Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By exploring the implications of the linkage between Knight and Pragmatism, some non-trivial implications can be argued to exist. Specifically, section 2 outlines the T.C.E. literature, and how it exists in an atmosphere mixed with Marshallian competition and Knightian uncertainty. Section 3 then considers the disparate philosophical positions behind the work of Knight and Marshall. Knight's critique of Marshall is seminal, not because of any trivial technical innovations that Knight may have inspired within economic theory, but because Knight grounds his work on a philosophical viewpoint that effectively devastated Hegelian philosophy: American Pragmatism. Section 4 then links together the previous two sections by considering how the T.C.E. literature exhibits a dependency on both Pragmatism and Hegelian philosophy. The non-trivial implications of understanding the T.C.E. literature as a branch of Marshallian economics, which recognises Knightian uncertainty, are developed in section 5. Possible conclusions and a summary of the argument are provided in section 6. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout much of the legal community, the term "economics" evokes memories of undergraduate micro- and macroeconomic courses. At most American colleges and universities, these courses focus almost exclusively on neoclassical economic theory,' which forms the foundation of what is thought of as mainstream economics in the United States. Therefore, it also should not be surprising that law professors and others who come from backgrounds that have been marginalized and oppressed by the policy instruments constructed using neoclassical economic theory, both generally and as it has infiltrated the law and legal thinking, would devote greater effort to interrogating mainstream economic theory, than those who benefit from the ideologically determined distributions of assets, resources, and opportunities that this system achieves.

This article critiques the notion of embededness as a paradigm for economic sociology, suggesting that while the concept proved useful during the subfield's productive first decade and a half, it may now be appropriate to explore the implications of the way the concept has been developed and deployed within economic sociology. The notion of embededness enjoys a privileged and as of yet, largely unchallenged position as the central organizing principle of economic sociology. Indeed, economic sociology stands out among subfields of sociology for its clearly defined research program and internal coherence. The main objective of this essay is to focus on the way in which economic sociology has been shaped by the idea of embededness. The notion of embededness has deflected attention away from important theoretical problems. The relative neglect of the concept of the market in economic sociology is a result of the way in which the notion of embededness has been formulated. In conclusion, this article has suggested that the concept of embededness has contributed to the lack of an adequate theorization of the market in economic sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reconsiders the generalization of neoclassical economics by modern rational choice theory. Hence, it reexamines the possible theoretical grounds or lack thereof within neoclassical economics for economic imperialism implied in much of rational choice theory. Some indicative instances of rational choice theory's generalization of neoclassical economics are reviewed. The main portion of the article addresses the question as to whether neoclassical economics allows its generalization in rational choice theory and thus legitimizes economic imperialism. Presented are a number of pertinent theoretical reasons why neoclassical economics does not fully justify its generalization into rational choice as a general social theory, particularly into an overarching economic approach to social action and society. Also discussed are some theoretical implications of the rational choice generalization of neoclassical economics. The main contribution of the article is to detect lack of a strong theoretical rationale in much of neoclassial economics for rational choice theory's manifest or latent economic imperialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a speech entitled "The Methodology of Economics," by Columbia University Professor Amitai Etzioni at the 9th Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (SASE) International Conference on Socio-Economics in which he discussed neoclassical economics and socio-economics by providing background and critiques of both models.

Provides a framework for integrating economic and sociological theory by reconceptualizing the concept of market failure. Economics and sociology in historical perspective; Neoclassical economics and marginalist revolution.

This article examines the neoclassical theory of economic growth through a comparative historical analysis of social development in Costa Rica and Chile in the post-1930 period. The neoclassical model underestimates the social and political sources of social development. Markets may create a dynamic and expanding economy, but growth will not automatically result in social infrastructure that will advance the social conditions of the majority. It is in this context that working-class mobilization is decisive for social development. As the Costa Rican and Chilean experience shows, a mobilized working-class can advance social development by forcing government actors to implement social policies in the attempt to either weaken the strength of labor or to buy labor's support. In either case, labor fulfills a critical role in establishing the statutory and bureaucratic precedents for advances in social development.

Based on N. Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomic paradigm, this paper reconsiders the neoclassical economic paradigm which endorses continuous global economic growth through stimulated trade. We suggest that, in view of sustainability, it is fundamental to acknowledge: (1) the importance of preserving the identity and integrity of economic systems in different regions of the world through enlarging as much as possible self-sufficiency and equity assessed at national and regional levels; and (2) the importance of including respect for biospheric equilibria as one criterion to be used to regulate world economic activity and trade. We examine differences and similarities of the past and present patterns of ecological degradation. We also present two types of efficiency to assess technological changes and the drive toward unsustainability. Then we discuss an entropy-based theory of North-South trade issues and three points for promotion of sustainability. Finally, we show that the true origin of current ecological crisis lies in a deep change in the perception of the relation between humans and nature that affects the mode of technological development of modern society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]