Parsonian economic sociology : Bridges to contemporary economics

Parsons conceives of economic sociology in terms of a sociological analysis of the economy, including markets, which has become a standard definition of the field (Smelser and Swedberg 1994; Swedberg 2003). In general, his economic sociology is an analysis of the relations between economy and society (as the title of his main work in the field suggests), 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. Curiously, Parsons rarely uses the term economic sociology and seldom explicitly defines its subject and scope, usually defining it by implication. Thus, he implicitly defines economic sociology by reference to its Weberian formulations. For instance, in his introduction (1) to the English translation of (the first volume of) Weber's Economy and Society, Parsons comments that Weberian economic sociology is characterized by "two deep underlying convictions" that differ from the "dominant tone" of orthodox economics: first, the "fundamental variability" of social institutions; second, the "inherent instability" of social structures. In particular, Parsons notes that in (Weberian) economic sociology, the concrete association of economic rationality with--more precisely, its dependence on--"settled routine" social conditions indicates a special link between "institutional patterns, backed by moral sentiments, and the 'self-interest'" (Parsons 1947: 53). His implied case in point is the Weberian historical interconnection or "elective affinity" between the ethic of ascetic Protestantism (Calvinism) and the emergence of the "spirit and structure" of modern capitalism. Like Weber's (and, for that matter, Marx's) early formulation, Parsons's is mostly an economic sociology of modern capitalism, a sociological conception and analysis of the social, notably institutional and cultural, conditions of the capitalist economy. As known, Parsons's first academic work (his doctoral dissertation) is devoted to the "concept of capitalism" (in the German literature, e.g., Marx, Weber, Sombart), which continues to occupy a prominent place in his later works in the field of economic sociology. Thus, in his 1937 magnum opus The Structure of Social Action, referring to Weber's investigation of the "relations of Protestantism and capitalism, " he implies that economic sociology represents an examination of the principal social or noneconomic features of the "modern economic order" or capitalism, also termed "free enterprise" or "economic individualism." These features, inter alia, include an integral system of cultural values, an institutional structure, and an economic-political ideology. Specifically, Parsons remarks that a "single, relatively well-integrated system" of cultural values (or value attitudes) is epitomized in Weber's notion of the spirit of modern capitalism. Moreover, Parsons generalizes and reinforces Weber's connection of Protestantism and capitalism by arguing (also) a la Durkheim that such an integration between cultural values and economic structures, including markets, is "one reason why Marxian [pessimistic] predictions about the 'capitalistic' economy have not materialized" (Parsons and Smelser 1956: 160-161). Also, Parsons emphasizes the institutional structure of modern capitalism, as manifest in what he calls the "institutionalization of self-interest, " a social process that helps explain the observed "acquisitiveness" or "possessive individualism" of capitalist society. He identifies still another social feature of modern capitalist society as an ideological one consisting in the concept of capitalism (just as socialism), deemed an instance of "political and economic ideologies" (Parsons and Shills 1951: 169-170). While Parsons's first two social features of modern capitalism deliberately evoke Weber as well as Durkheim, the third feature is somewhat unwittingly reminiscent of Marx (and Mannheim), thus creating a curious mixture of Weberian-Durkheimian and Marxian elements. …