You are on page 1of 7

Exchange in Anthropology

was Bohannan (1959) who sought to explain the
impact of money on the Tiv economy of West Africa.
For him, the problem was to understand the process
by which the ‘multicentric’ gift economy was destroyed
by the ‘unicentric’ commodity economy. His theory
stressed the differences between the qualitative rank
order of value relations characteristic of gift economies
with the quantitative value relations characteristic of
commodity economies. The Tiv classified the pounds,
shillings, and pence of the colonial money system by
quality rather than quantity; but the implicit quantitative order underlying notes and coins, he argued,
‘flattened’ the gift economy.
Whatever the merits of this explanation in Africa,
the theory fails elsewhere, not because of any logical
flaws, but because it asks the wrong question. In places
like Papua New Guinea the problem to be explained
was the efflorescence of gift exchange under the impact
of colonization and the global market. Such was the
problem Gregory (1982) sought to explain. More
recent approaches of greater generality, such as the
work of Appadurai (1986), focus on consumption and
the ‘social life of things,’ the idea that things have a
biography and that that they change their social form
as they move from one context to another. For
example, a pig may be raised as a pet, given away in a
moka gift exchange, then sold on the market a number
of times, reused in a gift exchange, and eventually
given away as pork in a pig kill ceremony to be finally
eaten. Other works have examined the morality of
money in different social settings (Parry and Bloch
1989).
Barter, a category economists consigned to the
prehistory of economic development, is emerging as a
category of ethnographic and theoretical importance
(Humphrey and Hugh-Jones 1992). Anthropologists
working in the postsocialist states have noticed its reemergence in these states where it seems to be related
to the disintegration of the economies in these areas.
Ethnographic research over the twentieth century
has presented many problems for theorists of exchange
and many significant theoretical advances have been
made. The twenty-first century will no doubt pose new
problems for ethnographic description and analysis.
See also: Economic Anthropology; Economic Sociology; Exchange: Social; Money: Anthropological
Aspects; Money, Sociology of; Trade and Exchange,
Archaeology of

Bibliography
Appadurai A 1986 Introduction: Commodities and the politics
of value. In: Appadurai A (ed.) The Social Life of Things:
Commodities in Cultural Perspectie. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK
Boas F 1897 Kwakiutl Ethnography. Chicago University Press,
Chicago
Bohannan P 1959 The impact of money on an African
subsistence economy. In: Dalton G (ed.) Tribal and Peasant

5042

Economies: Readings in Economic Anthropology. The Natural
History Press, Garden City, NY
Godbout J T, Caille! A 1998 The World of the Gift (trans.
Winkler D). McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, PQ
Godelier M 1999 The Enigma of the Gift. Chicago University
Press, Chicago
Gregory C A 1982 Gifts and Commodities. Academic Press,
London
Humphrey C, Hugh-Jones S 1992 Barter, Exchange and Value:
An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK
Le! vi-Strauss C 1969 The Elementary Structures of Kinship, rev
edn. Eyre & Spottiswoode, London
Malinowski B 1922 (1961) Argonauts of the Western Pacific.
Dutton, New York
Mauss M 1925 (1954) The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange
in Archaic Societies (trans. Cunnison I). Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London
Parry J, Bloch M (eds.) 1989 Money and the Morality of
Exchange. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Polanyi K 1944 The Great Transformation. Farrar & Rinehart.
Rinehart, New York
Sahlins M 1972 Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Athetone,
Chicago
Strathern A 1971 (1975) The Rope of Moka. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK
Weiner A B 1992 Inalienable Possessions. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

C. A. Gregory

Exchange: Social
Social exchange theory has its origins in the field of
sociology in the work of George C. Homans and Peter
Blau. Homans’ (1958) famous paper entitled ‘Social
Behavior as Exchange’ laid the foundations of this
orientation to the study of behavior. He subsequently
expanded these ideas in Social Behaior: Its Elementary Forms, published in 1961 (1974). The primary
focus of his work is what he referred to as ‘subinstitutional’ or elementary behavior, the actions of
individuals in direct interaction with one another that
form the bedrock of groups and organizations. He
contrasted elementary behavior with institutionalized
forms of behavior, such as that involved in conforming
to norms or to role prescriptions for appropriate
behavior. For Homans, institutionalized behavior and
elementary forms of behavior were most often distinct.
