Schumpeter, Veblen and Bourdieu on Institutions and the Formation of Habits

Bögenhold, Dieter and Michaelides, Panayotis G. and Papageorgiou, Theofanis (2016): Schumpeter, Veblen and Bourdieu on Institutions and the Formation of Habits.

Abstract

As we know, Joseph Alois Schumpeter is one of the greatest economists of all times, while Thorstein Veblen is an economist and sociologist who made seminal contributions to the social sciences. Pierre Bourdieu, meanwhile, is one of the most famous structural sociologists, who has consistently worked on economic dynamics. These three scholars have laid the foundations of a socioeconomic perspective. However, several important aspects of their works remain less widely discussed, or even inadequately explored in a comparative manner. Of course, investigating the origins of their ideas in evolutionary and institutional economics and re-evaluating comparatively the influences that shaped their works is quite useful for promoting dialogue between Economics and Sociology. Within this framework, this essay focuses on the conceptual relationship between Schumpeter, Veblen and Bourdieu. Evolution and Change shape the economic life in their respective works and, in such a framework a central point of their analyses is the interdependence between the cultural, social and economic spheres. Furthermore, an economic sociology is built around the concept of habit formation. The three great authors’ systemic views focus on the various institutions and other aspects of cultural, social and economic life, where habits are formed and cover diverse fields and notions such as Consumption, Preferences, Art, Knowledge, Banking and even Capitalism. For instance, all three social scientists acknowledged the fact that the internal dynamics of capitalism introduce structural instabilities into the economic system. Also, they recognized that research and knowledge development is a collective social process. However, from a methodological perspective, their main emphasis is on the emerging dynamic evolution of habits, which is perceived as the interruption of already existing social norms and the conflict between routine and change. Several differences between Schumpeter, Veblen and Bourdieu are observed and analysed and ideas for future research are presented.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Schumpeter, Veblen, Bourdieu, Habits, Consumption, Capitalism
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B1 - History of Economic Thought through 1925 > B15 - Historical ; Institutional ; Evolutionary; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925 > B25 - Historical ; Institutional ; Evolutionary ; Austrian; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals > B31 - Individuals

References

Agassi, J. (1960), Methodological individualism, British Journal of Sociology, 11(3): 244–70.

Arena, R. (1992), Schumpeter after Walras: “Economie Pure” or “Stylised Facts”? In T. Lowry (Ed.), Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought, Vol. VIII. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Argyrous, G., and R. Sethi. (1996), The theory of evolution and the evolution of theory: Veblen’s methodology in contemporary perspective, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20(4): 475–95.

Benjaminsen L. (2003), Causality and social ontology - On relational structures and cognitive rationality, 6th ESA Conference, Murcia 2003, Research Networks Nº 21 Social Theory.

Bögenhold, D. (2007a), Bourdieu, in: Robert E. Weir (ed.), Encyclopedia of American Social Class, Vol. I, Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 91-92.

Bögenhold, D. (2007b), Creative Destruction, in: Robert E. Weir (ed.), Encyclopedia of American Class (Vol. 1), Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 175-76.

Bögenhold, D. (2007c), Veblen, in: Robert E. Weir (ed.), Encyclopedia of American Social Class, Vol. III, Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 898-900.

Bögenhold, D. (2008), Economics, Sociology, History: Notes on Their Loss of Unity, Their Need for Re-Integration and the Current Relevance of the Controversy between Carl Menger and Gustav Schmoller, Forum for Social Economics, 37 (2), 85-101.

Bögenhold, D. (2010a), From Heterodoxy to Orthodoxy and Vice Versa: Economics and Social Sciences in the Division of Academic Work, American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69 (5): 1566-1590.

Bögenhold, D. (2010b), What Drives the Process of Creative Destruction?, in Panayotis G. Michaelides (ed.): Special Issue on: Technology and Economic Analysis, Bulletin of Political Economy 4 (2), 85-107.

Bögenhold, D. (2013), Social Network Analysis and the Sociology of Economics: Filling a Blind Spot with the Idea of Social Embeddedness, American Journal of Economics and Sociology 72: 293-318.

Bögenhold, D. (2014), Schumpeter as a Universal Social Theorist, Atlantic Economic Journal 42 (3), 205-215.

