This is a Treatise worth consideration for at least three reasons. Firstly, it brings to the forefront a large amount of French works, some of which deal with very relevant topics to today's world. Secondly it does not support the mainly programmatic discourses of the so called “New economic sociology”. Thirdly the table of contents is strongly innovative and several chapters are signed by leading figures of Paris school of economics.
The first section: “Economic fact as social fact” is opened by Robert Boyer, who, in the seventies pioneered the theory of the Regulation regimes. Then comes the Conventions school (François Eymard-Duvernay) followed by anti-utilitarism (Alain Caillé). On the nature of money André Orlean delivers a comprehensive account of the current debate. The exchange values of Singularities (paintings and so on) are examined by Lucien Karpik. The second section is devoted to the representations of the economic world, namely calculus and management, followed by “Symbolic merchant order” (Frédéric Lebaron), and “Performativity of the economics” (Michel Callon). A brief third section analyses how certain unusual markets emerged, among others, organs (Philippe Steiner) and on- line trading. In the part four, which focuses on competition, a major theme, the mix of competition and cooperation is dealt with by two authors, Emmanuel Lazega and then Olivier Godechot. Oddly enough, the final section presents a comprehensive chapter of the sociology of labour (François Vatin), a state of the art devoted to time budget studies and a review of the common uses of money and consumption practices.
A brief presentation, one by one, of those nineteen chapters would not make sense. All the authors are extremely professional; some texts are mostly useful reviews of the literature, some others are much more original, exhibiting a theoretical ambition or some recent fieldworks. Let us consider that the main chapters of the first and most general section are written by three leading figures in French economics who challenge, in one way or the other some assumptions of the standard model. A question comes to mind: do the editors of the book defend a genuine identity of Economic sociology? Or do they consider it’s just a cover encompassing surveys that bring non monetary data to the economists, incentives for a revised vision homo economicus, a touch of cameral science, a specific contribution to the sociology of science? Having in mind the recent results produced by economists in sociologically relevant fields (such as Algan Y. et Cahuc P., La société defiance to mention just one) and the absence of anything like a summing up or a conclusion of the book, that is rather doubtful. In the foreword the editors state, instead of a definition: “Economic sociology is the place for some fundamental questions on institutions, representations and behaviours in modern societies shaped by monetized exchanges”.
Without further specification, the label could encompass the whole of today's sociology; the Weberian distinction between “economically oriented ‘and’ economically constrained behaviour” vanishes. It’s worth noting that some other specialised fields in sociology don’t address such an existential question. Urban sociology produces insights and knowledge the urban planners are keen to make use of but there is no doubt about where the borders lie. The Sociology of Labour should not to be confused with either legal studies or ergonomics.
As long as economics progressed according to the first Cartesian rule, dealing with a very restricted abstract model of man, sociologists could easily take a critical stance against the lack of realism in the standard model ; they could even, like Parsons and Smelser in the fifties, be inclined to see the field of economics as organised by more general sociological concepts. Today that is no longer possible: the criticisms are on the way to being internalised by the main stream economics.
Market, State, Capitalism: Robert Boyer’s ambitious chapter recalls Marx, Polanyi as well as the open debate on the varieties of Capitalism. Well aware of the sociological results, he pays attention to the Networks theory while stating that the level of prices on the Stock market don’t converge towards a true value. In terms of potential directions for a broad economic sociology, he suggests that a link between micro and macro (something like the North West channel in social sciences) could emerge at the corner of Field, State and “Habitus”. However he rightly states that this Bourdieusian line of thought produced several local studies but nothing like a general paradigm. Going further, he writes “as the economists, but a tiny minority, became institutionalists” the usual stand of sociologists became outdated. Of course we are familiar with worse: nowadays, Game theory provides the narrative of how, through the dynamics of social interactions, new forms of markets emerge. At the end, Boyer contends that “socioeconomics” (as opposed to economic sociology) should help maintain the social links between citizens whose economic activities are deeply rooted in the cities we live in. As a first step to be attained, he expects a generative taxonomy of the forms of markets and some progress in the use of formalised modelling.
Speaking for the economics of conventions, Emmanuel Eymard-Duvernay delivers a concise version of the main ideas of this heterodox mix of economics and sociology. At first, actors are to be considered in a social environment in which mediations rely on socioeconomic arrangements that cannot be swept away, as they are by the usual economic models. This is a statement which looks commonplace for sociologists, unable as they might be in its following development. Regulationists would also agree, but conventionalists, influenced by Habermas (the theory of communicative action), focus more on the process by which economic values are attributed and on how common goods appear. The sociological theory of the six registers of justification elaborated by Luc Boltanski and the economist Laurent Thevenot (On Justification : Economics of Worth) has much in common with the conventionalists’ way of thinking. However, while they insist upon the reflexivity of the human being they maintain that they are economists. Quoting Herbert Simon and Harrison White among the forerunners, Eymard-Duvernay expresses a shared interest with Michael Piore in the exploration of the relations between stability and flexibility. It’s hard to see if they positively contribute to economic sociology. Olivier Favereau, an economist, close colleague of Eymard-Duvernay's, produced an innovative contribution to the study of social negociations in the workplace which the sociologists of work and labour cannot ignore.