He argued that elementary behavior could sometimes
‘crack the institutional crust,’ forcing changes in the
institutionalized ways of doing things (e.g., the
changes in social behavior and institutions forged by
rebellions and revolutions).

1. Major Theoretical Formulations: Blau and
Homans
Blau (1964), in his famous book, Exchange and Power
in Social Life, developed a much more extensive

rather. Homans. adopted a reductionistic orientation to explanation using exchange principles arguing that many of the ‘laws’ of social organization could be understood in terms of the behavior of the interacting parts. though much less so in the work of Homans who labored skillfully to ground his theory of exchange explicitly on Skinnerian principles of behavioral analysis. communities. a task that much later won Gary Becker the Nobel Prize in Economics. according to Homans. 2.’ borrowing the term from Homans. which he labeled ‘social exchange theory.Exchange: Social treatment of the links between microlevel social behavior and the groups. A major difference between the perspectives of Homans and Blau is the latter’s recognition of ‘emergent’ processes at more complex levels of social organization. The dominant contribution from psychology is the work of John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959). Turner (1986) provides a fairly accurate and detailed account of the various roots of social exchange theory in his discussion of the development of this theoretical orientation and its impact in the field of sociology. This volume presents a lengthy treatment of the forms of interdependence among individuals engaged in various types of social interaction. In particular. his focus on the interpersonal was primarily as the basis for theorizing about more complex forms of association. acknowledging the role it plays in larger and more complex collectivities. Both Homans and Blau addressed indirect exchange processes. For Blau the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Blau discusses group formation. For this reason. He presents his book on social exchange as a prolog to a theory of social structure. in contrast. The origin of Blau’s vision of social behavior was not behaviorism. Blau views indirect exchange as the basis for coordinated action in complex social structures (and the substructures of which they are composed). especially as the social structures in- volved become more complex. Blau extends the analysis of indirect exchange. his well-known colleague at Harvard. The vestiges of both traditions are clearly evident in Blau’s treatment of social exchange. These forces play a major role in his theory of social exchange as he endeavors to provide a comprehensive microfoundation for macrosociology. the dominant paradigm in sociology until the late l960s. and dissolution as forces of structural change and stability in complex social structures. it was a more sociological version of microeconomics. Relationships between the parts or elements of the structure create emergent processes that evolve from the interaction of the parts. Homans and Blau were both engaged in distinctive efforts to produce a coherent theoretical alternative to Parsonian functionalism. repudiating the need for more macrolevel concepts and principles. employees of the same employer have indirect exchange relations with each other through their direct contacts with their employer. the major works of several psychologists and anthropologists provided further impetus to the development of the exchange paradigm in sociology. among others. The Roots of Social Exchange Theory Somewhat independently. The Social Psychology of Groups. conflict. This coordination of action through indirect exchange in larger collectivities necessitates mediation by common values. Unlike Homans. psychological principles ultimately laid the foundation for the laws of elementary social behavior. While Homans’s efforts were aimed at understanding elementary behavior. Blau’s goal was to produce a theory of social structure by clarifying the nature of the social processes and associations that generate the more complex structures of organizations. which can be the focus of opposition and conflict. Blau’s aim was much more macro in focus. He intended to formulate a theory of social structure and institutions based upon a sound microfoundation. and institutions it constitutes. and conflict theory (in the case of Blau’s work). For example. but are not reducible to properties of the individual elements. In matrix format it lays 5043 . utilitarianism. differentiation. behaviorism (for Homans). F. opposition. though such processes form a much more significant component of Blau’s theoretical formulation. Skinner. organizations. He explicitly attempted to link the sociology of everyday life popularized in the work of Simmel and Goffman with the broad theories of society characteristic of Weber and Parsons. cohesion. Homans acknowledged the importance of the indirect ties that actors have who are in direct exchange with the same sets of individuals.) In many ways Blau’s work was one of the first major theoretical efforts to extend the logic of microeconomics to the analysis of social behavior. A major influence upon his theoretical work was the empirical research of B.1 Psychological Roots Besides functionalism and Parsons’s version of systems theory other influences on the development of social exchange theory came from an eclectic set of sources including pragmatism. Homans instead based his analysis of the social behavior he called ‘exchange’ on principles of behavioral analysis derived from the work of the behaviorists famous at the time he wrote. integration. typically individuals. however. and societies. as in Homans’s case. Homans and Blau developed their theories of social exchange even though each had been well-versed in functionalism and Parsons’s social systems approach to the analysis of society. In addition to these sources of influence. 2. (For a lengthy critique of Blau’s use of microeconomic reasoning see Heath 1976.

