus susceptible to transformation into an every-man's land within which all transactions ― and therefore also contraband ― would thus prove feasible (see also Granovetter 1987, 1990;

Meanwhile, and beyond more limited definitions of NES as a "school", in which is perhaps the most crucial step concerning the academic recasting of economic sociology, Neil Smelser and Richard Swedberg dare defining it as the study of economic facts from the perspective and within the scope of the sociological framework. In fact, that is the title of the introduction to the first edition of the 1994 handbook: *The Sociological Perspective on the Economy* (Smelser & Swedberg, 1994b: 3). This line of argument continues in the body of the text, setting out the purpose of generating a "sociological perspective applied to economic phenomena"; or furthermore, and more elaborately expressed as the "application of frames of reference, variables and explanatory models of sociology to that complex of activities concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of scarce goods and services" (ibid.: 3). This is, nevertheless, merely an apparently simple definition that in

Firstly, just what does the expression "economic phenomena" actually mean? Should we trawl the manuals, whether for economics or for sociology, we soon run into multiple circular and ambivalent definitions. However, in this case the most relevant aspect is that the definition put forward by Smelser & Swedberg does seem to indicate a return to a "substantivist" attitude, characteristic of a pre-Parsonian period. It is true that economic sociology now differentiates itself from economics out of a question of perspective but this does not rule out, please note, and actually assumes the existence of the economy as something distinct that *is there*, objectively speaking. This is indeed somewhat comparable to the aforementioned "facts of nutrition" of Comtean certainty, now "that complex of activities concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of scarce goods and services". However, and as we saw, it was, above all, against this conception of the economy as a "department" distinct to social reality, supposedly relative to business, at

which Parsons (1934: 530) tilted with such vehemence in his 1930s writings.

"agency".

Granovetter & Swedberg, Eds., 2001).

fact elicits diverse problems.

Furthermore, just what do expressions like "sociological frames of reference" or "sociological perspective" actually mean? Is the objective here to return to the Parsonian idea of the study of "ultimate ends"? The authors do not propose any such clarification, limiting themselves to referring, based upon earlier work by Smelser, "(…) the sociological perspectives of personal interaction, groups, social structures (institutions), and social controls (among which sanctions, norms, and values are central). Given recent developments in sociology as a whole and economic sociology in particular, we would specify that the particular perspectives of social networks, gender and cultural context have also become central in economic sociology (...). In addition, the international dimension of economic life has assumed greater salience among economic sociologists, at the same time as that dimension has come to penetrate the actual economies of the contemporary world" (Smelser & Swedberg, 1994b: 3). The 2005 edition, it should be emphasised, retains this definition *ipsis verbis*. This is, as is noted, a definition based upon highly evasive generic formulas, meanwhile prudently opting for the method of merging them into an *open list*  regime: economic sociology is, in fair truth, whatever proves convenient to recognise as such to the extent that time passes by...

These difficulties, however, really derive from well before, with the *Handbook* editors welcoming them in and doing their best to appease them ― and the admission of a broad plurality of approaches, irrespective of the reasons underlying, is no doubt to be recognised as something to be welcomed ― without nevertheless attempting to resolve it. We would furthermore highlight how, based upon 1) the "departmentalised" notion of the Comtean social type of the last turn of the century; substituting this by 2) the idea of the young Parsons of the existence of diverse groups of variables according to different academic fields but reporting on a single reality; before moving onto 3) the notions of later Parsons of a sociology interested *in everything*, overarching (supposedly interpreting and transcending it) an economics confined to a limited group of aspects, we would finally now seem to return to 4) a discreet affirmation of the existence of a plurality of diverse perspectives, each corresponding to a different academic field (hence, fundamentally the perspective of Parsons in the 1930s). This affirmation of plurality is nevertheless complemented by the idea of there being a distinctly economic "sector" to the social (the Comtean idea), and also by the additional conception that a sociological perspective might, in some cases, lead to direct confrontation, indeed correction and perfection of theoretical outputs of the academic economic science.

It does not meanwhile seem to take a particularly suspicious outlook to begin to mistrust, beyond these rather loose and oscillating allegations, somewhat underlying them, a concern for institutional legitimating: an issue less bound up with strict rationality and perhaps more the subject matter of sociology of science in its proper sense; or in the sense given by Charles Camic when referring to the struggle for academic recognition experienced by the young Parsons and the logic of "selecting predecessors" ― less on the grounds of the appropriateness of contents but rather out of concerns to bask in shared glories and recognised prestige ― that obviously presided over his conduct throughout this period (cf. Camic, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992; Graça 2008b: 471).

This suspicion only deepens on observing how much of the corresponding literature for divulgation and institutionalisation deliberately deals with building up a typical family portrait in which, based upon the immensely diverse and even broadly contrary theoretical

an interspersing of diverse local orders that mostly evokes models of the so-called "imperfect competition". We should also mention the works of Søren Jagd, that broadly deal with a dialogue or interface between NES and the so-called "economy of conventions", and which indeed have various points of contact with the models mentioned just above, as it happens also with Patrik Aspers and his work on fashion and "aesthetic markets" (2001b, 2011; see also Beckert & Aspers, Eds., 2011), in which is highlighted the notion of "social markets" as social structures that reproduce themselves: companies operating in cliques and actors oriented through a performance of roles that largely occurs through the imitation of others. On a different ground, mention should also be made to the works of Bruce Carruthers and others (1998, 1999, 2000a, 2000b) on the interactions between legal systems and attitudes vis-à-vis financial markets, or rather ― and together with those of Mitchel

However, the list of authors and works is in practice endless (and therefore the mentions made ought to be taken as merely indicative or suggestive, and necessarily numberless omissions disregarded). At least, to the extent the hypothesis is accepted that the characterisation or otherwise of various types of works as economic sociology depends mostly on the fact of whether the respective protagonists do or do not consider themselves actual sociologists (and of course being recognised as such by other members of the network). And perhaps a feature that the field has recently so very frequently insisted upon, that of "performativity," may be superlatively applied to precisely economic sociology? That is something to consider in case we think about, for example, the works of Garcia-Parpet (1986) or those of Donald Mackenzie (2006), indeed, by academic background an economist turned anthropologist and a mathematician concerned about the political usage of statistics, respectively. Do these works on "performative" aspects in the economic life amount to economic sociology and in particular to "new economic sociology"? The only aspect that would seem clear is that, should they be considered as such, should the bundle of social interactions subsequently elicited be confirmed through collective recognition of

Some distinct features of NES outputs, still, deserve both explicit reference and highlighting. One of them is of course the abundance of "borderline" or interdisciplinary studies, such as with the works of Benjamin Nelson (1969), Nicole Woolsey Biggart (2001, 2002) and Philippe Steiner (1995, 1999), clearly in interfaces of sociology with anthropology, historiography and other academically recognized disciplines, in fact sometimes classified as "historical sociology", "history of economic thought" or some other denomination. Another trait, although indeed comparatively a minor one, is the tendency for the consolidation of something like "national" economic sociology currents or trends, such as is the case with authors like Arnaldo Bagnasco (1977, 1988, 1993), Carlo Trigilia (1998), Enzo Mingione (1991, 1997, 1999) and Filippo Barbera (2000) being susceptible of being taken en bloc as an

Another feature, and definitely a very relevant one, is the importance acquired by the concepts of confidence, social capital and social networks attested to by the proliferation of works around such concepts. As regards networks, mention should be made of the works of Ronald Burt (1982, 1992, 2000) and of Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004), irrespective of their official academic labels ― and indeed notwithstanding the fact that they are usually not considered sociologists. The distinction between "strong

Abolafia (1997) ― on the interfaces of finance, law and morals.

these assumptions, in that case, well…

"Italian school" or something akin.

legacies (Durkheim versus Weber, Marx contra Pareto, etcetera), seeks to advance some supposed coherence to the sociological *métier* as a whole. We should note that this problem is clearly far from being a monopoly exclusive to the economic variant of sociology, despite the questions raised by the illustrious forefathers that this obviously tends to elect as its own merely adding them to the general pantheon (Karl Polanyi is perhaps the most famous author to undergo this operation). However, the logical problems still remain, even if the field does not get belittled or rendered lesser than its peers1.

