Fine Tuning the Zelizer View

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viviana A. Zelizer
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Neoclassical Economics ◽  
Social Meaning ◽  
The Social ◽  
Meaning Of Money ◽  
Theories Of Money

This chapter presents the author's response to a complaint from two economic analysts that her conception of money as represented by the paper The Social Meaning of Money neglected general theories of money in favor of emphasizing the constant reintroduction of particularity into monetary transactions. In their paper “Markets and Money in Social Theory: What Role for Economics?,” Fine and Lapavitsas (2000) incorporated the author's critique of neoclassical economics and her empirical work, but not the theoretical basis for either one. The author welcomes their project to draw a different, interesting theory of markets and money from Marx's writing. However, she also says that Fine and Lapavitsas' theoretical enthusiasm for a political economy framework blinds them to the emergence of newer theoretical possibilities over the last decade or so. She responds to their statement in two parts: first, reacting to specific criticisms of her view; and second, outlining alternative ways of explaining markets and monetary transactions.

The Social Meaning of Money: "Special Monies"

1989 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 342-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viviana A. Zelizer
Keyword(s):  
Social Meaning ◽  
The Social ◽  
Meaning Of Money

The Social Characterizations of Price: The Fool, the Faithful, the Frivolous, and the Frugal

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick F. Wherry
Keyword(s):  
Reference Point ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Social Location ◽  
Social Meaning ◽  
Ideal Types ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Meanings ◽  
Meaning Systems ◽  
Pricing System ◽  
Meaning Of Money

This article extends both Viviana Zelizer's discussion of the social meaning of money and Charles Smith's proposal that pricing is a definitional practice to the under-theorized realm of the social meanings generated in the pricing system. Individuals are attributed with calculating or not calculating whether an object or service is “worth” its price, but these attributions differ according to the individual's social location as being near to or far from a societal reference point rather than by the inherent qualities of the object or service purchased. Prices offer seemingly objective (quantitative) proof of the individual's “logic of appropriateness”—in other words, people like that pay prices such as those. This article sketches a preliminary but nonexhaustive typology of the social characterizations of individuals within the pricing system; these ideal types—the fool, the faithful, the frugal, and the frivolous—and their components offer a systematic approach to understanding prices as embedded in and constituents of social meaning systems.

From Freakonomics to Political Economy

2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Fine ◽  
Dimitris Milonakis
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Neoclassical Economics ◽  
Economic Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
Second World

AbstractIn this response to the symposium on our two books we try to deal as fully as possible in the brief space available with most of the major issues raised by our distinguished commentators. Although at least three of them are in agreement with the main thrust of the arguments put forward in our books, they all raise important issues relating to methodology, the history of economic thought (including omissions), and a number of more specific issues. Our answer is based on the restatement of the chief purpose of our two books, describing the intellectual history of the evolution of economic science emphasising the role of the excision of the social and the historical from economic theorising in the transition from (classical) political economy to (neoclassical) economics, only for the two to be reunited through the vulgar form of economics imperialism following the monolithic dominance of neoclassical economics at the expense of pluralism after the Second World War. The importance of political economy for the future of economic science is vigorously argued for.

scholarly journals Market crises as disasters: the social meaning of financial risk in 401(k) retirement accounts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Hayes
Keyword(s):  
Financial Risk ◽  
Household Wealth ◽  
Distinct Pattern ◽  
Social Meaning ◽  
Social Amplification Of Risk ◽  
Bear Market ◽  
Portfolio Returns ◽  
Retirement Accounts ◽  
The Social ◽  
Meaning Of Money

This study seeks to extend the social meaning of money to account for the valorization of distinct forms of household wealth, using the 401(k) retirement account as an exemplar. In doing so, particular economic shocks are framed within the disasters literature for the first time. The institutional shift from corporate pensions to individual retirement accounts since the 1980’s changed the social and economic logics of retirement, making this financial location salient, where shocks to the stock market reveal a distinct pattern of economic action. Using the 401(k) retirement account data, I show that bear market years in 2002 and 2008 caused retirement savers to orient their portfolios toward durable conservatism – a finding that deviates from predictions made by either neoclassical or behavioral economic theory. Rather, a sociological mechanism developed in the disasters literature – the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) – provides a plausible explanation for the empirical findings. Interestingly, the practical rule of conservation that works well for many disaster scenarios, for retirement savers creates an unfortunate discrepancy between the objective chances of retirement security and the subjective aspirations of 401(k) savers by causing underinvestment in stocks that can produce suboptimal portfolio returns manifesting itself as latent retirement inequality, especially impacting the youngest savers who have the most at stake.

scholarly journals Planejamento: do economicismo moderno à dialética socioespacial

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Lucas Linhares
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Social Space ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
The Social ◽  
Analytical Category ◽  
Rationality Model

A teoria e a práxis do planejamento, nas sociedades capitalistas modernas, refletem a consolidação de um modelo de racionalidade fundado numa visão mecanicista dos processos sociais. A matriz positivista da ciência – que busca enunciar (e predizer) os fenômenos sociais por meio de leis universais – alcançou posição hegemônica e assentou as bases do planejamento moderno. No campo da Economia Política, dominada pela perspectiva mecanicista embutida na corrente neoclássica, a busca da construção de esquemas teóricos generalistas confere ao espaço, enquanto categoria analítica, um papel secundário. O presente artigo propõe inicialmente uma discussão epistemológica, buscando avaliar criticamente o significado da incorporação de um paradigma economicista e mecanicista por parte da teoria do planejamento. Entrecortando a discussão epistemológica, procuramos, amparados na perspectiva teórica neomarxista, reafirmar o papel do espaço como categoria elementar à compreensão dialética da dinâmica capitalista, sem a qual uma teoria do planejamento incorreria em importante lacuna. O reconhecimento de que as contradições do modo de produção devem ser desvendadas pela investigação do espaço socialmente engendrado é capaz de nos conduzir a uma teoria social mais robusta no balizamento do planejamento.Palavras-chave: planejamento; dialética socioespacial; modernidade; espaço social.Abstract: In modern capitalist societies, the Planning Theory and Praxis reflects a consolidation of a “mechanical” rationality model which treats social phenomena as they could be described by universal and immutable laws. Specifically in the field on Political Economy which is dominated by neoclassical corpus, searching for general theoretical schemes tends to neglect the “space” as analytical category. Initially, this paper aims to make an epistemological discussion and to make a critical assessment of the embodiment of the “mechanical paradigm” by the Planning Theory. Moreover, this paper intends to put the space on foreground of the Social Theory, i.e., the space is taken as a fundamental category to comprehend the capitalist dynamics. Looking into socially built space allows us to reach a socio-spatial dialectics and hence a more comprehensive Social Theory and a stronger Planning Theory.Keywords: planning; socio-spatial dialectics; modernity; social space.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document