Granovetter, Paul Dimaggio,Viviana Zelizer这三人对新经济社会学的看法有什么异同？
有人问我，Granovetter, Paul Dimaggio,Viviana Zelizer这三人对新经济社会学的看法有什么异同？
这三个人名我都没听说过。
Wikipedia一下，学习学习
Granovetter 马克·格兰诺维特,
Paul Dimaggio 迪玛奇奥,
Viviana Zelizer 维维安娜·泽利泽
new economic sociology 新经济社会学
--------------
Mark Granovetter is an American sociologist who has created some of the most influential theories in modern sociology since the 1970s. He is best known for his work in social network theory and in economic sociology, particularly his theory on the spread of information in social networks known as "The Strength of Weak Ties" (1973).
Major ideas
[edit]The strength of weak ties
Main article: Interpersonal ties
Granovetter's most famous work, "The Strength of Weak Ties", is considered to be one of the most influential sociology papers ever written.[3]
In marketing or politics, the weak ties enable reaching populations and audiences that are not accessible via strong ties. The concepts of this work were later published in the related monograph "Getting A Job", an adaptation of Granovetter's doctoral dissertation at Harvard University's Department of Social Relations, with the title: "Changing Jobs: Channels of Mobility Information in a Suburban Population" (313 pages).
[edit]Economic sociology: embeddedness
In the field of economic sociology, Granovetter has been a leader ever since the publication in 1985 of an article that launched "new economic sociology", "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness". This article caused Granovetter to be identified with the concept of "embeddedness", the idea that economic relations between individuals or firms are embedded in actual social networks and do not exist in an abstract idealized market (a concept originally described in Karl Polanyi's book The Great Transformation). He is currently working on a book provisionally called Society and Economy.
[edit]"Tipping points" / threshold models
Granovetter has also done research on a model of how fads are created. Consider a hypothetical mob assuming that each person's decision whether to riot or not is dependent on what everyone else is doing. Instigators will begin rioting even if no one else is, while others need to see a critical number of trouble makers before they riot, too. This threshold is assumed to be distributed to some probability distribution. The outcomes may diverge largely although the initial condition of threshold may only differ very slightly. This threshold model of social behavior was proposed previously by Thomas Schelling and later popularized by Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point.
[edit]Security influence
Granovetter's work has influenced some researchers working in the field of capability-based security. Interactions in these systems can be described using "Granovetter diagrams", which illustrate changes in the ties between objects.[4]
Bibliography (selected)
(1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties"; American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6., May 1973, pp 1360-1380
(1974). "Getting A Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers"
(1978). "Threshold Models of Collective Behavior"; American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No. 6, November 1978, pp 1420-1443
(1983). "The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited"; Sociological Theory, Vol. 1, 1983, pp 201-233
- Reprinted in P.V. Marsden & N. Lin (eds.) 1982, Social Structure and Network Analysis, Sage Publications
(1985). "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness"; American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, No. 3., November 1985, pp 481-510
(1992). "Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology", in N. Nohra & R. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
Background
Granovetter earned an A.B. at Princeton University and a Ph.D at Harvard University. He is currently the Joan Butler Ford Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford University and was formerly the department chair of sociology. He has previously worked at Northwestern University, the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Johns Hopkins University.[2]
-----------------
Paul Joseph DiMaggio (born 10 January 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [1]) is an American educator, and professor of sociology at Princeton University since 1992.
Contributions to sociology
DiMaggio's major works have been in the study of organizations and the formation of "high culture" in the U.S. His recent research explores social inequality in the Internet.
The world of organizations, DiMaggio and Walter Powell have argued, is heavily influenced by "institutional isomorphism": organizations adopt business practices not because they are efficient (per se), but because they furnish legitimacy in the eyes of outside stakeholders - lenders, government regulators, shareholders, etc. DiMaggio asserts that the need to maintain the confidence of poorly-informed outside parties means that organizations are less creative and innovative in their practices. DiMaggio also claims this pattern can be seen in nonprofit groups and government agencies that imitate the language and styles of the corporate world in order to appear more efficient.
In his cultural studies, DiMaggio's historical research documented the self-conscious creation of "high culture" in the late 19th-century America. DiMaggio argues that, unsettled by the weak class distinctions in growing industrial cities, local elites created a "sophisticated" culture (via the arts, universities, social clubs, and the like) that would separate commoners from those of high standing. DiMaggio says that "high culture" models developed by founders of museums and orchestras were then adopted by patrons of opera, dance, and theatre.
