Il Mulino - Rivisteweb

Filippo Barbera
Alejandro Portes, Economic Sociology. A Sys-
tematic Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2010, 320 pp.
(doi: 10.2383/34637)

Sociologica (ISSN 1971-8853)

Fascicolo 1, gennaio-aprile 2011

Ente di afferenza:
()

Copyright c by Società editrice il Mulino, Bologna. Tutti i diritti sono riservati.

Per altre informazioni si veda https://www.rivisteweb.it

Licenza d’uso
L’articolo è messo a disposizione dell’utente in licenza per uso esclusivamente privato e personale, senza scopo
di lucro e senza fini direttamente o indirettamente commerciali. Salvo quanto espressamente previsto dalla
licenza d’uso Rivisteweb, è fatto divieto di riprodurre, trasmettere, distribuire o altrimenti utilizzare l’articolo,
per qualsiasi scopo o fine. Tutti i diritti sono riservati.
Book reviews

Alejandro Portes, Economic Sociology. A Systematic Inquiry.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010, 320 pp.
doi: 10.2383/34637

Do we need another systematic book on economic sociology? Since the

Granovetter’s paper on embeddedness the field has expanded considerably, both em-
pirically and theoretically, and a number of handbooks and review papers have been
published. Scholars seem to agree on few key core concepts (e.g. embeddeness, social
exchange, institutions) and on a list of main topics to be investigated (e.g. work, innov-
ation, markets). Is there something new to add to this state of affairs? Portes seems to
think there is. His book – a collection of ten chapters on key topics of economic soci-
ology – is an attempt to clarify the constitutive elements of economic sociology. Portes
thinks that the discipline has gone through a loss of direction [p. 1] and that a broad
discussion on its core elements is imperative. These elements are: i) meta-theoretical
principles; ii) explanatory mechanisms; iii) strategic sites of inquiry. Portes argues that
in the vast majority of treatises of economic sociology these three elements are unevenly
mixed in the concepts of embeddeness. Before analysing these three points, the Author
[Chapter one], following Weber’s methodological guidelines, argues that economic so-
ciologist should take more seriously the Weber-Merton way and build midrange ideal
types, which “represent the core of economic sociology” [p. 5].
In Chapter two, three assumptions or “meta-theoretical principles” that ground
the field are illustrated and discussed. These are the social embeddeness of the economy,
the unexpected consequences of purposive action and the pervasive influence of power.
Despite their differences, these assumptions “posses a commons status because of their
high level of abstraction and general unfalsifiability” [p. 13]. With regard to the first one,
Weber, Polany and Granovetter highlighted the social nature of economic exchange:
values, social approval, status, social structure and interaction combine in a multiplicity
of ways in concrete exchange and modify what are supposed to be economically rational
actions. Just because actions are socially embedded, Portes goes on, “the end point may
be quite different from that originally anticipated” [p. 18]. This is the second general
principle of the field and Merton is clearly the focal reference point. Portes identifies five
different alternatives to the standard “linear purposive action” schema: i) the real goal
is not the apparent one; ii) the real goal is not what the actors actually achieve; iii) the
real goal emerges from the situation itself; iv) the original goal is real, but the end state
is contrary to its intent; v) the original goal is real, but it is achieved by an unexpected
combinations of events. Each model is illustrated through examples taken both from
classical and contemporary works [pp. 20-24]. Finally, the third general assumption of
the field is power. Portes carefully underlines that power is different from embeddedness
and criticizes contemporary economic sociology for its neglect of power. These three
principles lead to a number of lower-level concepts or explanatory mechanisms and
strategic sites of inquiry.
Chapter three to chapter six explore what Portes labels the “explanatory mechan-
isms” of the field, namely social capital, social institutions, and social class. Is should