Taken in contrast with factual reality, these compositions are easily interpretable as rationalisations and exorcisms. In truth, NES seems destined to hold onto a characteristic feature consisting ― somewhat paradoxically given it supposedly approaches a disciplinary field far narrower than general sociology ― of its fragmentary character, the extreme diversity of projects and the methodologies defining them and even of the questions they seek to respond to. As we saw with Granovetter, economic actors are not engaged in "pure" environments but are instead intensely embedded in social networks. However, we also have, within the official scope of NES, the researches of Neil Fligstein (1990, 1996, 2000, 2001) relative to "political" elements in the conduct of the aforementioned economic actors; "political" being understood both in a very limited sense, but also in its broadest sense as some "strategic rationality" and the production of worldviews supported by the duality of friends-foes, far more than the simple "parametric rationality" fashionable to classical homo economicus: hence "interlocking directorates". Furthermore and for example, there are the sophisticated elaborations of Viviana Zelizer (1893, 1989, 1994, 1997), who underwrites the moral inhibitions that have to be surmounted, or the cultural traits that must be reprocessed in order for the development of life insurances to be made possible; and who on the one hand attempts to detect economic calculus where it is supposed to be absent (how can you put a price on a "priceless" child?), and on the other highlights the atypical or non-canonical character of countless and highly diversified officially economic behaviours, when there are affective elements and/or value frameworks that end up determining apparently disconcerting attitudes, such as symbolically "ear-marking" diverse monies and preventing them from communicating or being mutually transacted.

An analogous approach in certain aspects, and susceptible to being placed in parallel with the diverse heterodox currents of economic science, we find in many authors traditionally signposted as belonging to NES, such as Paul DiMaggio and his known emphasis on the cultural aspects associated with the embeddedness of economic life. And also, if we follow the trail of Harrison White (1981, 1993, 2001), on the "isomorphism" traits detectable across various levels of social conduct, buyers and sellers choosing niches and seeking more than mere adjustment to the competition, markets being thereby displaced from the model of universal auction house with market-clearing prices, and instead corresponding more with

<sup>1</sup> As to the setting out of lists of landmark contributors to economic sociology, cf. Smelser & Swedberg, 1994b and 2005b; Aspers, 1999 and 2001a; Zafirovski, 2001. For sociology in general, see the usual galleries of egregious predecessors, forced – for better or worse – into consensus, in the style of Aron, 1991; Bourdieu et al., 1998; Giddens, 1976 and 1998. See also, how truly emblematic, the justification provided by Jeffrey Alexander, 1988, is on the insistence of the supposed importance of the "sociologic pantheon". As regards analogous efforts, relating to the intended importance of the canon in the history of economic thought, and later inciting the production of an assumedly hagiographic group memory, see also Rosner, 2000.

legacies (Durkheim versus Weber, Marx contra Pareto, etcetera), seeks to advance some supposed coherence to the sociological *métier* as a whole. We should note that this problem is clearly far from being a monopoly exclusive to the economic variant of sociology, despite the questions raised by the illustrious forefathers that this obviously tends to elect as its own merely adding them to the general pantheon (Karl Polanyi is perhaps the most famous author to undergo this operation). However, the logical problems still remain, even if the

Taken in contrast with factual reality, these compositions are easily interpretable as rationalisations and exorcisms. In truth, NES seems destined to hold onto a characteristic feature consisting ― somewhat paradoxically given it supposedly approaches a disciplinary field far narrower than general sociology ― of its fragmentary character, the extreme diversity of projects and the methodologies defining them and even of the questions they seek to respond to. As we saw with Granovetter, economic actors are not engaged in "pure" environments but are instead intensely embedded in social networks. However, we also have, within the official scope of NES, the researches of Neil Fligstein (1990, 1996, 2000, 2001) relative to "political" elements in the conduct of the aforementioned economic actors; "political" being understood both in a very limited sense, but also in its broadest sense as some "strategic rationality" and the production of worldviews supported by the duality of friends-foes, far more than the simple "parametric rationality" fashionable to classical homo economicus: hence "interlocking directorates". Furthermore and for example, there are the sophisticated elaborations of Viviana Zelizer (1893, 1989, 1994, 1997), who underwrites the moral inhibitions that have to be surmounted, or the cultural traits that must be reprocessed in order for the development of life insurances to be made possible; and who on the one hand attempts to detect economic calculus where it is supposed to be absent (how can you put a price on a "priceless" child?), and on the other highlights the atypical or non-canonical character of countless and highly diversified officially economic behaviours, when there are affective elements and/or value frameworks that end up determining apparently disconcerting attitudes, such as symbolically "ear-marking" diverse monies and preventing

An analogous approach in certain aspects, and susceptible to being placed in parallel with the diverse heterodox currents of economic science, we find in many authors traditionally signposted as belonging to NES, such as Paul DiMaggio and his known emphasis on the cultural aspects associated with the embeddedness of economic life. And also, if we follow the trail of Harrison White (1981, 1993, 2001), on the "isomorphism" traits detectable across various levels of social conduct, buyers and sellers choosing niches and seeking more than mere adjustment to the competition, markets being thereby displaced from the model of universal auction house with market-clearing prices, and instead corresponding more with

1 As to the setting out of lists of landmark contributors to economic sociology, cf. Smelser & Swedberg, 1994b and 2005b; Aspers, 1999 and 2001a; Zafirovski, 2001. For sociology in general, see the usual galleries of egregious predecessors, forced – for better or worse – into consensus, in the style of Aron, 1991; Bourdieu et al., 1998; Giddens, 1976 and 1998. See also, how truly emblematic, the justification provided by Jeffrey Alexander, 1988, is on the insistence of the supposed importance of the "sociologic pantheon". As regards analogous efforts, relating to the intended importance of the canon in the history of economic thought, and later inciting the production of an assumedly hagiographic group memory,

field does not get belittled or rendered lesser than its peers1.

them from communicating or being mutually transacted.

see also Rosner, 2000.

an interspersing of diverse local orders that mostly evokes models of the so-called "imperfect competition". We should also mention the works of Søren Jagd, that broadly deal with a dialogue or interface between NES and the so-called "economy of conventions", and which indeed have various points of contact with the models mentioned just above, as it happens also with Patrik Aspers and his work on fashion and "aesthetic markets" (2001b, 2011; see also Beckert & Aspers, Eds., 2011), in which is highlighted the notion of "social markets" as social structures that reproduce themselves: companies operating in cliques and actors oriented through a performance of roles that largely occurs through the imitation of others. On a different ground, mention should also be made to the works of Bruce Carruthers and others (1998, 1999, 2000a, 2000b) on the interactions between legal systems and attitudes vis-à-vis financial markets, or rather ― and together with those of Mitchel Abolafia (1997) ― on the interfaces of finance, law and morals.

