1

Economist are generally favorable of capitalism / free markets. However most sociologists I know are highly critical of capitalism. I have read many studies regarding the impact of free markets on economic prosperity, but they have exclusively been authored by economists. Are there any well designed (longitudinal, preferably meta analytical) studies regarding free markets / capitalism authored by sociologists or other authors who are not economists?

CuriousIndeed
  • 173
  • 11
  • I guess you already know that it is hard to find objective studies on this kind of thing. After all, it's all too common for people who benefit from their society to praise their society. It doesn't even matter much whether you have any 'empirical' studies or not, due to many many well-known problems such as [publication bias and data dredging](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/551179/339896). – user21820 Feb 06 '22 at 17:14
  • @user21820 So you suggest that the consensus in economics based on empirical studies is biased while the consensus in sociology not based on empirical studies is not/less biased? Bias exists on both sites, but is harder to maintain when obtaining results empirically.... – CuriousIndeed Feb 06 '22 at 17:25
  • No no, I suggest that the amount of bias in even peer-reviewed publications in science is so great that one can only expect worse in other fields. So the apparent superiority that economics ought to have over sociology in empirical studies can be very much erased by such biases. Basically, it's too easy to trick the general population into believing anything by just showing them some numbers, even if the numbers you show them are not faked. That's why I told you to read about data dredging. – user21820 Feb 06 '22 at 17:30
  • 1
    In other words, I'm just saying that it may be really difficult to figure out what is true even if you have empirical longitudinal studies (authored by economists or not) that appear well-designed, because it's too easy for biases to result in the conclusion the authors want. I don't have a problem with your inquiry here, I just think getting empirical studies is not the biggest hurdle to get to the truth. – user21820 Feb 06 '22 at 17:36
  • I know about data dredging. Superiority CAN be erased yes. You can also fake results. However I have more confidence in empirical results than in non-empirical results since to perpetually fool people using empirical results is much harder. While doing the same with non-empirical results does not need much effort... – CuriousIndeed Feb 06 '22 at 17:37
  • Apart from formal science I firmly believe empirical results to be the best methods to find truth. Obviously there are many malicious methods to bias results..However I firmly believe that there are scientists really interested in uncovering the truth. Otherwise success such as in natural science / engineering does not seem to be possible to me – CuriousIndeed Feb 06 '22 at 17:40
  • 1
    I don't disagree with you. I also firmly believe empirical justification to be the best method. In fact, there is [an essentially 100% **objective** approach to finding the best explanation](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1736327/21820) for any given phenomenon based on the available data, but unfortunately even scientists mostly don't know that it is possible, not to say how to do it, and practically nobody does it even if they are aware of it (because nobody else does it). – user21820 Feb 06 '22 at 17:49
  • Seems weird to basically ask 'Does science say boo or yay to capitalism?'. A lot of classical economics assumes the existence of rational independent agents or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus - mainly done by those in defence of entrenched interests, so usually conservatives, typically rightwing. Kahneman and others have discredited those agent assumptions. Sociologists look to actual human behaviour, like Durkheim's shift from looking at religions as sets of epistemologies, to what they do socially for participants. It's ground-up vs top-down, like neuroscience vs psychology. – CriglCragl Feb 06 '22 at 18:29
  • 1
    Economists judge an economy based on effectiveness at producing wealth. Should this actually the sole criterion? What if it were shown that a slave economy is better at producing wealth? Would you then conclude that slavery is good? Sociologists tend to judge economic systems based on the idea that everyone is willing to do exactly what they are told and learn to love it. When judging the moral worth of an economy, shouldn't you take into account the effects on everyone, not just the compliant? – David Gudeman Feb 06 '22 at 21:50
  • No, but from my reading it seems to me that economic development is actually positively associated with factors such as human rights..can you give a counterexample? "Sociologists tend to judge economic systems based on the idea that everyone is willing to do exactly what they are told and learn to love it." This seems rather pessimistic to me.... – CuriousIndeed Feb 07 '22 at 00:01
  • "can you give a counterexample?" China. Vs India, with functioning democracy, & more rights inc to trial by jury. Victorian England was also more authoritarian or at least paternalistic than now, but in terms of building infrastructure like sewers, that helped. – CriglCragl Feb 07 '22 at 09:34
  • "Sociologists tend to judge economic systems based on the idea that everyone is willing to do exactly what they are told and learn to love it" That really doesn't sound accurate to me. – CriglCragl Feb 07 '22 at 09:49
  • "For sociologists capitalism has mainly been of interest for its social effects—how it has led to class struggle, anomie, inequality and social problems in general. Capitalism as an economic system in its own right has been of much less interest" quoted from [Towards an economic sociology of capitalism](https://www.cairn.info/revue-l-annee-sociologique-2005-2-page-419.htm) – CriglCragl Feb 07 '22 at 09:50
  • I mean can you give an example where economic growth was accociated with a reduction in standards of living WITHIN a country..I think direct comparison of countries is pretty difficult to impossible... – CuriousIndeed Feb 07 '22 at 11:25
  • @Rubus: The industrial revolution; over time it created more jobs than were eliminated, though generally lower skilled. But as it happened, there were huge rises in weavers forced into workhouses, and the benefits were going to a small elite. You could also point to Brazillian and US slavery, where economic growth from cotton & sugar paid to actively harm & impoverish Africans. Economically, Franco's Spain succeeded, while severely constraining civil rights, so that's a within-country example. – CriglCragl Feb 07 '22 at 13:03
  • "During the start of the Cold War, Franco lifted Spain out of its mid-20th century economic depression through technocratic and economically liberal policies, presiding over a period of rampant growth known as the "Spanish miracle". At the same time, his regime transitioned from being totalitarian to authoritarian with limited pluralism." So Spain does not seem to fit here...(from wiki) – CuriousIndeed Feb 07 '22 at 13:10
  • Also I'm not arguing that liberaliziation benefits every actor, but I think you would agree that the loss of low skiled jobs such as weaving is not really a loss in the long term as the potential of these people can be used otherwise...Slavery is obviously very bad and needs to be banned globally. When I speak of liberalization I don't mean make illegal things legal for the sake of economic growth, just facilitate market entry & competition... – CuriousIndeed Feb 07 '22 at 13:16

