Uncertainty, the problem of order, and markets: a critique of Beckert, Theory and Society, May 2009

Abstract

Jens Beckert's 2009 article on the constitution and dynamics of markets is a bold attempt to define a novel research agenda. Deeming uncertainty and coordination essential for the constitution of social action in markets, Beckert proposes a framework centered on the resolution of three coordination problems: valuation, cooperation, and competition. The empirical study of these three coordination problems has the potential to contribute considerably to the sociological analysis of markets. However, the assertion that such a theoretical vantage point can explain the constitution and dynamics of markets is not compelling because it (1) conflates social interaction with social structures, (2) fails to address power relations, institutions, and macro-level structures, and (3) neglects the historically contingent and socially contested nature of markets themselves. The present article shows that these three pitfalls are the result of starting from the problem of order and building upon uncertainty as the basis of action in markets, lending the suggested framework a methodologically individualist bent. Therefore, Beckert's suggested framework is in danger of mystifying the very power relations, institutions, and macro-level structures that are at the heart of the constitution and dynamics of markets.Despite their centrality in modern economic life, markets remain elusive institutions in economic sociological analysis (Krippner 2001). Jens Beckert's recent article on markets (Theory and Society 38, pp. 245-269) is an ambitious attempt to construct an analytical research program to address this problem. What are markets? Which central research questions should guide the analysis of markets? And, most importantly, what should economic sociologists explain when they study markets? These are the intricate questions Beckert aims to unravel. Given heterogeneous and

Social enterprises with environmental objectives: saving traditional orchards in England and Germany

“…In particular, in the networked market, the positive reluctance to compete, and the relative powerlessness of the SEs contrasts with Beckert's picture of market actors trying to secure, or react to, shifting hierarchies, proving Neil Fligstein (, 123) point that ‘actors sometimes can transform social structures but most of the time fail to do so’. Meanwhile, Anthony Giddens (, cited in Gemici ) rejects order as a principal sociological concern in favour of other factors, such as industrial change, modernity or capitalism, and Kurtuluş Gemici () suggests that Beckert () lacks an adequate appreciation of purely economic influences on market order, such as interest rates (Gemici ). Finally, Sunley and Pinch () note a rise in using field theory for studying SE stakeholder structures and reciprocal methods in achieving goals, and have applied Beckert's analysis to socially motivated SEs, finding it ‘not social enough to capture the depths of social preferences’.…”

The Local Construction of Social Enterprise Markets: An Evaluation of Jens Beckert's Field Approach

“…Our application of Beckert's approach has encountered some of the limitations of his perspective. Gemici (2012) argues that a focus on order is too close to equilibrium, so that it overlooks historical social change, and that the focus on cognitive order tends to mistake social interactions for social structures. While Beckert's emphasis on institutional force is perhaps more open to social structures than this critique allows, the critique of order is clearly relevant to our case where profound state restructuring in the aftermath of 2008 financial crisis is creating disordered markets in which past cognitive scripts are scrapped and existing networks are devalued.…”

Neo-pluralist political science, economic sociology and the conceptual foundations of the comparative capitalisms literatures

“…However, this means that economic sociology performs an analogous move to neo-pluralist political science: in order to outline a more sophisticated approach to the study of capitalist diversity, we need to develop additional notions of social order. This is lucidly illustrated by comparing the key claims made by Gemici (2008Gemici ( , 2012 in two recent contributions. First, there is the call to develop 'theoretical frameworks that show how economic activities are social in the first place ' (2008: 28), which is subsequently elaborated upon by the argument that economic sociology's distinctive contribution 'is situated in showing how macro-level social formationssuch as power relations, structures, and institutions -shape, constitute, and enable the functioning of markets ' (2012: 115).…”