However, the list of authors and works is in practice endless (and therefore the mentions made ought to be taken as merely indicative or suggestive, and necessarily numberless omissions disregarded). At least, to the extent the hypothesis is accepted that the characterisation or otherwise of various types of works as economic sociology depends mostly on the fact of whether the respective protagonists do or do not consider themselves actual sociologists (and of course being recognised as such by other members of the network). And perhaps a feature that the field has recently so very frequently insisted upon, that of "performativity," may be superlatively applied to precisely economic sociology? That is something to consider in case we think about, for example, the works of Garcia-Parpet (1986) or those of Donald Mackenzie (2006), indeed, by academic background an economist turned anthropologist and a mathematician concerned about the political usage of statistics, respectively. Do these works on "performative" aspects in the economic life amount to economic sociology and in particular to "new economic sociology"? The only aspect that would seem clear is that, should they be considered as such, should the bundle of social interactions subsequently elicited be confirmed through collective recognition of these assumptions, in that case, well…

Some distinct features of NES outputs, still, deserve both explicit reference and highlighting. One of them is of course the abundance of "borderline" or interdisciplinary studies, such as with the works of Benjamin Nelson (1969), Nicole Woolsey Biggart (2001, 2002) and Philippe Steiner (1995, 1999), clearly in interfaces of sociology with anthropology, historiography and other academically recognized disciplines, in fact sometimes classified as "historical sociology", "history of economic thought" or some other denomination. Another trait, although indeed comparatively a minor one, is the tendency for the consolidation of something like "national" economic sociology currents or trends, such as is the case with authors like Arnaldo Bagnasco (1977, 1988, 1993), Carlo Trigilia (1998), Enzo Mingione (1991, 1997, 1999) and Filippo Barbera (2000) being susceptible of being taken en bloc as an "Italian school" or something akin.

Another feature, and definitely a very relevant one, is the importance acquired by the concepts of confidence, social capital and social networks attested to by the proliferation of works around such concepts. As regards networks, mention should be made of the works of Ronald Burt (1982, 1992, 2000) and of Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004), irrespective of their official academic labels ― and indeed notwithstanding the fact that they are usually not considered sociologists. The distinction between "strong

the generality of social sciences was initially drafted. Rather than the daily, the banal and the repetitive, supposedly unattractive ― but which the "moral sciences" of late 18th and 19th centuries (or corresponding to the social sciences project as such, sociology and political economy alike) had perceived as the "silent motor" of social evolution and the central object of the attention of new wisdom ― we thus seem to be approximating the cult of the exceptional, of prowess, of extravagance and generically of counter-intuitive and paradoxical effects, traditionally the object of historiography, which had slowly opened the way to its successors to the extent that it had become *raisonée*, that is to say,

And how to avoid, in such a case, the objection that economic sociology, seeking to flee the "positivity" of mainstream economics, ended up purely and simply falling into the arms of the traditional worship of *res gestae*? Does this truly represent its fundamental tendency? Once assumed the "escape route" out of official economics, does the inevitable destiny consist of dissolution into the traditional historiography of the *événementiel*? Notice should be taken, however, that according to Paul Veyne (1984) both historiography and the group of studies that are labelled as sociology may indeed largely oscillate between intellectual enterprises acknowledged to aim at the *événementiel* and others officially more "generalizing" in scope, still without the foundations for the separation between the two academic fields being more than a mere convention that for the sake of the pursuit of

Furthermore, and on gentler reflection, we ought to recognize that the problems of the disciplinary boundaries in effect are perhaps of relatively small importance. Clearly, at least partially, the viability of NES might also be referred to in terms of its own inclination towards trans-disciplinarity, where not actually stating *in*disciplinarity, endowed or suggested by a certain social de-differentiation (in this case academic de-differentiation) that some assumed to be one of the characterising traits of post-modernity (cf. Anderson, 1998). The issue here is nevertheless far from being handed over to the cult of the transient that is commonly associated with theories stemming from the aforementioned post-modernity. Perhaps NES, independent of its limitations and inhibitions, represents a project to be welcomed above all because it remains open, with nothing or almost nothing excluded from the outset; for its expressing that opportunity for an enriching "synthesis" of the diverse "memetic" heritages which is much likely the basic condition for vitality. Indeed and as it was already noticed (see Hodgson 1997, Graça 2005), whereas at the level of biological realities convergences are only possible in terms of phenotypes, since within the material of genotypes inherently emerges an indefinitely diversifying and distancing logic that is particular to the very idea of "tree of life", with cultural realities, implicit and given the fundamental lack of distinction between genotype and phenotype in matters of "memetic" transmission, the effective in-depth mergers become possible. And thus seems to prove for evolution rather than the metaphor of the tree ― based upon unity and leading to irreversible displacement ― the one of the labyrinth ― in which displacements and re-

And just what subject demonstrates a better vocation for evolution in (and through) the labyrinth than exactly the one which carries out the analysis of social networks as one of its

mostly a detector and an indicator of trends.

knowledge would probably rather be suppressed than sustained.

approximations are both indefinitely possible, though not necessary.

principal themes, where not its very own theme par excellence?

ties" and "weak ties", crucial to the studies of Granovetter, appears here somewhat reformulated and referring to the concepts of "social entrepreneur" or "gatekeeper", with the importance of what is termed "strong reciprocity" underlined and associated to the cocalled "small-world networks" (cf. the works of Bowles & Gintis, Burt, and also Mendes 2004).

Regarding confidence and social capital, mentions must be made to the crucial contribution of Partha Dasgupta (1988) and, as a sociological epitome, the work of Sztompka (1999). A particularly interesting vein of this group of investigations seems to be the one associated with migrations, concerning which the name of Alejandro Portes (1993, 1995, 1996) has to be referred, among other things out of having precisely noticed the multiplicity of effects, and indeed possible "downsides" correspondent to "social capital". The generality of subsequent works within the field is prone to surround the specificities of the diverse processes of economic development, and indeed to a large extent fall within the scope of "culturalist" studies that once and again tend to elaborate on "our" success mostly out of opposition to "their" failure, and thereby also tend to proclaim an explanation based upon the supposed singularity of "our" culture. Proliferating in an "Atlantist" context marked by the spirit of the so-called "clash of civilizations", it is understandable that much of the "social capital" sociological literature has basically really enabled an endless "blaming the victims", as has already been defined by a range of commentators on the problematic dimensions to economic transitions, and particularly development processes (cf. Joseph Stiglitz 1994, 2003), but which in these cases, under the form of a sociological proclamation, assumes undoubtedly more sophisticated forms and wrapped up in the "culturalist" ways of approach: if "they" have not prospered or do not prosper, the "problem" and the "fault" must clearly be "theirs", given they are obviously "primitive"... or better still, they lack a "culture" inducing "social capital" or enough "confidence", so that… In fact, and should we consider the non-surmountable analytical difficulties involved in accurately measuring "social capital" and "confidence" (Dasgupta 1988), otherwise associated with huge imprecision of their content and the boundless variety of the circumstances in which these formulas are invoked (Koniordos 2005), we clearly now approach a highly treacherous analytical terrain within which tautological truths tend to predominate, rather in the fashion of the celebrated parable about the *virtus dormitiva* of opium (cf. Graça 2009).