Bögenhold, D. (2016), Joseph. A. Schumpeter, in: George Ritzer (ed.): Encyclopedia of Sociology [2nd extended edition], London: Blackwell (forthcoming).

Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge.

Bourdieu, P. (1985), The social space and the genesis of groups, Theory and Society, 14(6): 723-744.

Bourdieu, P. (1997) [2000], Pascalian Meditations, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1998) [2000], Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1999), The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Societies, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1963), Travail et travailleurs en Algérie, Paris and The Hague: Mouton.

Bourdieu, P. (1984), Homo Academicus, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Brette, O. (2003), Thorstein Veblen’s theory of institutional change: Beyond technological determinism, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 10(3): 455–77.

Burawoy M. (2011), Theory and Practice: Marx meets Bourdieu, Avaiable at: http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Bourdieu/3.Marx.pdf

Christoforou, A. and Davis, J.B. (2014) (eds.), Social Capital and Economics, Social Values, Power, and Social Identity, London and New York: Routledge.

Clemence R.V. (Ed.), Essays: On Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles and the Evolution of Capitalism, 221–31. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Coats, A.W. (1954), The influence of Veblen’s methodology, Journal of Political Economy, 62: 529–37.

Coleman, J. (1988), Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94: 95–120.

Corey, L. (1937), Veblen and Marxism, Marxist Quarterly, 1: 62–68.

Cramer, D., and C. Leathers (1977), Veblen and Schumpeter on imperialism, History of Political Economy, 9(2): 237–55.

Dugger, W. (1979), The reform method of John R. Commons, Journal of Economic Issues, 13(2): 369–81.

Ferrarotti, F. (1999), The businessman as protagonist in Veblen and Schumpeter, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 13(2): 241–8.

Festre, A., and P. Garrouste. (2008), Rationality, behavior, institutional, and economic change in Schumpeter, Journal of Economic Methodology, 15(4): 365–90.

Frank, M. (1998), Schumpeter on entrepreneurs and innovation: A reappraisal, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 20(4): 505–16.

Freeman, C., and F. Louçã. (2001), As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolution to the Information Revolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gurkan, C. (2005), A comparison of Veblen and Schumpeter on technology, STPS working papers No. 509. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

Harris, A. (1934), Economic evolution: Dialectical and Darwinian, Journal of Political Economy, 42(1): 34–79.

Harris, S.E. Haberler, G.W. Leontief, and E.S. Mason (1951), Professor Joseph A. Schumpeter, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 33(2): 89–90.

Heilbroner, R. (2000). The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. 7th ed. London: Penguin.

Jenkins R. (1992), Pierre Bourdieu, Routledge, London.

Jevons, W. S. (1871), Theory of Political Economy, London: McMillan.

Langlois, R. (1991), Schumpeter and the obsolescence of the entrepreneur, WP 1503, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut.

Lebaron F. (2003), Pierre Bourdieu: Economic Models against Economism, Theory and Society, 32 (5-6):551-565.

Liagouras, G. (2009), Socio-economic evolution and Darwinism in Thorstein Veblen: A critical appraisal, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(6): 1047–64.

Loesberg, J. (1993), Bourdieu and the Sociology of Aesthetics, English Literary History, 60(4): 1033 - 1056.

März, E. (1991), in T.K. McCraw (Ed.), Joseph Schumpeter: Scholar, Teacher and Politician, rev. 1991 translation of the German edition from 1983, New Haven, Connecticut and London: Yale University Press.

O’Donnell, L.A. (1973), Rationalism, capitalism, and the entrepreneur: The views of Veblen and Schumpeter, History of Political Economy, 5(1): 199–214.

Ostrom, E., Ahn, T.K. (2003) (eds.), Foundations of Social Capital, Cheltenham: McMillan.

Papageorgiou T., Katselidis I. and Michaelides P. G. (2013), Schumpeter, Commons, and Veblen on Institutions, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 72 (5): 1232-1254.

Papageorgiou T. and Michaelides P. G., (2016), Joseph Schumpeter and Thorstein Veblen on technological determinism, individualism and institutions, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 23 (1):1-30. Popper, K.R. (1957), The Poverty of Historicism, Boston: The Beacon Press.