DiMaggio's recent research considers the cultural advent of the Internet. He compares the emergence of the Internet with the rise of television in the 1950s.[2] Television was introduced to American consumers in 1948, and within ten years 90% of households had TV. In contrast, Internet diffusion (introduced on a large scale in 1994) seems to have stalled at approximately 60% of American households. DiMaggio believes that this difference is the result of the so-called digital divide - inequalities in Internet usage by race, income, and education level. DiMaggio maintains that these inequalities were not found in the adoption of TV in the 1950s, and suggests that differences in Internet usage among social groups will continue. This remains an open question, and some recent data suggest Internet usage is growing, with more than 70% of American adults reporting that they use the Internet.[3][4][5]
Selected bibliography
The Twenty-First Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective (editor), Princeton University Press 2001 ISBN 0-691-11631-8
Race, Ethnicity, and Participation in the Arts with Francie Ostrower, Seven Locks Press 1992 ISBN 0-929765-03-6
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (editor with Walter Powell), University of Chicago Press 1991 ISBN 0-226-67709-5
Managers of the Arts, Seven Locks Press 1988 ISBN 0-932020-50-X
Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts: Studies in Mission and Constraint (editor), Oxford University Press 1987 ISBN 0-19-504063-5
Career
A graduate of Swarthmore College, DiMaggio earned his Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard in 1979. He was the executive director of Yale's program on nonprofit organizations (1982-87), and through 1991 he was a professor in the sociology department at the university. He was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (1984-85) and at the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (1990). He also served on the Connecticut Commission on the Arts and on the board of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.
--------------------
Viviana A. Zelizer, Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, is a prominent economic sociologist who focuses on the attribution of cultural and moral meaning to the economy. A constant theme in her work is economic valuation of the sacred, as found in such contexts as life insurance settlements and economic transactions with sexual intimates.
[edit]Major works
Viviana Zelizer (2005). The Purchase of Intimacy, Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12408-6
Viviana Zelizer (1994). The Social Meaning of Money: Pin Money, Paychecks, Poor Relief, and Other Currencies, Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-07891-5
Viviana Zelizer (1985). Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children, Pinceton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03459-1
Viviana Zelizer (1979). Morals and Markets: The Development of Life Insurance in the United States, Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04570-0
-------------------
从网络嵌入性到制度嵌入性——新经济社会学制度研究前沿
http://www.sachina.edu.cn/Htmldata/article/2006/07/1104.html
“新经济社会学”的兴起是以马克·格兰诺维特（Granovetter,1985）发表的“经济行动和社会结构——嵌入性问题”为标志的。格兰诺维特将网络的研究方法引入经济社会学，通过对“不充分社会化”和“过度社会化”两种观点的批判，指出了忽视社会网络机制的弊端，并以此对威廉姆森基于交易成本理论建构的关于经济组织治理结构的新制度主义经济学的解释模型（Williamson,1981,1985）发出了挑战[1]。格兰诺维特把经济社会学的理论核心归结为三个命题：(1) 经济行动是社会行动的一种特定类型；(2) 经济行动具有社会性的定位；(3) 经济制度是一种社会性的建构[2]。并通过对经济行动和经济制度与社会网络和更大范围的社会结构之间“嵌入性”关系的揭示，为新经济社会学开辟了不同于新制度主义经济学的制度分析的崭新视角，进入了传统意义上属于经济学分析范畴的分析领域，从而对国家、市场、金融、货币以及全球化这样的一系列重大制度问题直接发言，并取得了丰硕成果。
......
正如诺斯所说，经济学还没有一个对社会规范的成功的解释。
经济学缺少一种有关社会规范的理论，为社会学家整合经济学和社会学理论，说明非正式规范的来源及其与正式规范之间的关系提供了机会。格兰诺维特通过对社会学和经济学中关于人类行动的过度社会化和不充分社会化的概念的揭示和批判，强调了经济行动嵌入于社会关系网络之中的观点，他认为新制度主义经济学忽视了社会关系在形塑经济行动过程中扮演的重要角色。在现实生活中，人们的经济行为始终或多或少地受到人际关系模式的影响。这一研究为社会学研究经济问题提供了新视角，开辟了新的研究领域，并导致了经济社会学研究的重新兴起。
......