One last (but not least) feature directly approaches the inherent conditions of sociology. Seeking to characterise the NES associated projects through the detection of their basic unity, in addition to highlighting (following Granovetter) their methodological postulates of a "middle way", Rafael Marques (2003) points to the alleged fundamental of what constitutes it: more than a science of unique or unrepeatable economic realities ― in the fashion of some "ideographic" cult of uniqueness, in the Weberian tradition ― or a practice of capturing the bundle of meanings and feelings inherently associated ― in taking up a "comprehensive" attitude corresponding to the same tradition ― what truly defines NES is an approach to economic realities that highlights the aspects stemming from the rare, the counter-intuitive and the extravagant.

We may, in fact, to a large extent state that economic sociology is conceived here as something like a "weird economics", a science of apparently paradoxical and aberrant facts. And here the central epistemological question thus becomes whether we truly approach the antipodes of the model of the "science of moral facts", according to which

ties" and "weak ties", crucial to the studies of Granovetter, appears here somewhat reformulated and referring to the concepts of "social entrepreneur" or "gatekeeper", with the importance of what is termed "strong reciprocity" underlined and associated to the cocalled "small-world networks" (cf. the works of Bowles & Gintis, Burt, and also Mendes

Regarding confidence and social capital, mentions must be made to the crucial contribution of Partha Dasgupta (1988) and, as a sociological epitome, the work of Sztompka (1999). A particularly interesting vein of this group of investigations seems to be the one associated with migrations, concerning which the name of Alejandro Portes (1993, 1995, 1996) has to be referred, among other things out of having precisely noticed the multiplicity of effects, and indeed possible "downsides" correspondent to "social capital". The generality of subsequent works within the field is prone to surround the specificities of the diverse processes of economic development, and indeed to a large extent fall within the scope of "culturalist" studies that once and again tend to elaborate on "our" success mostly out of opposition to "their" failure, and thereby also tend to proclaim an explanation based upon the supposed singularity of "our" culture. Proliferating in an "Atlantist" context marked by the spirit of the so-called "clash of civilizations", it is understandable that much of the "social capital" sociological literature has basically really enabled an endless "blaming the victims", as has already been defined by a range of commentators on the problematic dimensions to economic transitions, and particularly development processes (cf. Joseph Stiglitz 1994, 2003), but which in these cases, under the form of a sociological proclamation, assumes undoubtedly more sophisticated forms and wrapped up in the "culturalist" ways of approach: if "they" have not prospered or do not prosper, the "problem" and the "fault" must clearly be "theirs", given they are obviously "primitive"... or better still, they lack a "culture" inducing "social capital" or enough "confidence", so that… In fact, and should we consider the non-surmountable analytical difficulties involved in accurately measuring "social capital" and "confidence" (Dasgupta 1988), otherwise associated with huge imprecision of their content and the boundless variety of the circumstances in which these formulas are invoked (Koniordos 2005), we clearly now approach a highly treacherous analytical terrain within which tautological truths tend to predominate, rather in the fashion

of the celebrated parable about the *virtus dormitiva* of opium (cf. Graça 2009).

counter-intuitive and the extravagant.

One last (but not least) feature directly approaches the inherent conditions of sociology. Seeking to characterise the NES associated projects through the detection of their basic unity, in addition to highlighting (following Granovetter) their methodological postulates of a "middle way", Rafael Marques (2003) points to the alleged fundamental of what constitutes it: more than a science of unique or unrepeatable economic realities ― in the fashion of some "ideographic" cult of uniqueness, in the Weberian tradition ― or a practice of capturing the bundle of meanings and feelings inherently associated ― in taking up a "comprehensive" attitude corresponding to the same tradition ― what truly defines NES is an approach to economic realities that highlights the aspects stemming from the rare, the

We may, in fact, to a large extent state that economic sociology is conceived here as something like a "weird economics", a science of apparently paradoxical and aberrant facts. And here the central epistemological question thus becomes whether we truly approach the antipodes of the model of the "science of moral facts", according to which

2004).

the generality of social sciences was initially drafted. Rather than the daily, the banal and the repetitive, supposedly unattractive ― but which the "moral sciences" of late 18th and 19th centuries (or corresponding to the social sciences project as such, sociology and political economy alike) had perceived as the "silent motor" of social evolution and the central object of the attention of new wisdom ― we thus seem to be approximating the cult of the exceptional, of prowess, of extravagance and generically of counter-intuitive and paradoxical effects, traditionally the object of historiography, which had slowly opened the way to its successors to the extent that it had become *raisonée*, that is to say, mostly a detector and an indicator of trends.

And how to avoid, in such a case, the objection that economic sociology, seeking to flee the "positivity" of mainstream economics, ended up purely and simply falling into the arms of the traditional worship of *res gestae*? Does this truly represent its fundamental tendency? Once assumed the "escape route" out of official economics, does the inevitable destiny consist of dissolution into the traditional historiography of the *événementiel*? Notice should be taken, however, that according to Paul Veyne (1984) both historiography and the group of studies that are labelled as sociology may indeed largely oscillate between intellectual enterprises acknowledged to aim at the *événementiel* and others officially more "generalizing" in scope, still without the foundations for the separation between the two academic fields being more than a mere convention that for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge would probably rather be suppressed than sustained.

Furthermore, and on gentler reflection, we ought to recognize that the problems of the disciplinary boundaries in effect are perhaps of relatively small importance. Clearly, at least partially, the viability of NES might also be referred to in terms of its own inclination towards trans-disciplinarity, where not actually stating *in*disciplinarity, endowed or suggested by a certain social de-differentiation (in this case academic de-differentiation) that some assumed to be one of the characterising traits of post-modernity (cf. Anderson, 1998). The issue here is nevertheless far from being handed over to the cult of the transient that is commonly associated with theories stemming from the aforementioned post-modernity. Perhaps NES, independent of its limitations and inhibitions, represents a project to be welcomed above all because it remains open, with nothing or almost nothing excluded from the outset; for its expressing that opportunity for an enriching "synthesis" of the diverse "memetic" heritages which is much likely the basic condition for vitality. Indeed and as it was already noticed (see Hodgson 1997, Graça 2005), whereas at the level of biological realities convergences are only possible in terms of phenotypes, since within the material of genotypes inherently emerges an indefinitely diversifying and distancing logic that is particular to the very idea of "tree of life", with cultural realities, implicit and given the fundamental lack of distinction between genotype and phenotype in matters of "memetic" transmission, the effective in-depth mergers become possible. And thus seems to prove for evolution rather than the metaphor of the tree ― based upon unity and leading to irreversible displacement ― the one of the labyrinth ― in which displacements and reapproximations are both indefinitely possible, though not necessary.

And just what subject demonstrates a better vocation for evolution in (and through) the labyrinth than exactly the one which carries out the analysis of social networks as one of its principal themes, where not its very own theme par excellence?