Emerson’s goal is to present a theory of the formation. Thibaut and Kelley (1959) distinguish behavior control from fate control in social relationships using their basic orientation to interdependence. Malinowski (1922). Two of Emerson’s distinct contributions to exchange theory in sociology are his fundamental insight into the relational nature of power and his extension of exchange theory to analyze the social networks created by exchange relations. and termination of exchange relations and the forms of social structure created by connected exchange relations (e. In the two papers written in 1967 (and subsequently published in 1972) in which Emerson laid out the foundations of his theory of exchange. 1981). particularly on cooperation. and balance. 3. the structures of primary interest were the networks formed as a result of the connections among a set of actors engaged in social exchange with one another. argues that the exchange of arm bands for necklaces across the islands over time was an important source of social solidarity. In 5044 Emerson’s case. based upon his earlier treatment of power-dependence relations (1962). he formulated a model of the actor built on principles of behavior analysis adopted from Skinner via Homans. negotiation. Emerson’s work on power-dependence relations also influenced Blau’s (1964) discussions of power and power gaining strategies. competition. however. Propositions are formulated based upon the basic reinforcement notions of behavior first introduced into exchange theory by Homans. often contrasted directly with economic exchange. 1997. Before expanding upon these two major contributions to the development of exchange theory it is worth noting that Emerson’s first efforts to formulate a theory of social exchange had more in common with Homans’s work than that of Blau. but sustained empirical research on the topic did not begin until the mid-1970s largely as a result of the influence of Emerson’s (1972) more formal theoretical work. on reciprocal or non-negotiated exchange). alternative exchange relations. developed conceptions of indirect exchange and generalized exchange based to some extent upon Malinowski’s extensive fieldwork. Their work formed the basis of much experimental research over the next two decades. Assuming actors enter exchange relations for reasons of reward (or avoidance of negative reinforcement in alternative relations). cost (rewards foregone).. networks of exchange). and coalition formation. Emerson built a conception of social exchange around his fundamental insights concerning power in social relations. Key concepts include reward (positive reinforcement). For example.2 Anthropological Roots The early work of anthropologists like Levi-Strauss ([1922] 1969).Exchange: Social out the rewards and costs attached to different behaviors under varying conditions of interdependence. Blau (1964). As Turner (1986) notes. he viewed his theory of social exchange as the beginning steps toward formulating a general theory of social structure.1 Emerson’s Theory of Exchange Relations A central focus of Emerson’s theoretical framework is the exchange relation as the unit of analysis. He. and Mauss (1925) influenced exchange theory in an entirely different way. It also dovetailed nicely with the emergence of game theory in the social sciences as a tool for understanding strategic interactions. Similarly. like Blau. Mauss’s (1925) complex analysis of the gift also provided input to the development of theory concerning generalized exchange and reciprocity (see also Molm. 3. despite their common goal in building a theory of social structure. The emphasis on the social relation as the unit of analysis distinguishes Emerson’s work from that of Homans and Blau and allows Emerson to present a more coherent theory of social structure. Sociologists drew upon the fieldwork of these scholars to provide examples of the significance of social exchange. 2.2 Power and Dependence in Exchange The primary legacy of Emerson’s work on social exchange is his conception of how power is determined by the dependence of one actor upon another in an exchange relation and how dependence is structured by the nature of the connections among actors in networks of exchange opportunities that deny or . like Blau. for example. Exchange Theory: Empirical Research Homans and Blau popularized exchange theorizing in sociology in the late 1960s and early 1970s. this move makes exchange theory less vulnerable to charges of tautology and reductionism. The framework is used to make predictions about behavior given different types of control over the outcomes of the other actor(s) in the situation. Malinowski (1922). and subsequently Richard Emerson (1972. Less critical in this theoretical formulation is the precise nature of the values of the actors involved or the cognitive structure of their interests. the focus shifts to understanding aspects of the exchange relations and the structure of the networks or groups in which they are embedded.g. made power and inequality central to his treatment of exchange processes. in his comprehensive analysis of the Kula Ring among the Trobriand Islanders. the significance of which far exceeded the economic value of the items exchanged. Ironically. 3. maintenance. dependence.