在对新制度主义经济学，特别是威廉姆森的“市场和等级制”二分法进行批判时，格兰诺维特引入了“嵌入性”概念。嵌入性观点与人类学中的“实质主义”学派有关，在与主流经济学的原子论的斗争过程中，波兰尼逐步发展了其嵌入理论。他认为，经济从来不是一个单独的独立领域，在前工业社会中经济是嵌入于社会、宗教以及政治制度之中的。这意味着，像贸易、货币和市场这样的现象是由谋利以外的动机所激发的，并和具体的社会现实结合在一起。在工业革命之前，社会中的经济生活为互惠或再分配的方式所笼罩，市场的交换机制还没有统治经济生活[3]。不过，在现代社会中，事情发生了根本性变化。决定经济生活的是价格和市场。这时候，经济由（并仅仅由）市场价格来决定，人们在这种市场中按获得最大金钱收益的方式行事。这一观点实质是将经济视为现代社会中一个业已分化出来的领域，因为经济交易不再通过这些交易活动的社会义务或亲缘义务来界定，而是通过对个体赢利的理性计算来界定的。格兰诺维特又说：无论在工业社会还是在前工业社会，嵌入性始终存在，只不过在各个社会中嵌入的程度有所不同。例如，在当代资本主义社会中，经济行动也并非如波兰尼所认为的是“非嵌入”的，相反，这些经济行动是以另一种不同方式嵌入于社会网络之中。网络嵌入理论的要点在于，不管从何种角度出发来研究经济现象，都必须考察经济行动者所处的社会关系网络以及个人或群体之间的具体互动。
格兰诺维特不仅提出了一个以网络分析为基础的对经济现象的解释，更重要的是在经济现象的分析中引入了“嵌入性”概念。新古典主义经济学，包括其追随者新制度主义经济学用理性经济人的理论预设来解释人的经济行为和社会的经济制度，认为经济是一个随着现代化进程的发展与社会其他领域日益分离的子系统，经济学的主要目的和任务就是对经济这个子系统独有的运作规律进行高度的概括和抽象。在经济学的分析中，理性以外的其它社会因素的影响被认为正日益淡化，因此可以忽略不计。而格兰诺维特认为事实正好相反，随着现代化、工业化进程的发展，影响经济活动的社会因素不是少了而是更多了。他指出，所有的现代资本主义经济都嵌入在现行的社会关系之中。这为研究经济现象的社会学家提供了一把大伞，大家可以从这个概念推导出一系列的嵌入方式。经济生活既可以嵌入在网络里，也可以嵌入在制度里。正如格兰诺维特在《经济行动与社会结构：嵌入性问题》中所说：“市场与等级制的分析，尽管可能很重要，但在这里主要是用来作为证明我的观点的例子。我相信嵌入性主张具有非常普遍的适用性，而且不仅证明了在对经济生活的研究中有社会学家的一席之地，还证明了社会学家的视角是这种研究所迫切需要的。为了避免作为标准经济理论核心的对经济现象的分析方式，社会学家没有必要割断其与社会生活中更大的和重要方面的联系，没有必要割断与欧陆传统的联系，在该传统中，经济活动尽管重要，但也仅仅被视为社会行动的一个特定范畴。”[4]由此可见，嵌入性概念在本质上对经济学的思维方式发出了直接的挑战，同时也为经济社会学制度分析的复兴提供了强有力的理论支撑。1990年格兰诺维特又在《旧——新经济社会学：历史与议题》一文中，批评社会化不足和社会化过度观点基础上将新经济社会学的理论基础归纳为两个社会命题，(1)经济行动总是社会性定位的，它不可能仅仅用个人动机来解释；(2)社会制度不可能以某种必然的形式自动地产生，而只能通过“社会建构”形式形成[5]。之后他又与斯威德伯格共同把新经济社会学的理论核心归结为三个命题：(1)经济行动是社会行动的一种特定类型；(2)经济行动具有社会性的定位；(3)经济制度是一种社会性的建构[6]。
由此，秉承着嵌入性视角和经济制度的社会建构性理念，新经济社会学逐渐将关注的焦点由社会网络转向了对经济组织的制度化过程展开分析，而且逐步将分析领域扩大到了诸如金融、货币、市场以及国家等宏观制度层面，实现了新经济社会学研究从“网络嵌入性”到“制度嵌入性”的研究视角的转变和研究领域的拓展。
......