1 Answers1

1

Kind of an expansive, open-ended question. What makes you interested specifically, in this?

I argue here that capitalism isn't one thing or one system, but a varied set of practices implimented in many different way, and in state practice always part of mixed economies: Philosophers on alternatives to capitalism and communism

David Graeber is an anthropologist, who talks about the cultural emergence of money, and capital, in hus book Debt: The First 5,000 years.

There's plenty of work by Postolonial Theorists, and others who follow Hegel and Marx like Zizek, on the wider social consequences of capitalism in action. You might find this answer on systematic deprivations of epistemic justice to marginalised groups for instance, by limiting who has access to resources and time for creative activities that can help a community recognise itself, understand itself, and make social progress: Need help with this paper on epistemic justice

Art poetry and literature get systematically separated from state resources in most capitalist ideologies, meaning in practice it becomes largely the province of the rich. This means the high art of many poor communities is in music and song, like Cajun's, black people of the Mississipi Delta, and Sean Nos style instrumentless singing of Ireland which is the foundation of Irish musical ornamentation. But these typically get coopted by the wealthy, separated from the social consequences they emerged in, and the purposes they served there.

Food-deserts are a tool to help understand health inequalities resulting from poor social planning, and lower investment in poor areas.

There is a proposed 'Vimes Boots' Index' to address wider inequalities that more greatly disadvantage the poor, like higher energy prices because of lack of credit, or regressive taxes like sales tax which take much higher percentage of poor incomes.

