Welco

me
 Subject Matter of Economic Sociology
(social mechanism of development of an economy)
The specific subject matter of this discipline is
the laws of interaction of the economic and
social spheres of the life of society, of economic
and social processes. Here we study the
economic preconditions for the realization of the
interests of social groups on the one hand, and
the social factors and conditions of economic
development on the other.
Two areas of science are most closely
related to economic sociology: the study
of the economic foundations of social
differentiation of social groups, and the
analysis of the social factors affecting
economic development.
The social factors underlying the effectiveness of the
economy have also not escaped the attention of scholars,
but works devoted to them usually deal with education
and training of workers, their living conditions (housing,
wages, social amenities, leisure time), and the migration
and turnover of cadres. However, the central and most
significant factor, the economic behavior of classes and
groups occupying key positions in the system of
production relations, has so far barely been studied.
But everything that takes place in the
economy, from the compilation of production
plans to the consumption of output, depends,
if not to a critical degree, at least very
substantially, on the behavior of the
corresponding groups of workers, buyers, and
consumers
 This means that to pinpoint the influence of social
factors on the development of the economy the
economic behavior of people must be studied.

But behavior is not an independent factor in the

development of the economy. It, in turn, depends on a
number of deeper-lying factors the most important of
which are, first, the place, the socioeconomic position of
social groups, and secondly the external conditions under
which this behavior is played out in the economic
sphere.
According to the Marxist tradition, the position of classes and
groups in socialist society can be described by three basic
characteristics: relationship to the means of production, role in
the social organization of labor, and their methods for obtaining
and the size of-the consumed portion of the social wealth at their
disposal. l4 In empirical sociological studies each of these
characteristics is made operational with the help of specific
attributes reflecting the nature and content of labor, participation
in management, control over the means of production, level of
family incomes, etc.
The substance of most of these attributes is closely
related, so that there are firm grounds for speaking about
the integral nature of the socioeconomic position of
groups. The distinctive features of this position
predetermine group interests, which, in turn guide the
behavior of groups. In this context it is relevant to recall
the following postulate of Marxism: “The economic
relations of any given society are manifested first and
foremost as interests
If the direction and the specific modes of behavior of
groups are determined by their interests, the margin
of freedom they have in their behavior is set by
conditions that are external to the groups. The
principal regulator of the economic behavior of
groups is the economic mechanism, which includes
the methods of organizing, planning, and the
rewarding of production.
But socioeconomic behavior is regulated not only by
the economic mechanism. Legal norms stipulating
specific punishments for different forms of antisocial
behavior, aand modes of behavior imposed upon
citizens as a duty and conforming to the interests of
society also play an important role here.
However, no matter how minutely activity is administratively regulated, social
groups are always left a certain range of freedom in the choice of modes of
behavior to realize their interests. Moreover, groups do not always understand
and accept the limitations imposed on their behavior by administrative bodies.
In those cases where these limitations contradict their vital interests or
established traditions and norms, social groups often seek ways to get around a
prohibition. In response to this, controlling bodies usually adopt new measures
to curtail undesirable modes of behavior, and then groups react in specific ways
to these measures, etc. As a result, the socioeconomic behavior of groups and the
activity of controlling bodies become mutually attuned, so to speak, and are
transformed into a singular kind of dialog. Social groups interact with one
another
Where their interests coincide they combine for joint
achievement of their goals, but when their interests
diverge a potential for conflict is created. Some conflicts
are resolved without the intervention of the state through
the independent search by groups for compromise modes
of behavior. But if this is not successful, and the conflict
of group interests assumes an acute form, controlling
bodies serve as arbiters
In addition to direct contacts, social groups enter into indirect
interaction with one another, interaction mediated by relations with
the state. For example, nonfulfillment of the plan for grain sales by
one agricultural region results in an increase in the target for other
regions; the preferential satisfaction of the needs of some farms for
tractors and combines reduces the chances of other farms to obtain
this machinery. Hence an indirect interaction among groups is
accompanied by the same struggle of interests as a direct
interaction
The socioeconomic behavior of social groups is played
out not only in the sphere of developing the forces of
production, but also in the sphere of improving the
relations of production. These groups, Certain groups
of managerial personnel, occupy a certain position in
society and have their own interests which do not
always completely coincide with the interests of society
Since a correspondence between the relations of production and the state
of the productive forces is one of the most important conditions for the
successful growth of the economy, it is natural to expect sociology to
study the mechanisms whereby this is achieved. But in fact no such
investigations have ever been carried out. As a result, Soviet science
found itself burdened by an oversimplified notion to the effect that under
socialism the relations of production were drawn up to the level of the
forces of production, without any contradictions between social groups,
l8 which of course does not correspond to reality. To fill this gap in
scientific knowledge about our society is one of the tasks of economic
sociology.
As we have seen, the interaction between the
economic and social subsystems of society, each of
which has a developed structure, is a quite complex
matter. The term “mechanism” is useful for
designating the mode of this interaction insofar as it
reflects the integrity, the complexity of the structure,
and the functional nature of the phenomenon being
studied.
By the social mechanism of the development of the economy we mean the
stable system of economic behavior of social groups, and the interaction of these
groups with one another and with the state with regard to the production,
distribution, and consumption of material goods and services, a system that is
regulated by historically evolved social institutions, the economic mechanism,
and the ongoing activity of the bodies managing and controlling the economy.
The function of the social mechanism is to secure an internal unity between the
economic and social aspects of the development of society by transmitting
“impulses of development’,’ from the social sphere to the economic sphere and
vice versa. The specific form in which it functions is the behavior of social
groups, while its driving force is their interests.
How are the social mechanism of the development of the economy and the
economic mechanism of management control correlated?

