Search

In recent decades, the rational choice approach has aroused growing interest in the social sciences, becoming a recognized and attractive theoretical alternative. However, its acceptance has occurred in the midst of a long confrontation of variable intensity that for many is inconclusive. The model of the rational decision maker, axiom of neoclassical economics, is its fundamental matrix and has been the source of many questions from various disciplines. For sociology, the disagreement with the postulates of the rational decision maker, and therefore, the rational choice, has not been sufficiently elucidated. The present study seeks to make a contribution to the clarification of such discrepancy, to know it from the point of view of sociology and to establish what relevant implications it would entail for it. It starts from some historical background that reveals an original tension between both conceptions. Then a review of the most well-known objections made to the model of the rational decision maker that touch the ontological, epistemological and the nature of the social is made. Finally, certain elementary theoretical principles of the sociological perspective are outlined and an illustrative exercise of contrast is made to show the incidence of essentially divergent presuppositional contents with the rational choice perspective, En las últimas décadas el enfoque de la elección racional ha despertado creciente interés en las ciencias sociales, constituyéndose en una alternativa teórica reconocida y atractiva. Sin embargo, su aceptación ha ocurrido en medio de una larga confrontación de variable intensidad que para muchos es inconclusa. El modelo del decisor racional, axioma de la economía neoclásica, es su matriz fundamental y ha sido fuente de muchos cuestionamientos desde varias disciplinas. Para la sociología, el desacuerdo con los postulados del decisor racional, y, por ende, la elección racional, no ha sido suficientemente dilucidado. En el presente estudio se busca hacer un aporte al esclarecimiento de tal disconformidad, conocerla desde el punto de vista de la sociología y establecer qué implicaciones relevantes conllevaría para ella. Se parte de algunos antecedentes históricos que revelan una tensión originaria entre ambas concepciones. Luego se hace una revisión de las más conocidas objeciones hechas al modelo del decisor racional que tocan lo ontológico, epistemológico y la naturaleza de lo social. Finalmente, se esbozan ciertos principios teóricos elementales de la perspectiva sociológica y se hace un ejercicio ilustrativo de contraste para mostrar la incidencia de contenidos presuposicionales esencialmente divergentes con la perspectiva de la elección racional.

In recent decades, the rational choice approach has aroused growing interest in the social sciences, becoming a recognized and attractive theoretical alternative. However, its acceptance has occurred in the midst of a long confrontation of variable intensity that for many is inconclusive. The model of the rational decision maker, axiom of neoclassical economics, is its fundamental matrix and has been the source of many questions from various disciplines. For sociology, the disagreement with the postulates of the rational decision maker, and therefore, the rational choice, has not been sufficiently elucidated. The present study seeks to make a contribution to the clarification of such discrepancy, to know it from the point of view of sociology and to establish what relevant implications it would entail for it. It starts from some historical background that reveals an original tension between both conceptions. Then a review of the most well-known objections made to the model of the rational decision maker that touch the ontological, epistemological and the nature of the social is made. Finally, certain elementary theoretical principles of the sociological perspective are outlined and an illustrative exercise of contrast is made to show the incidence of essentially divergent presuppositional contents with the rational choice perspective, En las últimas décadas el enfoque de la elección racional ha despertado creciente interés en las ciencias sociales, constituyéndose en una alternativa teórica reconocida y atractiva. Sin embargo, su aceptación ha ocurrido en medio de una larga confrontación de variable intensidad que para muchos es inconclusa. El modelo del decisor racional, axioma de la economía neoclásica, es su matriz fundamental y ha sido fuente de muchos cuestionamientos desde varias disciplinas. Para la sociología, el desacuerdo con los postulados del decisor racional, y, por ende, la elección racional, no ha sido suficientemente dilucidado. En el presente estudio se busca hacer un aporte al esclarecimiento de tal disconformidad, conocerla desde el punto de vista de la sociología y establecer qué implicaciones relevantes conllevaría para ella. Se parte de algunos antecedentes históricos que revelan una tensión originaria entre ambas concepciones. Luego se hace una revisión de las más conocidas objeciones hechas al modelo del decisor racional que tocan lo ontológico, epistemológico y la naturaleza de lo social. Finalmente, se esbozan ciertos principios teóricos elementales de la perspectiva sociológica y se hace un ejercicio ilustrativo de contraste para mostrar la incidencia de contenidos presuposicionales esencialmente divergentes con la perspectiva de la elección racional.