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis (1999), "Is Inequality Passé?", *Boston Review*, 23 (6), pp.

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis (2000), "Walrasian Economics in Retrospect",

http://time.dufe.edu.cn/wencong/gintis/marshall.pdf, last accessed 22nd

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis (2002), "Homo Reciprocans: Altruistic Punishment of

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis (2003), "Persistent Parochialism: Trust and Exclusion in Ethnic Networks," *Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*, 55 (1), pp. 1-23. Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis (2004), "The Evolution of Strong Reciprocity:

Burt, Ronald (1982), *Towards a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure,* 

Burt, Ronald (1992), *Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition*, Cambridge, MA,

Burt, Ronald (2000), The Network Structure of Social Capital, Working Paper, University of

https://www2.bc.edu/~jonescq/mb851/Mar12/Burt%20ROB%202000.pdf, last

Camic, Charles (1987), "The Making of a Method: A Historical Reinterpretation of the Early

Camic, Charles (1989), "Structure after 50 Years: The Anatomy of a Charter", *The American* 

Camic, Charles (1991), "Introduction: Talcott Parsons before *The Structure of Social Action*",

Camic, Charles (1992), "Reputation and Predecessor Selection: Parsons and the

Carruthers, Bruce (1999), *City of Capital: Politics and Markets in the English Financial* 

Carruthers, Bruce, and Wendy Nelson Espeland (1998), "Money, Meaning and Morality",

Carruthers, Bruce, and Brian Uzzi (2000a), "Economic Sociology in the New Millennium",

Carruthers, Bruce & Laura Ariovich (2000b), *Money and Credit: A Sociological Approach*,

Coleman, James (1990), *Foundations of Social Theory*, Cambridge, The Belknap Press of

Coleman, James (1994), "A Rational Choice Perspective on Economic Sociology", in Smelser,

Neil J. & Swedberg, Richard (Orgs.), *The Handbook of Economic Sociology*, Princeton,

Institutionalists", *American Sociological Review*, 57(4), pp. 421–45.

pp. ix–lxix in Talcott Parsons, *The Early Essays*, ed. and introduction by Charles

Chicago and Institute Européen d'Administration d'Affaires:

Parsons", *American Sociological Review*, 52(4), pp. 421-39.

the *Quarterly Journal of Economics*, electronic version:

Free Riders", *Nature*, 415 (10) January, pp. 125-128.

*Perception and Action*, New York, Academic Press.

Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, 01003, for publication in

Cooperation in Heterogeneous Populations", *Theoretical Population Biology*, 61, pp.

4-35.

17-28.

Harvard University Press.

accessed 22nd October 2011.

*Journal of Sociology*, 95 (1), pp. 38-107.

Camic, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

*Revolution,* Princeton, Princeton University Press.

*American Behavioral Scientist*, 41 (10), pp. 384-408.

New Jersey, Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 166-180.

*Contemporary Sociology*, 29, pp. 486-494.

Cambridge, Polity Press.

Harvard University Press.

October 2011.

#### **4. References**

	- 2011; and also http://bostonreview.net/BR23.6/bowles.html, last accessed 22nd October 2011.

Abolafia, Mitchel Y. (1997), *Making Markets: Opportunism and Restraint on Wall Street*,

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1988), "The Centrality of the Classics", in Giddens, Anthony &

Aspers, Patrik (1999), "The Economic Sociology of Alfred Marshall: An Overview", *American* 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_4\_58/ai\_58496753/, last accessed

Aspers, Patrik (2001a), "Crossing the Boundary of Economics and Sociology: The Case of

Aspers, Patrik (2001b), "A Market in Vogue: Fashion Photography in Sweden", *European* 

Beckert, Jens (2006), "Interpenetration versus Embeddedness : The Premature Dismissal of

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_1\_65/ai\_n26848799/, last accessed

Beckert, Jens & Aspers, Patrik (Editors) (2011), *The Worth of Goods, Valuation & Pricing in the* 

Bagnasco, Arnaldo & Trigilia, Carlo (1993), *La Construction Sociale du Marché: Le Défi de la* 

Barbera, Filippo (2000), "Economic Sociology in Italy", *Economic Sociology: European* 

Biggart, Nicole Woolsey (2002), *Readings in Economic Sociology*, Malden/Oxford, Blackwell. Biggart, Nicole Woolsey & Castanias, Richard (2001), "Collateralized Social Relations: The

Boudon, Raymond (1979), *La Logique du Social. Introduction à l'Analyse Sociologique*, Paris,

Bourdieu, Pierre et al. (1998), *Le Métier de Sociologue - Préalables Épistémologiques*, Paris, École

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis (1998), "Is Equality Passé? Homo Reciprocans and the

http://time.dufe.edu.cn/wencong/gintis/isinequa.pdf, last accessed 22nd October

Social in Economic Calculation", *American Journal of Economics and Sociology*, 60 (2),

Future of Egalitarian Politics", Department of Economics, University of

2011; and also http://bostonreview.net/BR23.6/bowles.html, last accessed 22nd

Bagnasco, Arnaldo (1988), *La Costruzione Sociale del Mercato*, Bologna, Il Mulino.

Vilfredo Pareto", *American Journal of Economics and Sociology*, 60 (2), pp. 519-545; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_2\_60/ai\_75451916/, last accessed

Talcott Parsons in the New Economic Sociology", *American Journal of Economics and* 

Turner, Jonathan (Orgs.), *Social Theory Today*, London, Polity Press.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

Anderson, Perry (1998), *The Origins of Postmodernity*, London, Verso. Aron, Raymond (1967), *Les Étapes de la Pensée Sociologique*, Paris, Gallimard.

*Journal of Economics and Sociology*, 58 (4), pp. 651-667;

**4. References** 

22nd October 2011.

22nd October 2011).

22nd October 2011.

pp. 471-500.

Hachette.

October 2011.

*Societies*, 3 (1), pp. 1-22.

*Sociology,* 65 (1), pp. 161-188

*Electronic Newsletter*, 1 (2): 13-18.

Aspers, Patrik (2011), *Markets*, Cambridge, Polity Press.

*Economy*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Bagnasco, Arnaldo (1977), *Tre Italie, Bologna*, Il Mulino.

*Troisième Italie*, Cachan, Éditions de l'Ens-Cachan.

Boudon, Raymond (1977), *Effets Pervers et Ordre Sociale*, Paris, P.U.F.

Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, October 19.

de Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.