much of it experimental. in addition.g. These two factors (resource value and availability) determine the level of B’s dependence upon A and thus A’s power over B. Cook and Emerson 1978..) expanded this important direction of development in exchange theory in subsequent publications formulating what is now known as ‘exchange network theory. Embedding this relationship in a network of exchange opportunities creates the basis for a structural theory of power in exchange networks. Bonacich 1998. exchange in two relations may also be ‘mixed. and decreases proportional to the degree of availability of y to A from alternative sources (other than B). 1976. Markovsky et al. In all of these programs of research the main focus of the early empirical work was determining the structural determinants of the distribution of power in networks of varying configurations. These debates gave way during the 1980s and 1990s to more sophisticated arguments in the field concerning theoretical strategy and the best ways to develop microlevel models of exchange that inform macrolevel processes. (c) actors engage in recurrent.. p. A negative connection means that exchange in one relation reduces the amount or frequency of exchange in another exchange relation involving one of the same parties (e. The power-dependence principle.4 Key Assumptions of Exchange Theory The key assumptions of exchange theory summarized recently by Molm (1997. testing the fundamental propositions derived from exchange theory. Early debates about the value of exchange theory in the social sciences centered on the role of rationality.3 Exchange Networks Emerson (1972. (1988) that came to be known as ‘network exchange theory. and (d) valued outcomes obey the economic law of diminishing marginal utility (or the psychological principle of satiation). tautology. Emerson’s formulation provided the impetus for much of this empirical work primarily because he formalized the theory to make it more precise and therefore testable. Skvoretz and Willer 1993. Yamaguchi 1996). 1988. 3.e. These are modal cases. The connection according to Emerson’s work can either be positive or negative. Subsequent formulations adopted a similar theoretical strategy (e. Based on these core assumptions various predictions are made about the behavior of actors engaged in exchange and the effects of different factors on the outcomes of exchange. The key definition of power in Emerson’s formulation is: The power of actor A over actor B in the Ax:By exchange relation (where x and y represent resources of value) increases as a function of the value of y to A. Power Inequalities Empirical work since the early 1980s has established several primary facts about exchange in networks of social relations.g. These traditions of work in recent research have much in common.’ It derives from Willer’s (e. but is not derived from Emerson’s powerdependence perspective. 3. allows for the formulation of predictions concerning the effects of increasing the value of the resources involved in the exchange and the availability of resources from alternate sources. the more power A has over B. see also Molm and Cook 1995. A connection is positive if the amount or frequency of exchange in one relation increases the amount or frequency of exchange in an exchange relation involving at least one of the parties to both exchanges (e. however.. Exchange in more complicated networks often involves both positive and negative connections (see Cook et al.’ involving both positive and negative exchange connections relating to different aspects (or dimensions) of exchange. and reductionism (see Emerson 1976). the A–B relation is positively connected to the B–C relation if exchange in the A–B relation increases the frequency or amount of exchange in the B–C relation). and bases of power. the A–B and B–C exchange relations are negatively connected at B if exchange in the A–B relation reduces the frequency or amount of exchange in the B–C relation). they are not engaged in simple one-shot transactions)..g. (b) exchange relations develop in structures of mutual dependence (both parties have some reason to engage in exchange to obtain resources of value or there would be no need to form an exchange relation). the power of A over B is a direct function of B’s dependence upon A in the A:B exchange relation.. More complex theoretical formulations emerged during this period based on the results of careful empirical work. The more dependent B is upon A.g. The networks structure this access by 5045 .’ A similar perspective was developed later by Markovsky et al. despite the remaining subtle differences in assumptions about actor behavior. Willer and Anderson 1981) ‘elementary theory’ of social relations that has an affinity with exchange concepts. 1983). Power inequalities in networks of exchange are determined by access to valued resources in the network. Bienenstock and Bonacich 1992. 210) include: (a) behavior is motivated by the desire to increase gain and to avoid loss (or to increase outcomes that are positively valued and to decrease outcomes that are negatively valued). etc.Exchange: Social provide access to exchange alternatives. 4. That is. Friedkin 1992. mutually contingent exchanges with specific partners over time (i. network connections. Exchange relations are connected to the extent that exchange in one relation affects or is affected by the nature of the exchange in another relation.

in part because it carries with it the risk of withdrawal from the relationship on the part of the target of the punishment to the extent that the relationship can be exited. the missing link in Emerson’s (1962. 1983. The structure of the network determines the accessibility of resources and thus the nature of the distribution of power in the network (see. Under conditions of low uncertainty actors are much more likely to continue to ‘play the market’ and to avoid forming commitments to specific partners in order to maximize their access to valued resources. Commitment reduces the extent to which actors seek exchange with alternatives and thus serves to reduce the power inequalities both within the exchange relation and within the network in which the relation is embedded. In this effort norms of fairness or justice and attitudes toward risk play a key role. According to Molm (1997. especially the use of coercive power.e. Relational Cohesion and Social Exchange Lawler and his collaborators (e. Kollock 1994. 1972) original work on powerdependence relations was the nature of the precise mechanisms that relate structural determinants of power with the actual use of power by those in positions of power. Molm’s (1997) work has made a major contribution to the analysis of the strategic use of structurally based power advantages and disadvantages. The focus of this work is to examine the conditions under which social exchange relations emerge out of opportunities for exchange and are linked to the emergence of positive emotions about the exchange relation. Extending the theory to deal with the exercise of coercive power within social exchange relations. Conceptions of fairness constrain the use of power under some conditions.1 Coercie Power Integrating the analysis of coercive power with reward power in social exchange relations allows for the investigation of a wider range of social situations in which more complex exchanges occur. it also tends to be correlated with perceptions of trustworthiness of the actors involved in the exchange relations.2 Risk and Uncertainty Recently additional empirical research has been conducted that extends exchange theories to deal with the effects of important factors such as uncertainty and risk on the nature and structure of social exchange. (Uncertainty in these experimental studies referred to the likelihood of being exploited by a new partner in an exchange network of opportunities that changes over time. uncertainty not only results in commitment formation as a means of reducing uncertainty. Low frequency and unfavorable (or less favorable) outcome exchanges are much less likely to lead to commitment to the relation.g. Frequently. 268): ‘When punishment is administered contingently and consistently. and to feelings of cohesiveness or solidarity (i. In addition.’ However. when punishment power is used it tends to be very effective in modifying behavior to make the relations more mutually rewarding in the long run. As Kollock’s (1994) work demonstrates. Cook and Emerson 1978. Yamagishi et al. both parties have some degree of control over their involvement in the exchange and can exit if they so desire. Facing uncertain environments. (Molm focuses primarily on exchange relations that are voluntary. As she correctly notes. actors involved in exchange are more likely to seek to form committed exchange relations (Cook and Emerson 1978. 