Methodological individualists often claim that any social phenomenon can ultimately be explained in terms of the actions and interactions of individuals. Any Nagelian version of methodological individualism requires that there be bridge laws that translate social statements into individualistic ones. We show that Nagelian individualism can be put to logical scrutiny by making the relevant social and individualistic languages fully explicit and mathematically precise. In particular, we prove that the social statement that a group of (at least two) agents performs a deontically admissible group action cannot be expressed in a well-established deontic logic of agency that models every combination of actions, omissions, abilities, and obligations of finitely many individual agents.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn resorts to concepts from several disciplines in order to describe the general patterns of scientific development. This blend of disciplines can be explained in part by Kuhn's intellectual path, from physics to history and then to philosophy of science; but it also points to a deeper methodological problem, which is the question of what is the real unity of analysis in his model of science. The primary intention of this article is, thus, to give a solution to this difficulty. The answer, I believe, rests on identifying three fundamental units present in Kuhn's theory of scientific development. They are, respectively, the individual, responsible for producing evidence, spreading information, and choosing theories; the community, a set of scientists investigating a series of phenomena; and the groups, individuals with similar behavior but with looser institutional or social ties — a usually neglected category in Kuhnian literature, but equally fundamental for the final outcome of scientific debates. After investigating these categories in detail, I propose a way of integrating them into a general model for explaining the resolution of scientific controversies. Finally, I try to resolve the apparent conflict among disciplinary vocabularies by offering an account of the function of sociological, psychological, and epistemological concepts for describing controversies, and some of the methodologies appropriate for each of these tasks.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn resorts to concepts from several disciplines in order to describe the general patterns of scientific development. This blend of disciplines can be explained in part by Kuhn's intellectual path, from physics to history and then to philosophy of science; but it also points to a deeper methodological problem, which is the question of what is the real unity of analysis in his model of science. The primary intention of this article is, thus, to give a solution to this difficulty. The answer, I believe, rests on identifying three fundamental units present in Kuhn's theory of scientific development. They are, respectively, the individual, responsible for producing evidence, spreading information, and choosing theories; the community, a set of scientists investigating a series of phenomena; and the groups, individuals with similar behavior but with looser institutional or social ties — a usually neglected category in Kuhnian literature, but equally fundamental for the final outcome of scientific debates. After investigating these categories in detail, I propose a way of integrating them into a general model for explaining the resolution of scientific controversies. Finally, I try to resolve the apparent conflict among disciplinary vocabularies by offering an account of the function of sociological, psychological, and epistemological concepts for describing controversies, and some of the methodologies appropriate for each of these tasks.

This article discusses the Weberian ideal-type proposal as a way to find value freedom-neutrality in the contemporary social research, which demands greater involvement of researchers with contextual practical problems that occur around them. Currently, methodological individualism is one of the most used methodologies and it is necessary for social researchers to know the bases and assumptions that founded this tradition. Its foundation is based on the contributions of Max Weber, which can be summarized in three: the first refers to the transparency of the value question of the researcher; the second contribution is the construction of an ideal-type rational action as an instrument of interpretation with high scientific discipline; finally, it is shown the management of empirical information to impute a causal relationship for the historical context analyzed. The main contribution of the article is that it shows each phase of the ideal type method, in order to offer an alternative for the transit between research and activism: separating the theoretical-conceptual values of the practical-emotional ones., El presente artículo discute la propuesta metodológica weberiana de tipo ideal como una manera de encontrar neutralidad-libertad valorativa en la investigación social contemporánea, la cual exige un mayor involucramiento de los investigadores con los problemas prácticos que ocurren a su alrededor. En la actualidad, el individualismo metodológico es una de las metodologías más utilizadas, su fundación se sostiene en las aportaciones de Max Weber, que se pueden resumir en tres: la primera se refiere a la transparencia de la cuestión valorativa del investigador; la segunda es la construcción de una acción racional de tipo ideal como instrumento de interpretación con alta disciplina científica; por último, se muestra el manejo de la información empírica para imputar una relación causal apropiada para el contexto histórico que se analiza. La principal aportación del artículo es que muestra cada una de las fases del método de elaboración de tipos ideales, con el fin de ofrecer una alternativa para el tránsito entre la investigación y el activismo: separar y explicitar los valores teóricos-conceptuales de los prácticos-emocionales.