Granovetter, Mark (1983) "The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited",

Granovetter, Mark (1985), "Economic Action and Social Structure: the Problem of

Granovetter, Mark (1987), "On Economic Sociology: an Interview with Mark Granovetter", *Research Reports from the Department of Sociology,* Uppsala University, 1, 1-26. Granovetter, Mark (1990), "The Old and the New Economic Sociology: a History and an

Grundmann, Reiner & Stehr, Nico (2001) "Why Is Werner Sombart Not Part of the Core of

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (1994), "The Return of Intitutional Economics", in Smelser, Neil J. &

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (1997), *Economia e Evolução - O Regresso da Vida à Teoria Económica*,

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (1996-2004), "Economic Sociology - Or Econology?", Sociosite: http://www.sociosite.net/topics/econsoc.php, last accessed 22nd October 2011. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (2007), "Economics of Convention and New Economic Sociology - Mutual Inspiration and Dialogue", *Current Sociology*, 55 (1), pp. 75-91. Holmwood, John (2006), "Economics, sociology, and the «professional complex»: Talcott

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_/ai\_n26848798?tag=artBody;col1

Ingham, Geoffrey (1996), "Some Recent Changes in the Relationship Between Economics

Jagd, Søren (2004), "Laurent Thévenot and the French Convention School: A Short

Jagd, Søren (2007), "Economics of Convention and New Economic Sociology: Mutual

Koniordos, Sokratis (2005), *Networks, Trust and Social Capital: Theoretical and Empirical* 

Koslowksi, Peter (Ed.) (1995), *The Theory of Ethical Economy in the Historical School*, Berlin,

Krabbe, J.J. (1996), *Historicism and Organicism in Economics: The Evolution of Thought*,

Laranjo, José Frederico (1997), *Princípios de Economia Política – 1891*, introduction and edition by Carlos Bastien, Lisbon, Banco de Portugal (originally published 1891). Loader, Colin, et al. (1991), "Thorstein Veblen, Werner Sombart and the Periodization of

and Sociology", *Cambridge Journal of Economics*, 20, pp. 243-275.

Inspiration and Dialogue", *Current Sociology*, 55 (1), pp. 75-91.

*Investigations from Europe*, Burlington, VT, Ashgate.

History", *Journal of Economic Issues*, 25 (2), pp. 421–429.

*Rethinking Economy and Society*, New York, Aldine de Gruyter, 89-112. Granovetter, Mark & Swedberg, Richard (Editors) (2001), *The Sociology of Economic Life*,

Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado and Oxford, England.

Jersey, Russell Sage Foundation, (Orgs.), pp. 58-76.

Agenda", in Roger Friedland and A. F. Robertson (Orgs.), *Beyond the Marketplace:*

Classical Sociology? From Fame to (Near) Oblivion", *Journal of Classical Sociology*, 1

Swedberg, Richard (Orgs.), *The Handbook of Economic Sociology*, Princeton, New

Parsons and the critique of orthodox economics", *American Journal of Economics and* 

Introduction", *Economic Sociology European Electronic Newsletter*, 5 (3), pp. 2-9. Electronic version: http://econsoc.mpifg.de/archive/esjune04.pdf, last accessed

Embeddedness", *American Journal of Sociology*, 91 (3), pp. 481-510.

*Sociological Theory*, 1, pp. 201-233.

(2), pp. 257–287.

Oeiras, Celta Editora.

*Sociology*, 65 (1), pp. 127-160:

22nd October 2011.

Kluwer Academic.

Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic.

, last accessed 22nd October 2011.

Dalziel, Paul and Jane Higgins (2006), "Pareto, Parsons and the Boundary between Economics and Sociology", American *Journal of Economics and Sociology*, 65(1), pp. 1- 18,

 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_1\_65/ai\_n26848797/, last accessed 22nd October 2011.


Dalziel, Paul and Jane Higgins (2006), "Pareto, Parsons and the Boundary between

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_1\_65/ai\_n26848797/, last accessed

Dasgupta, Partha (1988), "Trust as a Commodity", in Gambetta, Diego (Editor) (1988), *Trust: Making and Breaking of Cooperative Relations*, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, pp. 49-72. DiMaggio, Paul (1994), "Culture and Economy", in Smelser, Neil J. & Swedberg, Richard

DiMaggio, Paul (Org.) (2001), *The Twentieth-First Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective*, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Fligstein, Neil (1990), *The Transformation of Corporate Control*, Cambridge, Harvard

Fligstein, Neil (1996), "Markets as Politics: a Political-Cultural Approach to Market

Fligstein, Neil (2000), Globalization or Europeanization: Evidence on the European Economy

Garcia, Manuel Emídio (1882), "Divisão interna da sociologia", *O Instituto* (XXX), pp. 9 and

Garcia-Parpet, Marie France (1986), "La Construction Sociale d'un Marché Parfait: Le

Gintis, Herbert (2003), "Towards a Unity of the Human Behavioral Sciences", Santa Fe

Graça, João Carlos (2005), "Afinal, o que é mesmo a «Nova Sociologia Económica»?", *Revista* 

Graça, João Carlos (2008a), "Recepções de Malthus no Portugal de Oitocentos", *Ler História -* 

Graça, João Carlos (2008b), "The Economics-Sociology Divide: the Cost of Parsons as an Academic «Social Entrepreneur»", *Journal of Classical Sociology*, 8 (4), pp. 467-499. Graça, João Carlos (2009), "A Condição da Sociologia Económica Enquanto «Ciência dos

Granovetter, Mark (1973), "The Strength of Weak Ties", *American Journal of Sociology*, 78 (6),

Giddens, Anthony (1976), *Capitalismo e Moderna Teoria Social*, Lisboa, Editorial Presença. Giddens, Anthony (1998), *Política, Sociologia e Teoria Social - Confrontos com o Pensamento* 

Marché aux Cadrans de Fontaines-en-Sologne", *Actes de la Recherche en Sciences* 

Institute Working Paper: http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/03-02-

Factos Morais»: Vários Problemas e Algumas Sugestões", in *Sociologia Econômica e das Finanças: Um Projecto em Construção*, Mondadore, Ana Paula Carletto et alii

Fligstein, Neil (2001), *The Architecture of Markets*, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Gambetta, Diego (Editor) (1988), *Trust: Making and Breaking of Cooperative Relations*, Oxford,

Since 1980, Center for Culture, Organizations and Politics, University of California, Berkeley, working-paper http://repositories.cdlib.org/iir/ccop/wps-2000-04, last

Institutions", *American Sociological Review*, 61 (4): 656-673.

18,

22nd October 2011.

Foundation, pp. 27-57.

accessed 22nd October 2011.

seq., Coimbra, Imprensa da Universidade.

015.pdf, last accessed 22nd October 2011.

*Crítica de Ciências Sociais*, 73, pp. 111–29.

*Social Clássico e Contemporâneo*, Oeiras, Celta Editora.

*Revista de História e Ciências Sociais*, 54, pp. 163-199.

(Org.), EdUFSCar, São Carlos, Brazil, pp. 325-343.

University Press.

Basil Blackwell.

*Sociales*, 65, pp. 2-13.

pp. 1360-1380.

Economics and Sociology", American *Journal of Economics and Sociology*, 65(1), pp. 1-

(Orgs.), *The Handbook of Economic Sociology*, Princeton, New Jersey, Russell Sage


 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_/ai\_n26848798?tag=artBody;col1 , last accessed 22nd October 2011.


Polanyi, Karl (2001), *The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time*,

Portes, Alejandro (1995), "Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Immigration: A

Portes, Alejandro (Org.) (1995), *The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks,* 

Portes, Alejandro & Sensenbrenner, Julia (1993), "Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes

Portes, Alejandro & Landolt, Patricia (1996), "The Downside of Social Capital", *The American* 

Powell, Walter W. & DiMaggio, Paul (1991), *The New Institutionalism in Organizational* 

Psalidopoulos, Michalis (Org.) (2000), *The Canon in the History of Economics*, London and

Ritzer, George (1989), "The Permanently New Economy: The Case for Reviving Economic

Rosner, Peter (2000), "In Defence of a Traditional Canon: a Comparison of Ricardo and

Say, Jean Baptiste (1966) *Cours Complet d'Économie Politique Pratique – Réimpression de l'édition* 

Say, Jean Baptiste (1972) *Traité d'Économie Politique*, préface Georges Tapinos, Paris,

Schmoller, Gustav (1905-8), *Principes d'Économie Politique*, 5 vols., Paris, V. Giard and E.