5046 5. It also integrates into existing . (1998) report that trust emerges in exchange relations under conditions of high uncertainty as actors form commitments to exclusive exchange in an attempt to avoid the possibility of exploitation by unknown actors who enter the exchange opportunity structure. Lawler and Yoon 1993) have developed a new theory of relational cohesion based on principles of social exchange. but also punishment power. and aversion to risk makes some actors unwilling to use the structural power at their disposal for fear of loss. These positive emotions and subsequently conceptions of cohesion or solidarity. Cook et al.) However. Molm (1997) has produced new insights into the nature of power relations in situations in which the actors have not only reward power. that is. Lawler and Yoon 1996). Molm demonstrates that the results that hold for the exercise of reward power do not hold for the use of punishment. to positive feelings about the exchange. 4.g. coercion is a powerful means of getting what one wants.. those involved in ongoing exchange relations have control over both rewards and punishments (even if it is only the withholding of rewarding behaviors). Whitmeyer 1999). what Lawler terms a ‘we-feeling’). Heimer 2001). develop based upon positive evaluations of the outcomes of exchanges between actors and the frequency of their exchange.. In exchange relations characterized by power inequalities the use of power varies depending upon whether the actors control positive or negative outcomes.) In the current work on trust.g. Lawler argues. p. coercive power is used rarely.. 1988. Markovsky et al. uncertainty and vulnerability are often defined as two of the key elements of situations in which trust considerations are paramount (e. The significance of this new line of research is that it returns to some of the earlier anthropological work that examines the links between exchange and solidarity in social relations. 4. e. punishment power is used much less frequently. Comparing the behavioral effects of the use of different bases of power in social exchange relations..Exchange: Social providing connections or links to certain actors and restricting access to others. Specifically.

Bronislaw (1884–1942). as well as the reorganization of the workplace and the rapid increase in interpersonal connections over the World Wide Web. Sociology of. Wiley. Medical Care Research and Reiew (March) Heath A F 1976 Rational Choice and Social Exchange: A Critique of Exchange Theory. Cambridge. Greenwich. Integration: Social. but also political and social dimensions of transnational significance. equity and commitment in exchange networks. Houghton Mifflin. Roussell A 1998 Managed care and physician referral: A social exchange perspective. Vol. Exchange theory. Power in Society. 2. UK 5047 . Networks: Social. administrators. CT Cook K S. Business to client (B2C) relations has now been superseded in significance by the global transformation of corporate relations. Trust. and those who insure the patients. MA Cook K S. Yamagishi T 1992 Power in exchange networks: A power-dependence formulation. Social Networks 14: 231–43 Bienenstock E J. In: Rosenberg M. as B2B (business to business) commerce becomes the dominant mode of conducting transactions at the macro level. pp. JAI. Anderson B (eds. At the more macro level.) Social Psychology: Sociological Perspecties. thus widely differing mechanisms have been created that serve to provide some monitoring to insure the equitable and fair treatment of those who are most dependent and thus vulnerable to the abuse of power. Social Networks 14: 213–29 Grembowski D. Emerson R M 1978 Power. Marcel (1872–1950). Power imbalance in partnerships often creates additional tension in the relation as actors try to manage the resource differences between the parties to the exchange and attempt to maintain commitments in the face of alternatives. In these contexts the focus of the analysis is often on the nature of the relationship and the factors that predict satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) and longevity (or termination) of the relation. Within an organizational structure such as that produced under managed care in the health care delivery system. Part II: Exchange relations and network structures. 