Max Weber: precursor of economic sociology and heterodox economics?

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Nov, 2004 by Helge Peukert

I

Introduction

MAX WEBER IS UNDOUBTEDLY one of the most fascinating and important social scientists of the last century. In this paper we will ask to what degree can Weber's contributions to the basics of social science analysis and methodology be regarded as a milestone for modern economic sociology and a basis for a heterodox economic paradigm, and if we can get some constructive suggestions for present research from his research agenda. (1) Our thesis is that Weber's outline and research program is not really helpful for present-day economic sociology and heterodox economics because Weber had a rather narrow understanding of rationality and the economy. He did not consider the heterodox underpinnings of, for example, the Austrian school (uncertainty, human agency, etc.) in his programmatic contributions.

Another answer to these questions is provided in the optimistic interpretation of Eisermann (1993), who asserts that Weber succeeded in integrating a neoclassical and a historical perspective and thereby overcame the pretheoretical perspective of the historical school. However, the conclusion of our paper is opposite to Eisermann's optimistic and Swedberg's (1999, p. 579) positive view.

To substantiate our claim, we will not follow the tradition of the hagiographic literature, i.e., an innumerable accumulation of citations of Weber's works, remarks on the burgeoning secondary literature, and the detection of biographical links (2)--such writing would make it far to easy to lose our intended focus, Hence, we consciously restrict our considerations to a yew few, but major, texts (cf. Swedberg 1999, pp. 562-569). (3) Further, we will pursue a hermeneutical analysis, asking first what others have said on Weber. but primarily trying to understand what he himself wants to tell us.

The first text under consideration is a compilation of his lecture materials for students in his course on general economics at Freiburg and Heidelberg in the years 1894-1898 (Weber [1898] 1990). (4) The text has 34 pages and consists of an overview of his four or five one-hour lectures per week, including some 600 references. It was found in the posthumous works of his wife Marianne Weber. Although not published during his lifetime, it is Weber's most complete contribution on theoretical economics. The second and third texts are part of his posthumously published monumental Economy and Society (1968d). (5) In the second text, "Basic sociological terms" (1968d, pp. 3-62), Weber develops his general approach theoretically. It was written between 1919 and 1920 and can be regarded as his last statement on method and theory. In addition to the third text on "Sociological categories of economic action," we will include a short written commentary on "the market" (1968d, 63-211 pp. 635-640). (6) We will exclude his substantive contributions on economic history (1924), on method (1968a), his Protestant ethics thesis ([190511930), and his critiques of the historical school (1968c) (7) because they raise further questions but add no substantial additional insights for our discussion.

II The Secondary Literature on Weber's Sozialokonomik (8)

FOR MOST ECONOMISTS Weber is anathema. At most it is granted that he was a considerable sociologist. The usual reference is Schumpeter, who mentions that he was an eminent sociologist and at best secondarily an economist (1920, p. 833). In contrast to hundreds of contributions on Weber and sociology, the historical and the political sciences, only few contributions on Weber and economics exist. This is despite the fact that he did almost all of his teaching in economics, although Weber was trained in law. He was first appointed to a chair of economics in Freiburg in 1894, and then became successor to Knies at Heidelberg in 1897.

In the German-language literature, Brandt (1990) gives a very general, brief overview on Weber's definition of economics, the method of understanding, the ideal type, and the value-neutrality concept. Kaufhold et al. (1992) give an overview on Weber's Protestant ethics and his life, Schefold introduces the man and his work, Roth notes the emergence and reception of the Protestant ethics, and Kaufhold puts it in the context of modern economic history. Bruhns (1996, 1998) presents an extensive and well-grounded overview of Weber's main economic writings, the connection to his sociology and historical studies, and the recent debate. Hennis (1987) discusses Weber's critique of the historical school and defends Knies. Schon (1987) concentrates on the different scientific orientations of Weber and Schmoller, and shows the influence of their concepts on the policy of the Verein fur Socialpolitik. He also asserts that Weber was largely oriented toward theoretical marginal economics, although the opposite view" is held by Osterhammel (1987, pp. 108-110). Nippel (1994) briefly highlights the complementarity of Weber's sociology and formal economics. Norkus (2001) puts Weber in the context of modern rational choice approaches and interprets him as a forerunner of a weak variant of rational choice. For Norkus, Weber could not anticipate some recent more-sophisticated results, such as strategic behavior in game theoretical settings. But in many respects Weber can still stimulate modern theories.