Schumpeter, Joseph (1986), *History of Economic Analysis*, ed. from ms Elizabeth Boody

Simiand, François (2006), *Critique Sociologique de l'Économie*, Textes présentés par Jean-Christophe Marcel et Philippe Steiner, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Simon, Herbert (1957), *Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational* 

Smelser, Neil J. & Swedberg, Richard (1994), "The Sociological Perspective on the

Smelser, Neil J. & Swedberg, Richard (Org.) (1994), *The Handbook of Economic Sociology*,

Smelser, Neil J. & Swedberg, Richard (Org.) (2005), *The Handbook of Economic Sociology*,

Sombart, Werner (1913), *The Jews and Modern Capitalism*, London, T. Fisher Unwin.

Economy", in Smelser, Neil J. & Swedberg, Richard (Orgs.), *The Handbook of Economic Sociology*, Princeton, New Jersey, Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 3-26. Smelser, Neil J., & Swedberg, Richard (2005), "Introducing Economic Sociology", in Smelser,

Neil J. & Swedberg, Richard (Orgs.), *The Handbook of Economic Sociology*, Princeton,

*de 1852*, 2 vols., Osnabrück, Otto Zeller (originally published 1828).

Schumpeter, London, Allen & Unwin (originally published 1954).

*Human Behavior in a Social Setting*, New York, John Wiley.

New Jersey, Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 3-25.

Princeton, New Jersey, Russell Sage Foundation.

Princeton, New Jersey, Russell Sage Foundation.

Rau", in Psalidopoulos, Michalis (Org.) (2000), *The Canon in the History of Economics*,

*Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship*, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.

Conceptual Overview", in Portes, Alejandro (Org.) (1995), *The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship*, New York, Russell

on the Social Determinants of Economic Action", *American Journal of Sociology*, 98,

Boston, Massachusetts, Beacon Press (originally published 1944).

Sage Foundation, pp. 1-43.

*Prospect*, 26, May-June, pp. 18-21.

London and New York, Routledge.

Calmann-Lévy (originally published 1803).

*Analysis*, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Sociology", *Work and Occupations*, 16 (3), pp. 243-272.

May, pp. 1320-1350.

New York, Routledge.

Brière.


MacKenzie, Donald (2006), *An Engine, not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets*,

Marques, Rafael (2003), "Introdução: Os Trilhos da Nova Sociologia Económica", in Peixoto,

Marshall, Alfred (1964), *Principles of Economics*, London, Macmillan and Co, Ltd. (including

Mendes, R. Vilela (2004), "Network dependence of strong reciprocity", *Advances in Complex* 

Mingione, Enzo (1991), *Fragmented Societies: A Sociology of Economic Life Beyond the Market* 

Mingione, Enzo & Laville, Jean Louis (Orgs.) (1999), "La Nuova Sociologia Economica.

1917", *European Journal of the History of Economic Thought*, 7 (4), pp. 507-531. Nelson, Benjamin (1969), *The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood*,

Parsons, Talcott (1928a), "«Capitalism» in Recent German Literature: Sombart and Weber",

Parsons, Talcott (1928b), "«Capitalism» in Recent German Literature: Sombart and Weber",

Parsons, Talcott (1931), "Wants and Activities in Marshall", *The Quarterly Journal of* 

Parsons, Talcott (1932) "Economics and Sociology: Marshall in Relation to the Thought of

Parsons, Talcott (1934), "Some Reflections on «The Nature and Significance of Economics»",

Parsons, Talcott (1935a), "Sociological Elements of Economic Thought", part I, *The Quarterly* 

Parsons, Talcott (1935b), "Sociological Elements of Economic Thought", part II, *The Quarterly* 

Parsons, Talcott (1961) *The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special* 

Parsons, Talcott (1991), *The Early Essays*, Edited and with an Introduction by Charles Camic,

Parsons, Talcott and Alfred Kroeber (1958) "The Profession: Reports and Opinions",

Parsons, Talcott and Neil J. Smelser (1956) *Economy and Society: A Study in the Integration of* 

Peixoto, João & Rafael Marques (Org.), *A Nova Sociologia Económica*, Oeiras, Celta Editora.

*Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers*, New York, Free Press of Glencoe

*Economic and Social Theory*, London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley, Routledge &

His Time", *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 46 (2), pp. 316–47.

Ethics, Politics and Economics in the Younger German Historical School, 1860–

Mirowski, Philip (1989), *More Heat than Light*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Nau, Heino Heinrich (2000), "Gustav Schmoller's Historico-Ethical Political Economy:

the prefaces of 1898 and 1907; originally published 1890).

second edition, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

part I, *The Journal of Political Economy*, 36 (6), pp. 641-661.

part II, *The Journal of Political Economy*, 37 (1), pp. 31-51

*The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 48 (3), pp. 511–45.

Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press.

*American Sociological Review*, 23 (5), pp. 582–90.

*Journal of Economics*, 49 (3), pp. 414–53.

*Journal of Economics*, 49 (4), pp. 646–67.

(originally published in 1937).

Kegan Paul.

Mingione, Enzo (1997), *Sociologia della Vita Economica*, Roma, Carocci.

Prospettive Europee", *Sociologia del Lavoro*, 73.

João & Rafael Marques (Org.), *A Nova Sociologia Económica*, Oeiras, Celta Editora,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

pp. 1-67.

*Systems* (7), pp. 357-368.

*Paradigm*, Oxford, Blackwell.

*Economics*, 46 (1), pp. 101–40.


Veblen, Thorstein (1990), *The Place of Science in Modern Civilization*, new introduction by

Veblen, Thorstein (1994), *The Theory of the Leisure Class*, Mineola, NY, Dover (originally

Velthuis, Olav (1999), "The Changing Relationship Between Economic Sociology and

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_4\_58/ai\_58496752/, last

Veyne, Paul, 1984, *Writing History, Essay on Epistemology*, translated by Mina Moore-

Walras, Léon (1936), *Études d'Économie Sociale*, Lausanne, F. Rouge et Cie, S. A., Paris, R.

Walras, Léon (1952), *Éléments d'Économie Politique Pure*, Paris, R. Pichon et R. Durand-

White, Harrison (1981), "Where do markets come from?", *American Journal of Sociology*, 87,

White, Harrison (1993), "Markets in Production Networks", in Swedberg, Richard (Org.),

White, Harrison C. (2002), *Markets from Networks: Socioeconomic Models of Production*,

Zafirovski, Milan (1999), "Economic Sociology in Retrospect and Prospect: In Search of its

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_4\_58/ai\_58496751/, last

Zafirovski, Milan (2001), *Exchange, Action and Social Structure, Elements of Economic Sociology*,

Zafirovski, Milan (2005), "The Influence of Sociology in Economics", *Journal of Classical* 

Zafirovski, Milan (2006), "Parsonian Economic Sociology: Bridges to Contemporary Economics", *American Journal of Economics and Sociology*, 65 (1), pp. 75-107, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_1\_65/ai\_n26848796/, last accessed

Zelizer, Viviana A. (1983), *Morals and Markets: The Development of Life Insurance in the United* 

Zelizer, Viviana A. (1989), "The Social Meaning of Money: «Special Moneys»", *American* 

Zelizer, Viviana A. (1994), *Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children*,

Zelizer, Viviana A. (1997), *The Social Meaning of Money: Pin Money, Paychecks, Pay Relief and* 

Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut and London.