Most contemporary sociologists’ aversion towards nationalism contrasts with the alleged nationalist views of one of the key classics of sociology, Max Weber. The considerable accumulated scholarship on the issue presents a unified belief that Weber was indeed a nationalist yet varies considerably in the significance attributed to the issue. Most authors entrench Weber’s nationalism within biographical studies of Weber’s political views as an individual beyond Weberian sociological theorizing. A different approach suggests that the notions of nationality in Weber’s works do have certain theoretical value as potentially capable of enriching the current understanding of the nation. The present article aims to bring together the notions of nationality dispersed within Weber’s various writings with the Weberian methodological individualism. The main argument of the article is that individualism and nationalism in Weber’s thought are not a contradiction despite the collectivism associated with the essentialist view of the nation. Instead, they represent a reflection of the fundamental shift from an earlier view of society as a meganthropos towards the pluralist problematization of the micromacro link definitive for the modern social theory. Analyzing the internal logic of this change provides new insights into the currently debated issue of retraditionalization, especially in relation to the ongoing renaissance of nationalism.

This article argues that the tradition within the individualism-holism debate of importing arguments from the micro-macro discussion in other disciplines (e.g., philosophy of mind and philosophy of biology) significantly has hampered our understanding of the individual-social relationship. While, for example, the neural-mental and atomic-molecular links represent empirical gives rise to relationships, in the social sciences the micro-macro link is a purely analytical qualifies as type of relationship. This disanalogy is important, since it has significant implications for the individualism-holism debate: (a) it implies a phenomenally monist social ontology and (b) it disqualifies the notion of social macro causation.

The paper deals with methodological individualism in sociocultural anthropology. Key theories and debates within the framework of methodological individualism in anthropology are presented in the paper. The authors discuss criticisms aimed at the use of methodological individualism in anthropology as not suitable for anthropology, due to its specificity. Instead, they argue that methodological individualism has advantages for a better understanding of many anthropological topics, especially compared to methodological holism. The authors' assumption is that anthropology is not exclusively a holistic science, as the history of anthropological theory points to an important tradition of methodological individualism. The focus is placed on alternative models of scientific explanation, found in the works of contemporary anthropologists (Holy, Stuchlik), as well as methodological individualists from other disciplines (Boudon), whose conclusions are applicable to anthropology. Methodological individualism does have a significant place in anthropology. There are areas of anthropology that can draw heuristic benefit from epistemological approaches based on the principles of methodological individualism.

The paper deals with methodological individualism in sociocultural anthropology. Key theories and debates within the framework of methodological individualism in anthropology are presented in the paper. The authors discuss criticisms aimed at the use of methodological individualism in anthropology as not suitable for anthropology, due to its specificity. Instead, they argue that methodological individualism has advantages for a better understanding of many anthropological topics, especially compared to methodological holism. The authors' assumption is that anthropology is not exclusively a holistic science, as the history of anthropological theory points to an important tradition of methodological individualism. The focus is placed on alternative models of scientific explanation, found in the works of contemporary anthropologists (Holy, Stuchlik), as well as methodological individualists from other disciplines (Boudon), whose conclusions are applicable to anthropology. Methodological individualism does have a significant place in anthropology. There are areas of anthropology that can draw heuristic benefit from epistemological approaches based on the principles of methodological individualism.