新经济社会学制度研究的理论进展
新经济社会学的制度研究渊源于组织理论中的新制度主义学派对组织的趋同性问题的分析。组织分析的新制度主义学派要尝试解释的一个中心问题是组织的趋同性问题，即在现代社会中，为什么各种组织结构越来越相似？如果单纯从经济学的效率视角来观察，我们很容易得出组织形式应该各不相同的结论，因为在效率原则的制约下，每个组织的内部结构要随着它的目标、任务、技术和环境条件不同而异。以迈耶和迪玛奇奥为代表的组织分析的新制度主义学派强调应该从组织与其生存的制度环境之间的关系的角度来研究组织行为和组织结构。为此他们提出了制度化或称为结构化理论。迈耶认为，组织的制度化过程就是组织遵循“合法性逻辑”，不断采纳制度环境强加于组织之上的形式和做法的过程，由此导致了组织之间结构的趋同[7]。迪玛奇奥和鲍威尔认为，不同组织之间相互作用在经过制度化之后会形成组织场域的结构化，这种制度化机制包括：场域中组织之间互动的增加；组织间形成明确的主-从等级结构；场域中的组织相互争夺的信息增加；一系列组织的参与者之间共识的增长。一旦这种制度化了的场域形成，其本身就会成为一种强大的力量，促使其间的组织表现出越来越明显的相似性，这就是新制度主义者所强调的“制度性趋同”。为此他们还论述了导致制度性趋同的三种机制：（1）强制性趋同，源于政治影响和合法性的要求。例如组织必须遵守政府制定的法律、法规以及企业组织同盟所制定的行业规范等；（2）模仿性趋同，源于对环境不确定性的反应。这种模仿行为不同于竞争压力下的模仿，是一种制度化的模仿行为；（3）规范性趋同，与专业化程度的增强有关。即当进入某些专门领域时组织需要满足一些专门的条件，这些条件就是一种规范性的力量，当它们被制度化之后，对这些规范的遵从就会导致组织间的趋同现象的产生[8]。
这三个人名我都没听说过。
Wikipedia一下，学习学习
Granovetter 马克·格兰诺维特,
Paul Dimaggio 迪玛奇奥,
Viviana Zelizer 维维安娜·泽利泽
new economic sociology 新经济社会学
--------------
Mark Granovetter is an American sociologist who has created some of the most influential theories in modern sociology since the 1970s. He is best known for his work in social network theory and in economic sociology, particularly his theory on the spread of information in social networks known as "The Strength of Weak Ties" (1973).
Major ideas
[edit]The strength of weak ties
Main article: Interpersonal ties
Granovetter's most famous work, "The Strength of Weak Ties", is considered to be one of the most influential sociology papers ever written.[3]
In marketing or politics, the weak ties enable reaching populations and audiences that are not accessible via strong ties. The concepts of this work were later published in the related monograph "Getting A Job", an adaptation of Granovetter's doctoral dissertation at Harvard University's Department of Social Relations, with the title: "Changing Jobs: Channels of Mobility Information in a Suburban Population" (313 pages).
[edit]Economic sociology: embeddedness
In the field of economic sociology, Granovetter has been a leader ever since the publication in 1985 of an article that launched "new economic sociology", "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness". This article caused Granovetter to be identified with the concept of "embeddedness", the idea that economic relations between individuals or firms are embedded in actual social networks and do not exist in an abstract idealized market (a concept originally described in Karl Polanyi's book The Great Transformation). He is currently working on a book provisionally called Society and Economy.
[edit]"Tipping points" / threshold models
Granovetter has also done research on a model of how fads are created. Consider a hypothetical mob assuming that each person's decision whether to riot or not is dependent on what everyone else is doing. Instigators will begin rioting even if no one else is, while others need to see a critical number of trouble makers before they riot, too. This threshold is assumed to be distributed to some probability distribution. The outcomes may diverge largely although the initial condition of threshold may only differ very slightly. This threshold model of social behavior was proposed previously by Thomas Schelling and later popularized by Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point.
