He has articulated well the sociologist's complaint against imperialist economics. At various points in his book Udehn conveys the sense that economics can successfully explain market behavior because in the market lives selfish economic man. If you were to tell such an economist a story based on Udehn's view that someone is exploiting another in the market, you would have merely invited that economist to think more deeply about the relationship and rewrite the story. The economist's tale of the marketplace is in the end one of seduction, not coercion. If economists in the public choice movement wish to encourage a larger role for markets, I submit they do so because they have studied extensively human behavior in the context of markets and are enamored of the consequences in a way few sociologists are.
Fine art is necessarily less appreciated by the untrained eye.
Economists, by virtue of their understanding of human action in markets, do indeed have privileged insights into nonmarket behavior. Still, when a sociologist mentions, for instance, a norm of rule following in an organization characterized by legitimate authority, this economist cannot help wondering who captures the appropriable quasi-rents in that implicit market. For better or worse, both economists and sociologists tend to be discipline bound. Visa, MasterCard, or AMEX accepted.