The paper deals with methodological individualism in sociocultural anthropology. Key theories and debates within the framework of methodological individualism in anthropology are presented in the paper. The authors discuss criticisms aimed at the use of methodological individualism in anthropology as not suitable for anthropology, due to its specificity. Instead, they argue that methodological individualism has advantages for a better understanding of many anthropological topics, especially compared to methodological holism. The authors' assumption is that anthropology is not exclusively a holistic science, as the history of anthropological theory points to an important tradition of methodological individualism. The focus is placed on alternative models of scientific explanation, found in the works of contemporary anthropologists (Holy, Stuchlik), as well as methodological individualists from other disciplines (Boudon), whose conclusions are applicable to anthropology. Methodological individualism does have a significant place in anthropology. There are areas of anthropology that can draw heuristic benefit from epistemological approaches based on the principles of methodological individualism.

Three contributions to the social capital literature are presented in this thesis: Firstly, a concept of social capital that is compatible with the individual perspective prominent in neoclassical economics is identified. Secondly, a new tool to measure individual social capital is developed and applied. Thirdly, results on the distributional effects of a great number of predictors on individual level social capital are obtained and discussed for a representative sample of the German resident population., Diese Arbeit beinhaltet drei Beiträge zur Sozialkapitalliteratur: Erstens wird ein Sozialkapitalkonzept identifiziert, das mit der in der neoklassischen Ökonomie prominenten Perspektive des methodologischen Individualismus kompatibel ist. Zweitens wird eine neue Batterie zur Messung des individuellen Sozialkapitals vorgestellt und angewandt. Drittens werden Verteilungseffekte für eine Vielzahl von Prädiktoren für individuelles Sozialkapital für ein repräsentatives Sample der deutschen Wohnbevölkerung vorgestellt und diskutiert.

La utilidad pública de la psicología depende del modo en que se construye. La tesis de este trabajo es que el modo habitual de hacer psicología dificulta la orientación científica hacia el bien común. Este documento propone seis dimensiones psicopolíticas para analizar las dinámicas de generación de conocimiento en psicología: perspectiva del espectador, individuación, obsesión métrica, estandarización conceptual, productividad competitiva e idioma. La pregunta ¿por qué nos comportamos? se responde habitualmente con una misma lógica: a nivel individual, sin alusión a condicionantes históricos ni sistémicos, en revistas anglosajonas, estimulando la productividad, sin posicionamiento acerca de los problemas urgentes de la sociedad, y como resultado de una competición por defender las teorías propias a través de hábitos de publicación muy estrechos. El análisis se orienta a la propuesta de una posición epistemológica ética, que protagonice la utilidad radical de la psicología para la solución concreta de problemas psicosociales de nivel estructural., The public utility of psychology depends on how it is constructed. The thesis of this work is that the usual way of doing psychology hinders scientific orientation toward the common good. This paper proposes six psychopolitical dimensions to analyze the dynamics of the generation of knowledge in psychology: viewer’s perspective, individuation, metric obsession, conceptual standardization, competitive productivity, and language. The question “why do we behave?” is usually answered following the same logic: at the individual level without reference to historical or systemic conditions, in Anglo-Saxon journals, stimulating productivity, without positioning on urgent proble ms of society, and as a result of a competition to defend one’s own theories through the use of entrenched and narrowly defined publication habits. The analysis focuses on proposing an epistemological ethics for the practice of a psychology, that embodies psychology’s radical application in the quest for concrete solutions to structural psychosocial problems.