[edit]Security influence
Granovetter's work has influenced some researchers working in the field of capability-based security. Interactions in these systems can be described using "Granovetter diagrams", which illustrate changes in the ties between objects.[4]
Bibliography (selected)
(1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties"; American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6., May 1973, pp 1360-1380
(1974). "Getting A Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers"
(1978). "Threshold Models of Collective Behavior"; American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No. 6, November 1978, pp 1420-1443
(1983). "The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited"; Sociological Theory, Vol. 1, 1983, pp 201-233
- Reprinted in P.V. Marsden & N. Lin (eds.) 1982, Social Structure and Network Analysis, Sage Publications
(1985). "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness"; American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, No. 3., November 1985, pp 481-510
(1992). "Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology", in N. Nohra & R. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
Background
Granovetter earned an A.B. at Princeton University and a Ph.D at Harvard University. He is currently the Joan Butler Ford Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford University and was formerly the department chair of sociology. He has previously worked at Northwestern University, the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Johns Hopkins University.[2]
-----------------
Paul Joseph DiMaggio (born 10 January 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [1]) is an American educator, and professor of sociology at Princeton University since 1992.
Contributions to sociology
DiMaggio's major works have been in the study of organizations and the formation of "high culture" in the U.S. His recent research explores social inequality in the Internet.
The world of organizations, DiMaggio and Walter Powell have argued, is heavily influenced by "institutional isomorphism": organizations adopt business practices not because they are efficient (per se), but because they furnish legitimacy in the eyes of outside stakeholders - lenders, government regulators, shareholders, etc. DiMaggio asserts that the need to maintain the confidence of poorly-informed outside parties means that organizations are less creative and innovative in their practices. DiMaggio also claims this pattern can be seen in nonprofit groups and government agencies that imitate the language and styles of the corporate world in order to appear more efficient.
In his cultural studies, DiMaggio's historical research documented the self-conscious creation of "high culture" in the late 19th-century America. DiMaggio argues that, unsettled by the weak class distinctions in growing industrial cities, local elites created a "sophisticated" culture (via the arts, universities, social clubs, and the like) that would separate commoners from those of high standing. DiMaggio says that "high culture" models developed by founders of museums and orchestras were then adopted by patrons of opera, dance, and theatre.
DiMaggio's recent research considers the cultural advent of the Internet. He compares the emergence of the Internet with the rise of television in the 1950s.[2] Television was introduced to American consumers in 1948, and within ten years 90% of households had TV. In contrast, Internet diffusion (introduced on a large scale in 1994) seems to have stalled at approximately 60% of American households. DiMaggio believes that this difference is the result of the so-called digital divide - inequalities in Internet usage by race, income, and education level. DiMaggio maintains that these inequalities were not found in the adoption of TV in the 1950s, and suggests that differences in Internet usage among social groups will continue. This remains an open question, and some recent data suggest Internet usage is growing, with more than 70% of American adults reporting that they use the Internet.[3][4][5]
Selected bibliography
The Twenty-First Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective (editor), Princeton University Press 2001 ISBN 0-691-11631-8
Race, Ethnicity, and Participation in the Arts with Francie Ostrower, Seven Locks Press 1992 ISBN 0-929765-03-6
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (editor with Walter Powell), University of Chicago Press 1991 ISBN 0-226-67709-5
Managers of the Arts, Seven Locks Press 1988 ISBN 0-932020-50-X
Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts: Studies in Mission and Constraint (editor), Oxford University Press 1987 ISBN 0-19-504063-5
Career
A graduate of Swarthmore College, DiMaggio earned his Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard in 1979. He was the executive director of Yale's program on nonprofit organizations (1982-87), and through 1991 he was a professor in the sociology department at the university. He was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (1984-85) and at the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (1990). He also served on the Connecticut Commission on the Arts and on the board of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.
--------------------
Viviana A. Zelizer, Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, is a prominent economic sociologist who focuses on the attribution of cultural and moral meaning to the economy. A constant theme in her work is economic valuation of the sacred, as found in such contexts as life insurance settlements and economic transactions with sexual intimates.
