Collateralized Social Relations: The Social in Economic Calculation

Abstract

Traditionally, economists have viewed social relations as "friction" or "impediments" to exchange and have excluded social relations from their analyses by assuming autonomous actors. Recently, however, a number of scholars-economists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists-have begun to discuss the numerous ways in which social arrangements both prompt and channel economic activity. Rational choice theory, social capital and network analysis, and agency and game theory, are among those approaches that consider the effects of social relations on economic action. In this paper we extend that discussion by arguing that social relations can function as "collateral" or assurance that an economic transaction will proceed as agreed by the parties involved. We review recent microeconomic theories and conjecture how they might be developed following this observation, which is derived from sociological and anthropological studies of economic action and organization.

The meanings of migration, remittances and gifts: views of Honduran women who stay

“…It is in this light that we borrow from the economic sociology literature to examine the non-economic aspects of Honduran men's migration and associated actions and consequences, including communication, debts and remittances, and how the women make sense of these. Thus, we follow Biggart and Castanias (2001) and Swedberg (2003) to note that one should not see emotions as conflicting with economic exchanges, as impediments or as disturbing exchanges, but rather as integral to economic action. Not only are economic activities embedded in social action, but, as Zelizer (2005a: 2) observed, 'plenty of economic activity goes into creating, defining, and sustaining social ties.…”

“…Migratory processes, in his view, provide what Robert K. Merton called a 'strategic research site', that is 'an area where processes of more general import are manifested with unusual clarity' (Portes 1995: 2). We also find useful Biggart and Castanias's (2001) characterization of the interplay (not parallels or tension) between economic transactions and social relations. A focus on the emotions surrounding men's economic migration and the meanings women attach to it allows us to pinpoint the fundamentally social structures that shape the form and outcomes of economic action.…”

Theory to practice: A typology of supply chain management in construction

“…The pro-market approach to organizational governance relies on competition and is regulated by the price mechanism (Adler, 2001). Under pro-market conditions, it is contested that relationship theory and social structure play only a fractional drag in the economic exchange of goods and services (Hirschman, 1970, Granovetter, 1985, Biggart and Castanias, 2001). …”

What is Economic Sociology?

“…The only aspect that would seem clear is that, should they be considered as such, should the bundle of social interactions subsequently elicited be confirmed through collective recognition of these assumptions, in that case, well… Some distinct features of NES outputs, still, deserve both explicit reference and highlighting. One of them is of course the abundance of "borderline" or interdisciplinary studies, such as with the works of Benjamin Nelson (1969), Nicole Woolsey Biggart (2001, 2002 and Philippe Steiner (1995Steiner ( , 1999, clearly in interfaces of sociology with anthropology, historiography and other academically recognized disciplines, in fact sometimes classified as "historical sociology", "history of economic thought" or some other denomination. Another trait, although indeed comparatively a minor one, is the tendency for the consolidation of something like "national" economic sociology currents or trends, such as is the case with authors like Arnaldo Bagnasco (1977), Carlo Trigilia (1998), Enzo Mingione (1991 and Filippo Barbera (2000) being susceptible of being taken en bloc as an "Italian school" or something akin.…”