La utilidad pública de la psicología depende del modo en que se construye. La tesis de este trabajo es que el modo habitual de hacer psicología dificulta la orientación científica hacia el bien común. Este documento propone seis dimensiones psicopolíticas para analizar las dinámicas de generación de conocimiento en psicología: perspectiva del espectador, individuación, obsesión métrica, estandarización conceptual, productividad competitiva e idioma. La pregunta ¿por qué nos comportamos? se responde habitualmente con una misma lógica: a nivel individual, sin alusión a condicionantes históricos ni sistémicos, en revistas anglosajonas, estimulando la productividad, sin posicionamiento acerca de los problemas urgentes de la sociedad, y como resultado de una competición por defender las teorías propias a través de hábitos de publicación muy estrechos. El análisis se orienta a la propuesta de una posición epistemológica ética, que protagonice la utilidad radical de la psicología para la solución concreta de problemas psicosociales de nivel estructural., The public utility of psychology depends on how it is constructed. The thesis of this work is that the usual way of doing psychology hinders scientific orientation toward the common good. This paper proposes six psychopolitical dimensions to analyze the dynamics of the generation of knowledge in psychology: viewer’s perspective, individuation, metric obsession, conceptual standardization, competitive productivity, and language. The question “why do we behave?” is usually answered following the same logic: at the individual level without reference to historical or systemic conditions, in Anglo-Saxon journals, stimulating productivity, without positioning on urgent proble ms of society, and as a result of a competition to defend one’s own theories through the use of entrenched and narrowly defined publication habits. The analysis focuses on proposing an epistemological ethics for the practice of a psychology, that embodies psychology’s radical application in the quest for concrete solutions to structural psychosocial problems.

This paper aims to offer a brief introduction to cognitive procesualism, the main trend within English-speaking cognitive archaeology. First, its theoretical foundation will be reviewed, especially its use of a theory of the mind based on the computational paradigm and methodological individualism. Then, its evolution and development will be analyzed and divided into two phases: an initial, formative one, and a normal one. Its thematic evolution will also be studied, paying particular attention to the North American School and the Material Engagement Theory, which could be considered its later development., Este artículo es una introducción al procesualismo cognitivo, la corriente principal dentro de la arqueología cognitiva anglosajona. Se revisa, primero, sus fundamentos teóricos, especialmente el empleo de una teoría de la mente basada en el paradigma computacional y el individualismo metodológico. Después, se analizará su evolución y desarrollo, dividiéndolo en una fase formativa y otra normal. A continuación, se analiza su evolución temática, prestando especial atención a la variante norteamericana del procesualismo cognitivo, para finalmente presentar brevemente la Material Engagement Theory.

La utilidad pública de la psicología depende del modo en que se construye. La tesis de este trabajo es que el modo habitual de hacer psicología dificulta la orientación científica hacia el bien común. Este documento propone seis dimensiones psicopolíticas para analizar las dinámicas de generación de conocimiento en psicología: perspectiva del espectador, individuación, obsesión métrica, estandarización conceptual, productividad competitiva e idioma. La pregunta ¿por qué nos comportamos? se responde habitualmente con una misma lógica: a nivel individual, sin alusión a condicionantes históricos ni sistémicos, en revistas anglosajonas, estimulando la productividad, sin posicionamiento acerca de los problemas urgentes de la sociedad, y como resultado de una competición por defender las teorías propias a través de hábitos de publicación muy estrechos. El análisis se orienta a la propuesta de una posición epistemológica ética, que protagonice la utilidad radical de la psicología para la solución concreta de problemas psicosociales de nivel estructural., The public utility of psychology depends on how it is constructed. The thesis of this work is that the usual way of doing psychology hinders scientific orientation toward the common good. This paper proposes six psychopolitical dimensions to analyze the dynamics of the generation of knowledge in psychology: viewer’s perspective, individuation, metric obsession, conceptual standardization, competitive productivity, and language. The question “why do we behave?” is usually answered following the same logic: at the individual level without reference to historical or systemic conditions, in Anglo-Saxon journals, stimulating productivity, without positioning on urgent proble ms of society, and as a result of a competition to defend one’s own theories through the use of entrenched and narrowly defined publication habits. The analysis focuses on proposing an epistemological ethics for the practice of a psychology, that embodies psychology’s radical application in the quest for concrete solutions to structural psychosocial problems.