[edit]Major works
Viviana Zelizer (2005). The Purchase of Intimacy, Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12408-6
Viviana Zelizer (1994). The Social Meaning of Money: Pin Money, Paychecks, Poor Relief, and Other Currencies, Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-07891-5
Viviana Zelizer (1985). Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children, Pinceton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03459-1
Viviana Zelizer (1979). Morals and Markets: The Development of Life Insurance in the United States, Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04570-0
-------------------
从网络嵌入性到制度嵌入性——新经济社会学制度研究前沿
http://www.sachina.edu.cn/Htmldata/article/2006/07/1104.html
“新经济社会学”的兴起是以马克·格兰诺维特（Granovetter,1985）发表的“经济行动和社会结构——嵌入性问题”为标志的。格兰诺维特将网络的研究方法引入经济社会学，通过对“不充分社会化”和“过度社会化”两种观点的批判，指出了忽视社会网络机制的弊端，并以此对威廉姆森基于交易成本理论建构的关于经济组织治理结构的新制度主义经济学的解释模型（Williamson,1981,1985）发出了挑战[1]。格兰诺维特把经济社会学的理论核心归结为三个命题：(1) 经济行动是社会行动的一种特定类型；(2) 经济行动具有社会性的定位；(3) 经济制度是一种社会性的建构[2]。并通过对经济行动和经济制度与社会网络和更大范围的社会结构之间“嵌入性”关系的揭示，为新经济社会学开辟了不同于新制度主义经济学的制度分析的崭新视角，进入了传统意义上属于经济学分析范畴的分析领域，从而对国家、市场、金融、货币以及全球化这样的一系列重大制度问题直接发言，并取得了丰硕成果。
......
正如诺斯所说，经济学还没有一个对社会规范的成功的解释。
经济学缺少一种有关社会规范的理论，为社会学家整合经济学和社会学理论，说明非正式规范的来源及其与正式规范之间的关系提供了机会。格兰诺维特通过对社会学和经济学中关于人类行动的过度社会化和不充分社会化的概念的揭示和批判，强调了经济行动嵌入于社会关系网络之中的观点，他认为新制度主义经济学忽视了社会关系在形塑经济行动过程中扮演的重要角色。在现实生活中，人们的经济行为始终或多或少地受到人际关系模式的影响。这一研究为社会学研究经济问题提供了新视角，开辟了新的研究领域，并导致了经济社会学研究的重新兴起。
......
在对新制度主义经济学，特别是威廉姆森的“市场和等级制”二分法进行批判时，格兰诺维特引入了“嵌入性”概念。嵌入性观点与人类学中的“实质主义”学派有关，在与主流经济学的原子论的斗争过程中，波兰尼逐步发展了其嵌入理论。他认为，经济从来不是一个单独的独立领域，在前工业社会中经济是嵌入于社会、宗教以及政治制度之中的。这意味着，像贸易、货币和市场这样的现象是由谋利以外的动机所激发的，并和具体的社会现实结合在一起。在工业革命之前，社会中的经济生活为互惠或再分配的方式所笼罩，市场的交换机制还没有统治经济生活[3]。不过，在现代社会中，事情发生了根本性变化。决定经济生活的是价格和市场。这时候，经济由（并仅仅由）市场价格来决定，人们在这种市场中按获得最大金钱收益的方式行事。这一观点实质是将经济视为现代社会中一个业已分化出来的领域，因为经济交易不再通过这些交易活动的社会义务或亲缘义务来界定，而是通过对个体赢利的理性计算来界定的。格兰诺维特又说：无论在工业社会还是在前工业社会，嵌入性始终存在，只不过在各个社会中嵌入的程度有所不同。例如，在当代资本主义社会中，经济行动也并非如波兰尼所认为的是“非嵌入”的，相反，这些经济行动是以另一种不同方式嵌入于社会网络之中。网络嵌入理论的要点在于，不管从何种角度出发来研究经济现象，都必须考察经济行动者所处的社会关系网络以及个人或群体之间的具体互动。