Sociologica, 1/2011 - Copyright © 2011 by Società editrice il Mulino, Bologna. 1

Barbera

be stressed that from these chapters onwards the book becomes deeper and more in-
novative. The first two chapters are just a summary of well-known points, while the
rest of the book deal with familiar concepts in an innovative way. Put succinctly, so-
cial capital flows out of embeddedness at a lower level of abstraction and unexpected
consequences of rational action are caused by social capital for it gives rise to inform-
al bonds, sympathies and enmities among role occupants. This is really a key point,
since it forces us to clarify the multiple and surprising connections between formal or-
ganization/instrumental rationality and informal settings/prosocial expectations. In this
chapter Portes recalls many claims of his previous work of social capital such as indi-
vidual vs. collective benefits, sources vs. consequences, positive effects vs. downside.
Two examples from the field of immigration follow: i) the bounded solidarity among
members of a particular group who find themselves affected by common events in a
particular time and place, as in the case of the Miami riots triggered by the shooting
of two African American cyclist by a Colombian-born policeman and ii) the entrepren-
eurial enclave among immigrants in the New York City Dominican community. The
second explanatory mechanism is the concept of institutions [Chapter four]. As social
capital, this concepts also has multiple and often divergent meanings. As the Berkeley
economist Gerald Roland said in 2004 “we are all institutionalist now” [p. 49]. But do
we univocally know what do the concept of institutions mean? For Portes, institutions
are “the symbolic blueprint for organizations. They comprise the set of rules, written or
informal, governing relationships among role occupants in organizations like the family,
the schools; and the other major institutionally structured areas of social life: the polity,
the economy, religion, communication and information, and leisure” [p. 55]. Cultural
and structural elements – along with their causal connections – need to be included in
a general framework to understand the role institutions play in shaping social and eco-
nomic outcomes. Portes offers two examples relating to the advent of institutionalism to
the field of economic development: i) the failure of institutional monocropping, ii) the
privatization of the Mexican Economy. To these he adds a discussion on the problem
of institutional change [pp. 63-67] and a summary of the different but complementary
perspectives on institutions offered by political-economy, neo-institutionalism and new
economic sociology [pp. 67-70]. Chapter five and six deal with the issue of social class.
Portes criticizes three fallacies of class analysis (realist, classless and reification) to en-
dorse a view based upon four insights [p. 79]: i) durable inequalities define the “deep
structure” of social phenomena; ii) classes are defined by their relationship to one anoth-
er; iii) classes are defined also by differential access to power; iv) class position is trans-
missible across generations. These basic assumptions are translated in a classification of
social classes (Grand Capitalist, Capitalist, Rentiers, Elite Workers, Common Workers,
Petty Entrepreneurs, Redundant Workers), which is applicated both to describe large-
scale economic change and to the specific issue of labour immigration [pp. 89-95 and
95-100]. Chapter six extend this analysis to the effect that neoliberal reforms had to Latin
America class structure. Portes thus shows that today the subordinate classes comprise
approximately 80 percent of Latin American population. The unequal distribution of
wealth in Latin America is thus reframed in terms of class analysis, showing both the
huge disparities in income between the dominant class and the rest of the population
and a wide variation of these disparities across countries [pp. 112-121]. In the final

2
 Sociologica, 1/2011

pages of this chapter, Portes applies Merton’s analysis on “Social Structure and Anomie”
to show how the increase in crime and violence in Latin America can be accounted
by the fact that “desiderable standards of modern consumption were broadcasted for
all to see and want, while the means to attain them were available to only a few” [p.
121].
Chapter seven, eight and nine discuss the three strategic research sites: the inform-
al economy, ethnic enclaves and middlemen minorities, and transnational communities.
For each field, the Author summarizes the pertinent literature, illustrates the empirical
evidence and offers an original explanation of facts and trends. The explanatory mech-
anisms (social capital, social institutions and social class) are thus combined with the
meta-assumptions (social embeddeness, unexpected consequences, power) to concrete
research topics. Finally, the last chapter illustrates how this toolbox can be fruitfully ap-
plied also to illuminate a key theme of contemporary economic sociology: the sociology
of markets.
Having summarized the book, we can now return to the initial question. Do we
need another systematic book on economic sociology? My answer to this point is yes,
but we need to figure out that this book is not “just” an economic sociology book. Portes
deal with general issues about epistemological issues that span the boundaries of the
discipline. His arguments about explanation and prediction [pp. 6-9], for instance, may
well be applied to a sound sociological explanation in general. Furthermore, it must be
stressed that Portes expands the domain of economic sociology to political sociology
and sociology of development. This is key, since there is a trend in contemporary eco-
nomic sociology to narrow its focus on few themes (such as innovation, firm and labour
market) through the lens of network analysis. To stand out against this trend, Portes’s
line looks closely at development issues and offers an institutional perspective on their
explanation. Another merit of Portes is the reintegration of class analysis and large-scale
inequalities in the field of the discipline. Class analysis and stratification represent surely
a major accomplishment of contemporary sociology, but their contribution to the ex-
planation of large-scale inequalities can be enhanced by economic sociology toolbox.
For all these reasons, I also think that the book can be fruitfully used as student’s hand-
book to teach economic sociology, comparative political economy and sociology of de-
velopment.

Filippo Barbera
University of Torino