1998). In: Berger J. Division of. Cambridge University Press. Sociology of. As this encyclopedia is going to press the world of business relations across the globe is being transformed. Interactionism: Symbolic. Labor. see Grembowski et al. See also: Groups. Cook K S. Emerson R M. In all cases in which a power imbalance exists in an exchange relation there is the potential for exploitation. Malinowski. Future research will likely see the expansion of exchange analyses of power in global networks of trade embedded in complex social and political realities. Annual Reiew of Sociology 2: 335–62 Emerson R M 1981 Social exchange theory. Sociological Perspecties 36: 117–35 Blau P M 1964 Exchange and Power in Social Life. 1. American Journal of Sociology 89: 275–305 Cook K S. Gillmore M 1984 Power. 6. exchange networks now represent an interesting framework for analyzing the Internet revolution in business. choice of provider is often limited exacerbating patient concerns with their dependence upon the available physicians. pp. In: Lawler E J (ed.. War: Anthropological Aspects Bibliography Bienenstock E J. dependence. A prime example is the oversight demanded frequently in nursing homes that must deliver care to one of the most dependent populations in the USA. These relations represent complex networks of exchange and trade that include not only economic. Cambridge. the infirm aged. Bonacich P 1992 The core as a solution to exclusionary networks.) Adances in Group Processes (Vol. Social Networks 14: 245–65 Emerson R M 1962 Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Reiew 27: 31–41 Emerson R M 1972 Exchange theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Aspects of both power-dependence theory and exchange theory have proven useful in the study of power processes in many contexts.g. and coalitions. Mauss. Patrick D. Mechanisms are put into place to provide patients in these settings access to redress if the power of the physician is abused.Exchange: Social theoretical conceptions of exchange theory important considerations of the emotional bases of exchange and commitment. Bonacich P 1993 Game-theory models for exchange networks: Experimental results. 30–65 Friedkin N E 1992 An expected value model of social power: Predictions for selected exchange networks. Part I: A psychological basis for social exchange. 38–87 Emerson R M 1976 Social exchange theory. Turner R (eds. Social Psychology Quarterly 61: 185–98 Coleman J S 1990 Foundations of Social Theory. pp.) Sociological Theories in Progress. Structure: Social. Zelditch M Jr. Applications of the Theory Applications of exchange theory and powerdependence concepts extend from dyadic relations like dating and longer-term relationships including marriage (e. 27–58). Yamagishi T 1983 The distribution of power in exchange networks: Theory and experimental results. New York Bonacich P 1998 A behavioral foundation for a structural theory of power in exchange networks. Basic Books. Gillmore M R. Sprecher and Metts 1999) to often shortterm relations characteristic of various practitioner– client interactions (such as physician–patient meetings under managed care. These include increased professional and utilization reviews by colleagues. Two dimensions that are frequently investigated in this respect are the degree of power imbalance in the relationship and the extent to which the relationship is embedded in a network of other important exchange relationships. American Sociological Reiew 43: 721–39 Cook K S. New York.

New York Turner J 1986 The Structure of Sociological Theory. American Journal of Sociology 93: 833–51 Yamaguchi K 1996 Power in networks of substitutable and complementary exchange relations: A rational-choice model and an analysis of power centralization. Metts S 1999 Romantic beliefs: Their influence on relationships and patterns of change over time. American Sociological Reiew 56: 475–93 Molm L D 1997 Coercie Power in Social Exchange. 1. Beacon. Cook K S 1995 Social exchange and exchange networks. King 1975).Exchange: Social Heckathorn D 1983 Extensions of power-dependence theory: The concept of resistance. Executive Branch. Kelley H H 1959 The Social Psychology of Groups. Yoon J 1996 Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion. Exchange and Coercion: The Elementary Theory and Its Applications. Willer D. S. Skvoretz J 1997 Games and structures. In: Cook K S (ed. London Markovsky B 1987 Toward multilevel sociological theories: Simulations of actor and network effects. American Sociological Reiew 53: 220–36 Mauss M 1925 Essai sur le Don en Sociologie et Anthropologie. American Sociological Reiew 61: 308–32 K. All rights reserved. UK Molm