The Paradoxes of Parsons
There are some exasperating paradoxes in the thought of Talcott Parsons. First of all, in epistemology and methodology he was correct with his early views on the symbiotic relationship between evidence and theories but later his system became a great verbal cardhouse with no empirical anchorage.
The other major paradox is that a person who was supposed to be a full bottle on economics should have supported the New Deal in violation of classical economic principles.
The short answer to the first problem is that he took on board a false conception of the role of mathematics in the natural sciences, and also the idea that conceptual schemes have to be developed to some very high degree beore the next step of developing testable theories can proceed. It is one thing to accept that untestable ideas may lead the way but not to suggest that they have to be elaborated into ever-increasing levels of complextiy without any deductive relationship with the world.
I suppose the answer to the second is that economists walked away from the classical principles in droves during the 1930s. Someone might have a good explanation for that phenomenon. For example why did Robbins turn 180 and embrace the new orthodoxy?
Parsons and Smelser on the bridging of economics and sociology.
During 1953-54 Parsons travelled to Cambridge (on the Cam) to deliver a series of Marshall Lectures on the “Integration of economic and sociological theory” while he held a post as Visiting Professor of Social Theory. One of his students from Harvard, Neil J Smelser, was completing his Rhodes Scholarship in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford and they speedily entered into collaboration to produce Economy and Society: A study in the integration of economic and social theory (Routledge 1956).
In the preface they wrote that the process of integration had not proceeded as much as one might have expected since Pareto showed the way and they nominated three reasons, (1) the focus on techical refinements in economic theory, (2) the pressure for economists to work on public policy issues and (3) the rudimentary state of theory in sociology.
They warned that the book contains both advanced economics and advanced sociology, so one was likely to cause problems for the sociologists and the other would test the economists.
On the labour market.
“The classical assumption for labour supply is simply that a conventional supply curve, with an upward slope, covers the entire range of variation in real wage rates. For any level of real wages, therefore, a corresponding quantity of labor seeks employoment. The wage level “clears the market”. Hence so-called involuntary unemployment is impossible, except as a matter of the friction involved in adjusting to random disturbances.” (page 86).
The authors note Ricardo’s and Marshall’s positions on the classicla theory, then proceed to Keynes.
“Keynes modified both these versions of the classical doctrine with the concept of the “stickiness of money wages”. Essentially he holds that the supply curve of labour services, relative to money as opposed to real wages, does not have a continuous upward slope through the relevant range, but flattens at a certain point below which no labour can be hired. If wages fall below this level the effect is withdrawal of labour services from the market rather than acceptance of employment at the lower wage level which would clear the market. It is curiuos that Keynes postulated a stickiness in connection with labour supply but not the supply of other factors of production, for which an equally good case might be made”. (page 87)
“Essentially what our paradigm promises – and what the history of economic thought has not accomplished – is to locate with some precision the non-economic area within which the problem [of labour market rigidity] lies”. (page 88).
How did two of the great sociological minds of the age manage not to notice the role of the trade unions in Britain and minimum wage laws elsewhere (like Australia) in prohibiting workers and management from striking agreement on wages that the employers could afford to pay? This is a truly remarkable oversight. They went on to say that research had identified some possible factors that contribute to the stickiness of wages but none that commanded agreement among labour economists. Their language is too woolly to indicate what the factors might have been but neither trade unions nor minimum wage laws got a mention.
The other major paradox is that a person who was supposed to be a full bottle on economics should have supported the New Deal in violation of classical economic principles.
The short answer to the first problem is that he took on board a false conception of the role of mathematics in the natural sciences, and also the idea that conceptual schemes have to be developed to some very high degree beore the next step of developing testable theories can proceed. It is one thing to accept that untestable ideas may lead the way but not to suggest that they have to be elaborated into ever-increasing levels of complextiy without any deductive relationship with the world.
I suppose the answer to the second is that economists walked away from the classical principles in droves during the 1930s. Someone might have a good explanation for that phenomenon. For example why did Robbins turn 180 and embrace the new orthodoxy?
Parsons and Smelser on the bridging of economics and sociology.
During 1953-54 Parsons travelled to Cambridge (on the Cam) to deliver a series of Marshall Lectures on the “Integration of economic and sociological theory” while he held a post as Visiting Professor of Social Theory. One of his students from Harvard, Neil J Smelser, was completing his Rhodes Scholarship in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford and they speedily entered into collaboration to produce Economy and Society: A study in the integration of economic and social theory (Routledge 1956).
In the preface they wrote that the process of integration had not proceeded as much as one might have expected since Pareto showed the way and they nominated three reasons, (1) the focus on techical refinements in economic theory, (2) the pressure for economists to work on public policy issues and (3) the rudimentary state of theory in sociology.
They warned that the book contains both advanced economics and advanced sociology, so one was likely to cause problems for the sociologists and the other would test the economists.
On the labour market.
“The classical assumption for labour supply is simply that a conventional supply curve, with an upward slope, covers the entire range of variation in real wage rates. For any level of real wages, therefore, a corresponding quantity of labor seeks employoment. The wage level “clears the market”. Hence so-called involuntary unemployment is impossible, except as a matter of the friction involved in adjusting to random disturbances.” (page 86).
The authors note Ricardo’s and Marshall’s positions on the classicla theory, then proceed to Keynes.
“Keynes modified both these versions of the classical doctrine with the concept of the “stickiness of money wages”. Essentially he holds that the supply curve of labour services, relative to money as opposed to real wages, does not have a continuous upward slope through the relevant range, but flattens at a certain point below which no labour can be hired. If wages fall below this level the effect is withdrawal of labour services from the market rather than acceptance of employment at the lower wage level which would clear the market. It is curiuos that Keynes postulated a stickiness in connection with labour supply but not the supply of other factors of production, for which an equally good case might be made”. (page 87)
“Essentially what our paradigm promises – and what the history of economic thought has not accomplished – is to locate with some precision the non-economic area within which the problem [of labour market rigidity] lies”. (page 88).
How did two of the great sociological minds of the age manage not to notice the role of the trade unions in Britain and minimum wage laws elsewhere (like Australia) in prohibiting workers and management from striking agreement on wages that the employers could afford to pay? This is a truly remarkable oversight. They went on to say that research had identified some possible factors that contribute to the stickiness of wages but none that commanded agreement among labour economists. Their language is too woolly to indicate what the factors might have been but neither trade unions nor minimum wage laws got a mention.
posted by Rafe at
8:02 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home