*States*, New Brunswick, N. J., Transaction Books.

*Other Currencies*, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

*Journal of Sociology*, 98 (2), pp. 342-377.

Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Williamson, Oliver (1985), *The Economic Institution of Capitalism*, New York, Free Press. Williamson, Oliver (1993), "Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization", *Journal of* 

*Explorations in Economic Sociology*, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 161-175.

Identity Within Economics and Sociology", *American Journal of Economics and* 

Institutional Economics: from Talcott Parsons to Mark Granovetter", *American* 

Rinvolucri, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Connecticut, USA (originally

Warren J. Samuels, New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction.

*Journal of Economics and Sociology*, 58 (4), pp. 629-649,

published 1899).

published 1971).

Auzias.

pp. 517-547.

accessed 22nd October 2011.

Pichon et R. Durand-Auzias.

Princeton, Princeton University Press.

*Law and Economics*, 36, pp. 453-486.

*Sociology*, 58 (4), pp. 583-627,

accessed 22nd October 2011.

*Sociology*, 5 (2), pp. 123-156.

22nd October 2011.


Sombart, Werner (1982), *El Burgués: Introducción a la Historia Espiritual del Hombre Económico* 

Sousa, José Ferreira Marnoco e (1902), *Ciência Económica*, Coimbra, Tipografia França

Sousa, José Ferreira Marnoco e (1997), *Ciência Económica – 1910*, introduction and edition by

Steiner, Philippe (1995), Economic Sociology: A Historic Perspective, *The European Journal of* 

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1994), *Whither Socialism?*, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts

Swedberg, Richard (1987), "Economic Sociology: Past and Present", *Current Sociology*, 35 (1),

Swedberg, Richard (1990a), *Economics and Sociology: Redefining their Boundaries: Conversations with Economists and Sociologists*, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Swedberg, Richard (1990b), "The New «Battle of Methods»", *Challenge*, Jan.-Feb., pp. 33-38. Swedberg, Richard (1994a), "Markets as Social Structures", in Smelser, Neil J. & Swedberg,

Swedberg, Richard (1994b), *Une Histoire de la Sociologie Économique*, Paris, Desclée de

Swedberg, Richard (1996), *Economic Sociology*, Cheltenham, UK and Brookfield, Vermont,

Swedberg, Richard (2000), *Max Weber and the Idea of Economic Sociology*, Princeton, Princeton

Swedberg, Richard (2003), "Economic Sociology Meets the Economics of Conventions",

Swedberg, Richard (2006), "On Teasing out Sociology from Economics: a Brief Note on

Swedberg, Richard (Org.) (1993), *Explorations in Economic Sociology*, New York, Russell Sage

Sztompka, Piotr (1999), *Trust: A Sociological Theory, Cambridge*, Cambridge University Press. Thévenot, Laurent (2004), "The French Convention School and the Coordination of

Trigilia, Carlo (1998), *Sociologia Economica: Stato, Mercato e Società nel Capitalismo Moderno*,

Titmuss, Richard (1997), *The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy*, Original

*Colloque Conventions et Institutions: Approfondissements Théoriques et Contributs au* 

Parsons and Schumpeter", *American Journal of Economics and Sociology*, 65 (1), pp. 71-74, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0254/is\_1\_65/ai\_n26848795/, last

Economic Action, Laurent Thévenot Interviewed by Soren Jagd at the EHESS Paris", *Economic Sociology European Electronic Newsletter*, 5 (3), pp. 10-16. Electronic version: http://econsoc.mpifg.de/archive/esjune04.pdf, last accessed 22nd

Edition with New Chapters edited by Ann Oakley and John Ashton, London, LSE

Richard (Orgs.), *The Handbook of Economic Sociology*, Princeton, New Jersey, Russell

*Moderno*, Madrid, Alianza Editorial (originally published 1913).

Maria de Fátima da Silva Brandão, Lisbon, Banco de Portugal.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2003), *Globalization and its Discontens*, London, Penguin Books.

*the History of Economic Thought*, 2 (1), pp. 175-195. Steiner, Philippe (1999), *La Sociologie Économique*, Paris, La Découverte.

Amado.

pp. 1-221.

Institute of Technology.

Sage Foundation, pp. 255-282.

accessed 22nd October 2011.

USA, Edward Elgar.

University Press".

*Débat Politique*.

Foundation.

October 2011.

Books.

Bologna, Il Mulino.

Brouwer (originally published 1987).


**A Meta-Analysis Framework and Its** 

**Causes to Social Vulnerability** 

Le-Le Zou

*China* 

**Application for Exploring the Driving** 

*Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences,* 

Since 1970s, along with the emerging of concept of complex problems, especially in the fields of environment, socioeconomic, population and sustainable development, there has been more and more studies turned from mathematical modeling or other qualitative methods to qualitative analysis and synthesis. Partly it is because that the studies becomes more and more cross-disciplined, on the other hand, difficulties to quantify them are the reasons. But as yet, little accumulation of the understandings have been gained from these studies. Compared to the considerable amount of attention on quantitative modeling and analysis, the attentions on the qualitative synthesis still keep a relative lack generally.

Along with increasing recognisation on the important implications for both knowledge development and the utilization of qualitative research methods in practice,and along with the explosively growing amount of scientific research, there progressed the integration synthesis method – meta-analysis. Meta-analysis helps to ensure that relevant qualitative studies are not lost in the growing body of research(Evans 2002); also meta-analysis permits those studies to be appraised and their findings to be combined (Jones 2004). More importantly, under the current situation that qualitative research is still falsely characterized as ungeneralizable, when generalization is narrowly conceived in terms of sampling and statistical significance (Sandelowski, Docherty et al. 1997), meta-analysis could achieve greater

Vulnerability to natural hazard is a typical research area of qualitative and multidisciplined. A wealth of empirical case studies on risk and vulnerability has been undertaken at scales ranging from household to global level. The experience in undertaking such assessments is diverse and the findings are highly context and place specific (B. L. Turner, Kasperson et al. 2003). Also, the understanding of the causal structures and dynamics of vulnerability remains patchy and anecdotal despite the advances of vulnerability research in the past two decades (Adger et al., 2005; Kasperson 2006). To-date, very few rigorous comparative studies that aim to synthesise this collective experience have been undertaken. Examples are the work of Misselhorn (2006) in the area of food insecurity in Southern Africa and that of Geist (2004) and Geist and Lambin (2004) in the area of land

generalizability with higher level of abstraction(Estabrooks, Field et al. 1994).

**1. Introduction** 

cover change.

Zelizer, Viviana A. (2005), *The Purchase of Intimacy*, Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press. **7** 