André Orléan (who stands at the forefront of the battle against the European macro economic policy in 2010) states economic sociology is the cardinal place for a comprehensive ambition in the social sciences but he immediately adds this role is denied by the economists. His topic being money he quotes Georg Simmel, pays tribute to Simiand (died 1937) and writes that “The primary theoretic question is: How, through money a stable, general and translocal exchange system emerged and became sustainable? and no doubt, on that matter the leadership belongs to the economists”. However, most economists do not question an instrumental view, which is vigorously refused by historians of antiquity, anthropologists and sociologists. In fact, the first attested uses of coined money occurred among kings or between the Treasury and a builder or a ship owner. The replacement of barter by monetized exchanges appeared later. The most ancient coins the archeologiste found are always of great value. Money was invented as an attribute of power. As a good heterodox economist Orléan writes that value of money belongs, along with other non monetized values, to the realm of representations. All innovations were and are attempts at escaping the coercion of the coining State monopoly, or others enforced rules. So the micro economic utilitarian model is meaningful in its sphere: exchange of material goods and some services. He leaves open the question of the relations between what can be marketized and what cannot. Conspicuously enough, the task of the sociologist is to go further in the exploration of the forms of power behind trade and markets: back to the relations between State and Capitalism. In the following chapter Frédéric Lebaron “Symbolic merchant order” analyses how the ruling class backed by highly paid experts and technocrats, imposed the domination of finance beyond all limits.
When it comes to Boyer, Eymard-Duvernay and Orléan, all three boost their critical thoughts and their innovative paths in economics thanks to their respectable knowledge in anthropology, sociology, history and even philosophy. One could say that they work for the convergence of the social sciences. However they are not far away from the economists’s usual imperialism when they say what economic sociology should be, if not entirely absorbed in economics. So a question comes to mind: does the role of economic sociology consist in providing heterodox economists with some material for criticisms, that once transformed, translated and sublimed will later be adopted in the standard model which, year after year, releases the constraints and expands its application to more and more institutions and behaviours?
Two chapters at least support this point. “Performatity of economics” by Michel Callon, quoting Tim Mitchell and “Management as an economic technique” by Eve Chiapello deal with the beliefs and practices diffused by economists. In so doing they make use of concepts and intellectual tools elaborated in the sociology of science and in classical political sociology. The self-fulfilling prophecy is by no means specifically bound to economic activities.
The last sections of the book, largely devoted to several unrelated topics and questions does not contribute much to eliminating a feeling of dubious identity. Assuming an arbitrary and subjective selection, I will just highlight on three further chapters. Dealing with the commodification of human organs, Philippe Steiner presents a broad overlook of the ethical and philosophical problems, concluding with a question on the uneasy communication between social worlds. Emmanuel Lazega, relying on elements borrowed from sociology of organisations and on his sophisticated expertise in network analysis, proposes an ambitious theory of cooperation among competitors that sooner or later will infuse the economics of innovation as well as the theory of the principal agent. In his ethnographic approach of the financial markets and front office traders, Olivier Godechot also discovered an unforeseen combination of cooperation and competition. He mentions the pioneering papers of Wayne Baker and shows in minute detail how on the spot price formation is far away from rational calculus. It is worth noting that these two chapters exhibit two very different work practices.
After close reading, what is the general lesson of a book that is clearly of value due to its rich content but also by the flagrant absence it exhibits? First of all, it is conspicuous that in the last two decades a certain amount of sociological knowledge contributed to bringing into the core of the intellectual debate among economists much more than some data on health or education and a “supplément d’âme”. A number of important issues facing the today’s world can be grasped fruitfully by economists and by sociologists speaking together or reading each other but not merging. Secondly, due to the place of economically conditioned actions, economic sociology is a label that can encompass a large part of the discipline and that could be proud of several among its best achievements. However, due to the recent developments in economics, including the standard model, its identity as a specialised field remains dull and doubtful. Lastly, things being as they are, certain programmatic efforts in the so called New economic sociology aimed at defining the due place of economic activities seem totally irrelevant, as were those of the logicians before the middle of the last century, who dreamt of dictating laws to the mathematicians.