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
  • 1
    "What makes you interested specifically, in this?" I find it stunning that two social science disciplines come to opposite conclusions. I suspect the lack of rigorous methodology in sociology regarding the study of capitalism to be the main culprit. On the other hand sociologists frequently label (from my experience) economists as ideologues. However compared to sociologists studying economic topics, economist are highly empirical... – CuriousIndeed Feb 06 '22 at 16:11
  • @Rubus: Haidt links being rightwing to the simplified thinking of feeling under attack, a focus on purity and sanctity values, and intolerance of ambiguities eg 'for us or against us', and rural communities. Vs leftwing thinking which is associated with greater tolerance of ambiguity, associated with maturing in circumstances with more security, and urban communities. Those intolerant of ambiguity are more likely to want models built from simplest assumptions, eg physics. Those tolerant of ambiguity happier to look at behaviour, eg social science. We need all perspectives, to do better. – CriglCragl Feb 06 '22 at 18:38
  • That does not explain why there are 2 contradictory conclusions – CuriousIndeed Feb 07 '22 at 07:07
  • @Rubus: There are a lot more conclusions than 'boo or yay'. I think the comparison between theory-up neuroscience and experience-down psycology, & their relative appeal related to the personality dimension tolerance-of-ambiguity, is the explanation for the widespread cultural tendency to try & put all politics into a binary, against the evidence. – CriglCragl Feb 07 '22 at 08:57
  • I disagree party. While your observations might explain why there are different conclusions, a simple question such as if liberalisation is generally associated with higher standards of living should be answerable. Economics seems to affirm this observation, while sociology completely denies it. That's why I wanted to read up on high-quality evidence by sociologists...While you have given many resources I failed to find a study and the evidence you cited in your other answer seems to be pretty controversial, and is about income inequality not liberalization of the economy. – CuriousIndeed Feb 07 '22 at 11:32
  • Liberalisation isn't one thing. In this answer I relate whether it improves things for most people, to the relative power of workers vs business & state: [Philosophers on alternatives to capitalism and communism](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/67075/philosophers-on-alternatives-to-capitalism-and-communism/72357#72357). Economic growth, and wellbeing, are often at odds - like the choking smog that blackened cities of the industrial revolution. Economists look at economics to evaluate policy. Sociologists are always going to be interested in a wider set of things to evaluate. – CriglCragl Feb 07 '22 at 12:51
  • Economic liberalization is a specific government policy to reduce interference into the market by government entities. If have read your answer multiple times and while I could find some sources claiming that income inequality i related to negative standards of living, these are controversial. Plus I'm not interested in income inequality since I do not see it as a problem. However I'm very interested in what sociologists have to say about economic liberalization. Can you pinpoint the specific study pertaining that topic. Thanks a lot! – CuriousIndeed Feb 07 '22 at 15:18
  • The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons is a well established idea in both economics and sociology, about the dangers of over-liberalising creating a lose-lose situation – CriglCragl Feb 07 '22 at 17:07
  • Given the link you provided the criticism section makes it clear that it seems to be a very controversial subject and thus not really a good example of the dangers of over-liberalizing... – CuriousIndeed Feb 07 '22 at 20:26
  • @Rubus: It is a concept, which can be appropriately or inappropriately applied. In practice, commons were generally well managed. But the point is *the possibility* of a game-theoretic lose-lose state. I feel like your perspective is similar to a neuroscientist dismissing all psychological research for being too woolly and not quantative enough. Different domains have different focii, and methodologies. Economics has a narrow focus, in quantifiable things. Sociology does not. – CriglCragl Feb 08 '22 at 22:04
  • I don't agree. For example sociology has very good quantiative studies regarding crime and the factors causing it. Science needs empirical evidence, especially when said evidence is available. (indicators such as education level, human rights, environmental pollution, distribution of wealth are available or could be measured). In the realm of economics sociology does not study these indicators, but instead tries to answer economic questions based on philosophical grounds, such as for example Frankfurt school does. This isn't science its just ideology.... – CuriousIndeed Feb 08 '22 at 22:13
  • @Rubus: It seems you want a very Behaviourist approach to human experience, & consider anything else ideology. The empirical data can only be proxies. In the end, sociology has to mean getting inside people's heads - because they are what shape society. You want a simple binary picture, but capitalism and liberalisation are complex, societies & historical moments vary. One size is not going to fit all. The subdiscipline economic sociology: https://economicsociology.org/what-is-economic-sociology https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Economic_Sociology_of_Capitalism.html – CriglCragl Feb 09 '22 at 09:46
  • I'm not sure what this has to to with behaviorism. If you do not systematically collect data then it's ideology. I don't really care about the subjective feelings of people. I care about the state of economic indicators which through consensus have been described to be indicative of a well functioning economy. Thanks for these resources I will look into them... – CuriousIndeed Feb 09 '22 at 09:54
  • Couldn't find a single study so far..All I have found so far is why framwork x is better than framework y, historical development etc..I don't care about theory. I'm looking for the following...indicators such as education level, unemployment, distribution of wealth, environmental degradation, etc...these indicators studied over time in the context of liberalization of an economy over many countries. I don't have a preferred set of indicators just that they should generally be indicative of social development..Authored by non-economists... – CuriousIndeed Feb 09 '22 at 12:04