L D. Cook Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. Paris Molm L D 1991 Affect and social exchange: Satisfaction in power-dependence relations. Markovsky B 1995 Negotiated exchanges in social networks. no easy answer where precisely to draw the boundaries between the political part and the remainder of the executive. Dorsey. Brace. Lovaglia M J. Origin Executives in the modern sense emerged through the piecemeal splitting-off of state functions from a traditionally undivided central government (mostly a monarch) (Shepard 1931. Takahashi N 1999 Power in negotiated and reciprocal exchange. It can either be one branch of government (to be distinguished from the legislative and the judiciary branches). Cook K S 1988 Network connections and the distribution of power in exchange networks. Sociological Perspecties 38: 519–45 Markovsky B. Social Psychology Quarterly 56: 235–48 Yamagishi T. the armed forces. 2nd edn. pp. political staff. This is the broadest definition. New York.). Anderson B 1981 Networks. Social Networks 14: 187–211 Willer D. & World. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 16: 834–51 Thibaut J W. This process began in twelfth. edn. The second meaning of ‘executive’ is that of the political part of the executive branch. American Journal of Sociology 104: 165–94 Yamagishi T. Government ‘Executive’ has two meanings.). Willer D. Social Forces 61: 1206–31 Heimer C 2001 Solving the problem of trust. Cook K S 1993 Generalized exchange and social dilemmas. judicial functions were transferred to courts and legislative functions to parliaments. Erger J 1993 The seeds of weak power: Extending network exchange theory. commitment and trust. Wiley. American Journal of Sociology 62: 597–606 Homans G C [1961] 1974 Social Behaior: Its Elementary Forms. Needham Heights. Lovaglia M J 1995 Who exchanges with whom: Structural determinants of exchange frequency in negotiated exchange networks. House J S (eds. etc.and thirteenth-century England. 40–88 Homans G C 1958 Social behavior as exchange. Skvoretz J. Rationality and Society 9: 5–35 Yamagishi T. American Sociological Reiew 63: 871–94 Levi-Strauss C [1922] 1969 The Elementary Structures of Kinship (Rev. In: Cook K S. Social Psychology Quarterly 57: 177–89 Whitmeyer J M 1999 Interest-network structures in exchange networks. pp. Chicago Whitmeyer J M 1994 Social structure and the actor: The case of power in exchange networks. Skvoretz J. Cambridge. Consequently. the civil service. Boston Lovaglia M J. American Sociological Reiew 61: 89–108 Lawler E J. American Sociological Reiew 58: 465–81 Lawler E J. Peterson G. the government. American Sociological Reiew 58: 801–18 Sprecher S. Willer D. Routledge. New York Kollock P 1994 The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncertainty. American Journal of Sociology 100: 313–45 Lawler E J. one of which is a subset of the other. Cook K S.) Trust in Society. MA. Allyn and Bacon. There is. however. Willer D 1993 Exclusion and power: A test of 4 theories of power in exchange networks. Elsevier. It had many national 5048 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences ISBN: 0-08-043076-7 . and all other government employees engaged in the implementation of laws (down to policemen. Watabe K 1998 Uncertainty. 4th edn. Social Forces 74: 123–55 Malinowski B 1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Harcourt. In order to limit the government’s power. American Sociological Reiew 197–209 Markovsky B. New York Willer D. Sociological Theory 5: 101–17 Markovsky B 1995 Developing an exchange network simulator. Yoon J 1998 Network structure and emotion in exchange relations. Gillmore M R. trust and commitment formation in the United States and Japan. school teachers. Social Psychology Quarterly 58: 163–77 Skvoretz J. Russell Sage Foundation. Cambridge University Press. American Sociological Reiew 64: 876–90 Skvoretz J. Fine G A. Patton T 1988 Power relations in exchange networks. including the head of state. 209–35 Molm L D. Yoon J 1993 Power and the emergence of commitment behavior in negotiated exchange. the term ‘executive’ means different things not only between countries and periods but often also between authors writing about the same countries or periods. Presses Universitaires de France.) Sociological Perspecties on Social Psychology. Sociological Perspecties 42: 23–47 Willer D 1992 Predicting power in exchange networks: A brief history and introduction to the issues.