Advertisement

One of the most significant developments in modern social science is, without doubt, the expansion of economic analysis beyond the customary boundaries of economics into the domains of other disciplinary fields such as law, history, sociology, and political science, a development often referred to as “economic imperialism” (Tullock, 1972; Radnitzky and Bernholz, 1987; Swedberg, 1990, p. 14; Frey, 1999, p. viii). Public Choice or, as it has also been called, the New Political Economy or Non-Market-Economics has played a prominent role in this development, which has significantly changed the relationship between economics and its scientific neighbors. In contrast to the exclusive focus on the mechanics of market forces and the pronounced tendency towards disciplinary isolation that has characterized neoclassical, mainstream economics, the new political economy has systematically extended the “economic perspective” into areas of inquiry that have traditionally been regarded as the domain of other social sciences.

Public choice theory has had its most visible influence in political science, whereas its impact in sociology has been much weaker. Yet, sociology is at the same time the social science that feels most fundamentally challenged by the new, generalized economics. In sociology, more than in any other social science, ‘‘economic imperialism’’ is perceived as a threat to the field’s disciplinary identity. Why this is so can be better understood if one takes a look at the history of the relation between economics and sociology, the two neighboring social sciences that ‘‘have been estranged from each other far too long’’ (Swedberg, 1990: p. 3).

Keywords

Public Choice Rational Choice Sociological Theory Rational Choice Theory Methodological Individualism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert, H. (1979). ‘‘The economic tradition: Economics as a research program for theoretical social science,’’ in K. Brunner (ed.) Economics and Social Institutions. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 1-27.Google Scholar
  2. Buchanan, J. M. (1972). ‘‘Toward analysis of closed behavioral systems,’’ in J.M. Buchanan and R.D. Tollison (eds.) Theory of Public Choice — Political Applications of Economics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 11-23.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, J. M. (1978). ‘‘From private preferences to public philosophy: The development of public choice,’’ in The Economics of Politics. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, pp. 1-20.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M. (1983). ‘‘The public choice perspective.’’ Economia Delle Scelte Pubbliche 1, 7-15, reprinted in Buchanan 1986, pp. 19-27.Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. M. (1986). Liberty, Market and State: Political Economy in the 1980s. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M. (1987a). ‘‘Constitutional economics.’’ The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Volume 1. London: Macmillan, pp. 585-588.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M. (1987b). ‘‘An individualistic theory of political process,’’ in Economics: Between Predictive Science and Moral Philosophy. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 223-235 (first published in D. Easton, ed., Varieties of Political Theory, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966).Google Scholar
  8. Camic, C. (1979). ‘‘The utilitarians revisited.’’ The American Journal of Sociology, 85, 516-550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coase, R. H. (1994). ‘‘Economics and contiguous disciplines,’’ In R.H. Coase (ed.) On Economics and Economists. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 34-46.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. (1975). ‘‘Social structure and a theory of action,’’ in P.M. Blau (ed.) Approaches to the Study of Social Structure. New York: The Free Press, pp. 76-93.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, J. S. (1986). Individual Interests and Collective Action: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coleman, J. S. (1989). ‘‘Editor’s introduction: Rationality and society.’’ Rationality and Society, 1,5-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Demsetz, H. (1982). Economic, Legal, and Political Dimensions of Competition. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Durkheim, E. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Method. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press (originally published in 1895).Google Scholar
  16. Durkheim, E. (1964a). ‘‘Sociology and its scientific field,’’ in K.H. Wolff (ed.) Essays on Sociology and Philosophy by Emile Durkheim. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 354-375 (originally published in 1900).Google Scholar
  17. Durkheim, E. (1964b). ‘‘Sociology,’’ in K.H. Wolff (ed.) Essays on Sociology and Philosophy by Emile Durkheim. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 376-385 (originally published in 1915).Google Scholar
  18. Durkheim, E. (1978). Emile Durkheim on Institutional Analysis (edited, translated and with an introduction by Mark Traugott). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Frey, B. S. (1999). Economics as a Science of Human Behavior: Towards a New Social Science Paradigm, extended Second Edition. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Giddens, A. (1971). ‘‘The ‘individual’ in the writings of Emile Durkheim.’’ Archives europe´ennes de sociologie, 12, 210-228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Homans, G. C. (1958). ‘‘Social behavior as exchange.’’ The American Journal of Sociology, 62, 597-606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Homans, G. C. (1964). ‘‘Bringing men back in.’’ American Sociological Review, 29, 809-818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Homans, G. C. (1967). The Nature of Social Science. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  25. Homans, G. C. (1974). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Revised Edition. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  26. Homans, G. C. (1975). ‘‘What do we mean by social ‘structure’?’’ in P.M. Blau (ed.) Approaches to the Study of Social Structure. New York: The Free Press, pp. 53-65.Google Scholar
  27. Homans, G. C. (1982). ‘‘The present state of sociological theory.’’ The Sociological Quarterly, 23, 285-299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindenberg, S. (1986). ‘‘How sociological theory lost its central issue and what can be done about it,’’ in S. Lindenberg, J.S. Coleman, S. Nowak (eds.) Approaches to Social Theory, New York: Russel Sage Foundation, pp. 19-24.Google Scholar
  29. Mueller, D. C. (1986). ‘‘Rational egoism vs. adaptive egoism as fundamental postulate for a descriptive theory of human behavior.’’ Public Choice, 51, 3-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson, R. R. (2002). ‘‘Bringing institutions into evolutionary growth theory.’’ Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 17-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parsons, T. (1964). Essays in Sociological Theory, Revised Edition. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Parsons, T. (1968). ‘‘Utilitarianism: sociological thought.’’ International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 16. New York: Macmillan, pp. 229-236.Google Scholar
  33. Radnitzky, G. and Peter, B. (eds.) (1987). Economic Imperialism. The Economic Method Applied Outside the Field of Economics. New York: Paragon.Google Scholar
  34. Ritzer, G. (1975). Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Rowley, C. K. (1998). ‘‘Law-and-economics from the perspective of economics.’’ The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. London: Macmillan, pp. 474-486.Google Scholar
  36. Swedberg, R. (1990). Economics and Sociology — Redefining their Boundaries: Conversations with Economists and Sociologists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tullock, G. (1972). ‘‘Economic imperialism,’’ in J.M. Buchanan and R.D. Tollison (eds.) Theory of Public Choice: Political Applications of Economic, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 317-329.Google Scholar
  38. Vanberg, V. (1975). Die zwei Soziologien: Individualismus und Kollektivismus in der Sozialtheorie. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
  39. Vanberg, V. (1982). Markt und Organisation — Individualistische Sozialtheorie und das Problem korporativen Handelns. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
  40. Vanberg, V. (1983). ‘‘The rebirth of utilitarian sociology.’’ The Social Science Journal, 20, 71-78.Google Scholar
  41. Vanberg, V. (2002). ‘‘Rational choice vs. program-based behavior: Alternative theoretical paradigms and their relevance for the study of institutions.’’ Rationality and Society, 14, 7-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walras, L. (1954). Elements of Pure Economics or the Theory of Social Wealth (translated by W. Jaffé). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin (originally published in 1874).Google Scholar
  43. Wells, A. (ed.) (1978). Contemporary Sociological Theories. Santa Monica: Goodyear.Google Scholar
  44. West, E. G. (1990). ‘‘Adam Smith and public choice,’’ in E.G. West (ed.) Adam Smith and Modern Economics: From Market Behaviour to Public Choice. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 105-131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viktor Vanberg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations