"Institutionalism": Towards an Interpretation of the Term in Sociology

Capa

Texto integral

Acesso aberto Acesso aberto
Acesso é fechado Acesso está concedido
Acesso é fechado Somente assinantes

Resumo

The article is devoted to defining the boundaries of applicability and the research potential of the term "institutionalism" in sociology. It is shown that the economic and political science interpretations of institutionalism are inadequate for sociology. The economic interpretation covers only economic constructions that take into account the role of institutions in modeling economic behavior. Such an understanding is too narrow for sociology and designates only a very small part of sociological theory dealing with institutions. The political science interpretation, on the contrary, encompasses the entire range of theoretical frameworks that consider the influence of institutions on social reality, regardless of their disciplinary origin. This interpretation is too broad and embraces almost the whole of sociological theory, making it impossible to use the term as a meaningful marker. At the same time, it is argued that a distinct sociological interpretation of institutionalism can be useful for systematizing research programs that study institutions and for analyzing the relationships among these programs. A possible sociological reconstruction of institutionalism is proposed – as a set of research programs that employ a developed concept of the institution, or a closely related formal analogue, to explain social reality. This interpretation places specific requirements on the role of the institution within a research program in order for it to be regarded as a form of institutionalism: the program must (1) possess well-developed conceptual frameworks for describing the content of institutions, their dynamics, and their influence on the individual and on social processes; (2) provide the possibility of operationalizing the key concepts of the theory; and (3) have an established practice of applying these conceptual constructions to the interpretation of empirical facts.

Sobre autores

N. Popov

HSE University; Public Opinion Foundation

Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: ng.popov@hse.ru
PhD Student; Senior researcher Moscow, Russia

Bibliografia

  1. Беккер Г. С. Человеческое поведение: экономический подход. Избранные труды по экономической теории. М.: ГУ ВШЭ, 2003.
  2. Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности. Трактат по социологии знания. М.: Медиум, 1995.
  3. Веблен Т. Теория праздного класса. М.: ЛИБРОКОМ, 2011.
  4. Девятко И. Ф. Мегатеоретизирование в социологии: перспективы концептуальной стандартизации и теоретической кодификации социологического знания // Россия реформирующаяся. 2003. № 3. С. 9–38.
  5. Кожанов А. А. Методология теоретических исследовательских программ: сравнительные преимущества для анализа динамики научного знания // Социология: методология, методы, математическое моделирование. 2015. № 40. С. 114–143.
  6. Маршалл А. Принципы экономической науки. М.: Прогресс, 1993.
  7. Мелихов В. Ю., Осадчая Т. Г. Основные этапы развития институциональной теории // Вестник Тамбовского ун-та. Гуманитарные науки. 2011. Т. 104. № 12. С. 427–432.
  8. Михалева К. Ю., Полякова Н. Л. Концепция социального института в социологической теории // Вестник Московского ун-та. Сер. 18. Социология и политология. 2012. № 2. С. 117–132.
  9. Нельсон Р., Уинтер С. Эволюционная теория экономических изменений. М.: Финстатинформ, 2000.
  10. Парсонс Т. Пролегомены к теории социальных институтов // Глобализация и социальные институты. Социологический подход / Под ред. И. Ф. Девятко, В. Н. Фоминой. М.: Наука. 2010. С. 295–325.
  11. Патрушев С. В. Институционализм в политической науке: этапы, течения, идеи, проблемы // Политическая наука. 2001. № 2. С. 146–186.
  12. Радаев В. В. Новый институциональный подход: построение исследовательской схемы // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2001. Т. 4. № 3. С. 109–130.
  13. Ходжсон Д. Институты и индивиды: взаимодействие и эволюция // Вопросы экономики. 2008. № 8. С. 45–60. doi: 10.32609/0042-8736-2008-8-45-60.
  14. Шмерлина И.А. Понятие «Социальный институт»: анализ исследовательских подходы // Социологический журнал. 2008. № 4. С. 53–69.
  15. Abrutyn S. (2013) Revisiting Institutionalism in Sociology: Putting the "Institution" Back in Institutional Analysis. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203795354
  16. Abrutyn S., Turner J.H. (2011) The Old Institutionalism Meets the New Institutionalism. Sociological Perspectives. Vol. 54. No. 3: 283–306. doi: 10.1525/sop.2011.54.3.2
  17. Alexander J.C., Sciortino G. (1996) On Choosing One's Intellectual Predecessors: The Reductionism of Camic's Treatment of Parsons and the Institutionalists. Sociological Theory. Vol. 14. No. 2: 154–171
  18. Boltanski L., Thevenot L. (2006) On Justification: Economics of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  19. Buchanan J.M., Tullock G. (1962) The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Michigan: University of Michigan Press
  20. Caldari K. (2010) Institutional Economics and the Concept of Equilibrium. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. Vol. 32. No. 4: 601–622. doi: 10.2307/20798371
  21. Callon M., Muniesa F. (2005) Peripheral Vision: Economic Markets as Calculateve Collective Devices. Organization Studies. Vol. 26. No. 8: 1229–1250. doi: 10.1177/01708406050563
  22. Camic C. (1992) Reputation and Predecessor Selection: Parsons and the Institutionalists. American Sociological Review. Vol. 57. No. 4: 421–445
  23. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review. Vol. 48. No. 2: 147–160
  24. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (1993). Introduction. In: The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Ed. by W.W. Powell, P.J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1–40
  25. Edgell S., Tilman R. (1989) The Intellectual Antecedents of Thorstein Veblen: A Reappraisal. Journal of Economic Issues. Vol. 23. No. 4: 1003–1026
  26. Eff E.A. (1989) History of Thought as Ceremonial Genealogy: The Neglected Influence of Herbert Spencer on Thorstein Veblen. Journal of Economic Issues. Vol. 23. No. 3: 689–716
  27. Farr J. (1995) Remembering the Revolution: Behavioralism in American Political Science. In: Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions. Ed. by J.S. Dryzek, J. Farr, S.T. Leonard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 198–224
  28. Fioretos O., Falleti T.G., Sheingate A. (2016) Historical Institutionalism in Political Science. In: The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism. Ed. by O. Fioretos, T.G. Falleti, A. Sheingate. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 15–44. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662814.013.1
  29. Fligstein N., McAdam D.A. (2012) Theory of Fields. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof: osc/9780199859948.001.0001
  30. Francois P. (2021) A French Institutionalism in Economic Sociology? In: Handbook of Economic Sociology for the 21st Century. Ed. by A. Maurer. Cham: Springer International Publishing: 63–77. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-61619-9_5
  31. Hadler M. (2015) Institutionalism and Neo-institutionalism: History of the Concepts. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Ed. by J.D. Wright. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 186–189. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03187-1
  32. Hamilton W.H. (1919) The Institutional Approach to Economic Theory. The American Economic Review. Vol. 9. No. 1: 309–318
  33. Lepsius M. (2017) Max Weber and Institutional Theory. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44708-7
  34. March J.G., Olsen J.P. (1984) The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 78. No. 3: 734–749
  35. Menard C., Shirley M.M. (2022) Advanced Introduction To: New Institutional Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781789904499
  36. Mestrovic S. (1993) The Barbarian Temperament: Towards a Postmodern Critical Theory. New York: Routledge
  37. Meyer J.W., Rowan B. (1977) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 83. No. 2: 340–363
  38. Meyer R.E. (2008) New Sociology of Knowledge: Historical Legacy and Contributions to Current Debates in Institutional Research. In: The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Ed. by R. Greenwood. London: SAGE Publications: 517–536
  39. Miller S. (2019) Social Institutions. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by E.N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/ (accessed: 27.02.25).
  40. Nee V. (1998) Sources of The New Institutionalism. In: The New Institutionalism in Sociology. Ed. by M.C. Brinton. New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 1-16.
  41. Nee V., Opper S. (2015) Sociology and the New Institutionalism. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Ed. by J.G. Wright. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 979–983. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32180-8.
  42. Nureev R. (2021) At the Origins of Neo-institutionalism: Ronald Coase. Review of Business and Economics Studies. Vol. 8. No. 4: 6–18. doi: 10.26794/2308-944X-2020-8-4-6-18.
  43. Obińska-Wajda E. (2016) The New Institutional Economics-Main Theories. E-Finanse. Vol. 12. No. 1: 78–85. doi: 10.1515/fiqf-2016-0138.
  44. Peters B.G. (2019) Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  45. Rageth L., Caves K.M., Renold U. (2021) Operationalizing Institutions: a Theoretical Framework and Methodological Approach for Assessing the Robustness of Social Institutions. International Review of Sociology. Vol. 31. No. 3: 507–535. doi: 10.1080/03906701.2021.2000067.
  46. Ritzer G. (1981) Paradigm Analysis in Sociology: Clarifying the Issues. American Sociological Review. Vol. 46. No. 2: 245–248.
  47. Rutherford M. (1997) American Institutionalism and the History of Economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Vol. 19. No. 2: 178–195.
  48. Seligman B.B. (1990) Main Currents in Modern Economics. New Brunswick: Routledge.
  49. Veblen T. (1898). Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science? The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 12. No. 4: 373–397.
  50. Veblen T. (1899a) The Preconceptions of Economic Science. I. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 13. No. 2: 121–150.
  51. Veblen T. (1899b) The Preconceptions of Economic Science. II. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 13. No. 4: 396–426.
  52. Veblen T. (1899c.) The Barbarian Status of Women. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 4. No. 4: 503–514.
  53. Veblen T. (1900) The Preconceptions of Economic Science. III. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 14. No. 2: 240–269.
  54. Veblen T. (1906) The Place of Science in Modern Civilization. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 11. No. 5: 585–609.
  55. Wagner D.G. (2007) Theoretical Research Programs. In: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ed. by G. Ritzer. Jersey City: Wiley-Blackwell: 4984–4987. doi: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeost019.
  56. Wagner D.G., Berger J. (1986) Programs, Theory and Metatheory. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 92. No. 1: 168–182.
  57. Williamson O.E. (1971) The Vertical Integration of Production: Market Failure Considerations. The American Economic Review. Vol. 61. No. 2: 112–123.
  58. Williamson O.E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization. New York: Free Press.
  59. Zelditch M. (1991) Levels of Specificity within Theoretical Strategies. Sociological Perspectives. Vol. 34. No. 3: 303–312.

Declaração de direitos autorais © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2025

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).