Portes A. (2000), The Two Meanings of Social Capital, Sociological Forum, 15(1): 1-12.

Rahim, E. (2009), Marx and Schumpeter: A comparison of their theories of economic development, Review of Political Development, 21(1): 51–83.

Raines, P. and C. Leathers. (1993), Evolving financial institutions in Veblen’s business enterprise system, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15(2): 249–64

Rutherford, M. (1998), Veblen’s evolutionary programme: A promise unfulfilled, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22: 463–77.

Santarelli, E. and E. Pesciarelli. (1990), The emergence of a vision: The development of Schumpeter’s theory of entrepreneurship, History of Political Economy, 22(4): 677–96.

Schatzki T. R., (1997), Practices and actions: A Wittgensteinian critique of Bourdieu and Giddens, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27 (3): 283-308.

Schumpeter, J. (1908), Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie, Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.

Schumpeter, J. (1911), Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig: Dunker Humbolt.

Schumpeter, J. (1927) [1951], Die sozialen Klassen im ethnisch homogen Milieu, Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 57: 1–67.

Schumpeter, J. (1954), History of Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.

Schumpeter, J. (1975) [1942], Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York: Harper and Brothers.

Schumpeter, J. (1983) [1934], The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shionoya Y. (2004), Scope and method of Schumpeter’s universal social science: Economic sociology, instrumentalism, and rhetoric, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26(3): 331–47.

Shionoya, Y. (1997), Schumpeter and the Idea of Social Science: A Meta-Theoretical Study, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shionoya, Y. (2008), Schumpeter and evolution: An ontological exploration. In Y. Shionoya and T. Nishizawa (Eds.), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution: Economic Sociology of Capitalist Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Swedberg, R. (2002), The economic sociology of capitalism: Weber and Schumpeter, Journal of Classical Sociology, 2(3): 227–55.

Swedberg, R. (2011), The Economic Sociologies of Pierre Bourdieu, Cultural Sociology 5(1):67-82.

Turner, S. (2003), The Cambridge History of Science: The Modern Social Science, Vol. 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Udehn, L. (2001). Methodological Individualism: Background, History and Meaning. London, Routledge.

Valiati L. and Fonseca P. C. (2014), Institutions and Culture: Thorstein Veblen’s and Pierre Bourdieu’s economic thought in dialogue, Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 1(1): 1-17.

Veblen, T. (1897), Review of Max Lorenz, Journal of Political Economy, 6(1): 136–7.

Veblen, T. (1898a), Why is economics not an evolutionary science?, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(3): 373–97.

Veblen, T. (1898b), The instinct of workmanship and the Irksomeness of labor, American Journal of Sociology, 4 (September): 187–01.

Veblen, T. (1906), The socialist economics of Karl Marx and his followers I: The theories of Karl Marx, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 20(3): 578–95.

Veblen, T. (1907). The socialist economics of Karl Marx and his followers II: The later Marxism, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 21(1): 299–322.

Veblen, T. (1909), The limitations of marginal utility, Journal of Political Economy, 17(9): 620–36.

Veblen, T. (1914), The Instinct of Workmanship, and the State of the Industrial Arts, New York: Augustus Kelley; Reprinted (1990) with a new introduction by Murphey, M. G. and a 1964 introductory note by Dorfman, J. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Veblen, T. (1919), The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation and Other Essays, New York: Huebsch; Reprinted (1990) with a new introduction by Samuels, W. J. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Veblen, T. (1967) [1923], Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times: The Case of America, Boston: Beacon.

Veblen, T. (1994) [1899], The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study in the Evolution of Institution, New York: Macmillan.

Wacquant L. (2002), Taking Bourdieu in the field, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 46: 180–186.

Walling, W. (1905), An American Socialism, International Socialist Review 5: 577–578.

Warlas, L. (1954) [1874], Elements of Pure Economics or the Theory of Social Wealth, London, Routledge Library Editions.

Weik E. (2010), Research note: Bourdieu and Leibniz: mediated dualisms, The Sociological Review 58 (3): 486–496.

Zingler, E. (1974), Veblen vs Commons: A Comparative Evaluation, Kyklos 27(3): 322–344.