格兰诺维特不仅提出了一个以网络分析为基础的对经济现象的解释，更重要的是在经济现象的分析中引入了“嵌入性”概念。新古典主义经济学，包括其追随者新制度主义经济学用理性经济人的理论预设来解释人的经济行为和社会的经济制度，认为经济是一个随着现代化进程的发展与社会其他领域日益分离的子系统，经济学的主要目的和任务就是对经济这个子系统独有的运作规律进行高度的概括和抽象。在经济学的分析中，理性以外的其它社会因素的影响被认为正日益淡化，因此可以忽略不计。而格兰诺维特认为事实正好相反，随着现代化、工业化进程的发展，影响经济活动的社会因素不是少了而是更多了。他指出，所有的现代资本主义经济都嵌入在现行的社会关系之中。这为研究经济现象的社会学家提供了一把大伞，大家可以从这个概念推导出一系列的嵌入方式。经济生活既可以嵌入在网络里，也可以嵌入在制度里。正如格兰诺维特在《经济行动与社会结构：嵌入性问题》中所说：“市场与等级制的分析，尽管可能很重要，但在这里主要是用来作为证明我的观点的例子。我相信嵌入性主张具有非常普遍的适用性，而且不仅证明了在对经济生活的研究中有社会学家的一席之地，还证明了社会学家的视角是这种研究所迫切需要的。为了避免作为标准经济理论核心的对经济现象的分析方式，社会学家没有必要割断其与社会生活中更大的和重要方面的联系，没有必要割断与欧陆传统的联系，在该传统中，经济活动尽管重要，但也仅仅被视为社会行动的一个特定范畴。”[4]由此可见，嵌入性概念在本质上对经济学的思维方式发出了直接的挑战，同时也为经济社会学制度分析的复兴提供了强有力的理论支撑。1990年格兰诺维特又在《旧——新经济社会学：历史与议题》一文中，批评社会化不足和社会化过度观点基础上将新经济社会学的理论基础归纳为两个社会命题，(1)经济行动总是社会性定位的，它不可能仅仅用个人动机来解释；(2)社会制度不可能以某种必然的形式自动地产生，而只能通过“社会建构”形式形成[5]。之后他又与斯威德伯格共同把新经济社会学的理论核心归结为三个命题：(1)经济行动是社会行动的一种特定类型；(2)经济行动具有社会性的定位；(3)经济制度是一种社会性的建构[6]。
由此，秉承着嵌入性视角和经济制度的社会建构性理念，新经济社会学逐渐将关注的焦点由社会网络转向了对经济组织的制度化过程展开分析，而且逐步将分析领域扩大到了诸如金融、货币、市场以及国家等宏观制度层面，实现了新经济社会学研究从“网络嵌入性”到“制度嵌入性”的研究视角的转变和研究领域的拓展。
......
新经济社会学制度研究的理论进展
新经济社会学的制度研究渊源于组织理论中的新制度主义学派对组织的趋同性问题的分析。组织分析的新制度主义学派要尝试解释的一个中心问题是组织的趋同性问题，即在现代社会中，为什么各种组织结构越来越相似？如果单纯从经济学的效率视角来观察，我们很容易得出组织形式应该各不相同的结论，因为在效率原则的制约下，每个组织的内部结构要随着它的目标、任务、技术和环境条件不同而异。以迈耶和迪玛奇奥为代表的组织分析的新制度主义学派强调应该从组织与其生存的制度环境之间的关系的角度来研究组织行为和组织结构。为此他们提出了制度化或称为结构化理论。迈耶认为，组织的制度化过程就是组织遵循“合法性逻辑”，不断采纳制度环境强加于组织之上的形式和做法的过程，由此导致了组织之间结构的趋同[7]。迪玛奇奥和鲍威尔认为，不同组织之间相互作用在经过制度化之后会形成组织场域的结构化，这种制度化机制包括：场域中组织之间互动的增加；组织间形成明确的主-从等级结构；场域中的组织相互争夺的信息增加；一系列组织的参与者之间共识的增长。一旦这种制度化了的场域形成，其本身就会成为一种强大的力量，促使其间的组织表现出越来越明显的相似性，这就是新制度主义者所强调的“制度性趋同”。为此他们还论述了导致制度性趋同的三种机制：（1）强制性趋同，源于政治影响和合法性的要求。例如组织必须遵守政府制定的法律、法规以及企业组织同盟所制定的行业规范等；（2）模仿性趋同，源于对环境不确定性的反应。这种模仿行为不同于竞争压力下的模仿，是一种制度化的模仿行为；（3）规范性趋同，与专业化程度的增强有关。即当进入某些专门领域时组织需要满足一些专门的条件，这些条件就是一种规范性的力量，当它们被制度化之后，对这些规范的遵从就会导致组织间的趋同现象的产生[8]。
![[已注销]](https://img2.doubanio.com/icon/user_large.jpg){kind=icon}