We regard the economic mechanism of management control of the

economy as constituting a most important part of the social mechanism of
its development, since it plays a key role in regulating the economic
behavior of groups. The economic mechanism for managing the economy
serves as a “skeleton” for the social mechanism, but it is not the whole of
the latter since it comprises neither the social structure of society, nor the
behavior and interaction of its groups.
While the economic mechanism for managing the economy (in
the sense we give to it here) is to a considerable extent the result
of the purposeful activity of managing bodies, the social
mechanism of the development of the economy as a whole is a
natural-historical phenomenon formed, as it were, behind the back
of society. It therefore has more inertia and is much less
manageable than the economic mechanism.
Historically specific variants of the social mechanism of a
socialist economy may of course vary in quality, i.e., they
can be more or less effective. One may evaluate their
effectiveness on the basis of results of the economic and
social development of society. The former are
characterized by the level of effectiveness, and the growth
rates of production, while the latter are characterized by
changes in the social structure of society and in the social
qualities of people.
As Karl Marx observed, man is the “imprint” of the social relations of which
he is a part. Hence every specific system of relations of production creates a
special social type of man corresponding to its quality. The characteristic
features of this man are determined by firmly internalized norms of behavior,
transformed into personal traits, in the sphere of production, distribution,
exchange, and consumption. The social type of the subject of economic
activity inherent in any society is characterized by the prevalence-and the
level at which they are manifested-of such qualities as love of work,
reliability, conscientiousness, an enterprising spirit, honesty, ability to take
independent decisions or calculated risks, collectivism, and on the other hand
by such features as indifference to the work at hand, individualism, money-
grubbing, lack of principle, irresponsibility, etc.
The social types of workers can be assessed only by
evaluating their predominant modes of behavior. But the
concepts of “type of behavior” and “type of worker” do not
coincide. The difference is that behavior is more
fluctuating: its manifestation not only depends on the type
of worker, but can also change as external conditions
change, while the membership of workers in a specific
social type is a long-term factor. The influence of this
factor on the development of the economy is felt not only
through
out the work life of a particular generation, but also
after that generation leaves the scene, insofar as the
personality traits and norms of behavior of older
generations are transmitted to the younger ones. In
particular, this explains the historical continuity in the
characteristics of ethnic groups of workers (e.g.,
Russian, Estonian, Georgian), reflecting the specific
features of the path of historical development traversed
by these respective peoples.
The social type of worker predominating at a particular moment is in part
the result of existing social relations, but it also bears some imprint from
previously existing conditions. Hence it has considerably more inertia and
is not easy to modify. However, the inertia of a social type of worker and
its resistance to regulation heightens the significance of the influence
exerted on it by the social mechanism of development of the economy.
Although this influence is not able to modify an existing type of worker in
the necessary direction within a short period, it nonetheless is a long term
and ultimately achievable goal. Thus we have described the social
mechanism of development of an economy, which should, we think, be the
principal subject matter of economic sociology.
Subject Matter of Economic Sociology
1. It focuses on the economic activities and how they are
structured into organizations, how they are organized
according to statuses, values and norms that usually
regulate economic activities (contract laws) and sanctions
(rewards and punishments).
2. It focuses on the relationship between sociological
variables as they manifest themselves in economic and
non-economic contexts. This relationship can be viewed
from two aspects: intra-unit and inter-unit focus.
intra-unit and inter-unit focus. In the intra-unit focus, sociologists take a
given concrete economic unit, for example a factory, and they study power
and authority relations, groups that exist in the unit, employee-employer
relationships, employee-employee relationships, etc. The broader, inter-unit
focus, studies relationships between economic units and their social
environment: factors at societal level as they affect economic process, labor
management, public policy, etc

3. It studies the distinctive sociological aspects of the central economic

variables (money, saving and investment)