La utilidad pública de la psicología depende del modo en que se construye. La tesis de este trabajo es que el modo habitual de hacer psicología dificulta la orientación científica hacia el bien común. Este documento propone seis dimensiones psicopolíticas para analizar las dinámicas de generación de conocimiento en psicología: perspectiva del espectador, individuación, obsesión métrica, estandarización conceptual, productividad competitiva e idioma. La pregunta ¿por qué nos comportamos? se responde habitualmente con una misma lógica: a nivel individual, sin alusión a condicionantes históricos ni sistémicos, en revistas anglosajonas, estimulando la productividad, sin posicionamiento acerca de los problemas urgentes de la sociedad, y como resultado de una competición por defender las teorías propias a través de hábitos de publicación muy estrechos. El análisis se orienta a la propuesta de una posición epistemológica ética, que protagonice la utilidad radical de la psicología para la solución concreta de problemas psicosociales de nivel estructural., The public utility of psychology depends on how it is constructed. The thesis of this work is that the usual way of doing psychology hinders scientific orientation toward the common good. This paper proposes six psychopolitical dimensions to analyze the dynamics of the generation of knowledge in psychology: viewer’s perspective, individuation, metric obsession, conceptual standardization, competitive productivity, and language. The question “why do we behave?” is usually answered following the same logic: at the individual level without reference to historical or systemic conditions, in Anglo-Saxon journals, stimulating productivity, without positioning on urgent proble ms of society, and as a result of a competition to defend one’s own theories through the use of entrenched and narrowly defined publication habits. The analysis focuses on proposing an epistemological ethics for the practice of a psychology, that embodies psychology’s radical application in the quest for concrete solutions to structural psychosocial problems.

La utilidad pública de la psicología depende del modo en que se construye. La tesis de este trabajo es que el modo habitual de hacer psicología dificulta la orientación científica hacia el bien común. Este documento propone seis dimensiones psicopolíticas para analizar las dinámicas de generación de conocimiento en psicología: perspectiva del espectador, individuación, obsesión métrica, estandarización conceptual, productividad competitiva e idioma. La pregunta ¿por qué nos comportamos? se responde habitualmente con una misma lógica: a nivel individual, sin alusión a condicionantes históricos ni sistémicos, en revistas anglosajonas, estimulando la productividad, sin posicionamiento acerca de los problemas urgentes de la sociedad, y como resultado de una competición por defender las teorías propias a través de hábitos de publicación muy estrechos. El análisis se orienta a la propuesta de una posición epistemológica ética, que protagonice la utilidad radical de la psicología para la solución concreta de problemas psicosociales de nivel estructural., The public utility of psychology depends on how it is constructed. The thesis of this work is that the usual way of doing psychology hinders scientific orientation toward the common good. This paper proposes six psychopolitical dimensions to analyze the dynamics of the generation of knowledge in psychology: viewer’s perspective, individuation, metric obsession, conceptual standardization, competitive productivity, and language. The question “why do we behave?” is usually answered following the same logic: at the individual level without reference to historical or systemic conditions, in Anglo-Saxon journals, stimulating productivity, without positioning on urgent proble ms of society, and as a result of a competition to defend one’s own theories through the use of entrenched and narrowly defined publication habits. The analysis focuses on proposing an epistemological ethics for the practice of a psychology, that embodies psychology’s radical application in the quest for concrete solutions to structural psychosocial problems.

La utilidad pública de la psicología depende del modo en que se construye. La tesis de este trabajo es que el modo habitual de hacer psicología dificulta la orientación científica hacia el bien común. Este documento propone seis dimensiones psicopolíticas para analizar las dinámicas de generación de conocimiento en psicología: perspectiva del espectador, individuación, obsesión métrica, estandarización conceptual, productividad competitiva e idioma. La pregunta ¿por qué nos comportamos? se responde habitualmente con una misma lógica: a nivel individual, sin alusión a condicionantes históricos ni sistémicos, en revistas anglosajonas, estimulando la productividad, sin posicionamiento acerca de los problemas urgentes de la sociedad, y como resultado de una competición por defender las teorías propias a través de hábitos de publicación muy estrechos. El análisis se orienta a la propuesta de una posición epistemológica ética, que protagonice la utilidad radical de la psicología para la solución concreta de problemas psicosociales de nivel estructural., The public utility of psychology depends on how it is constructed. The thesis of this work is that the usual way of doing psychology hinders scientific orientation toward the common good. This paper proposes six psychopolitical dimensions to analyze the dynamics of the generation of knowledge in psychology: viewer’s perspective, individuation, metric obsession, conceptual standardization, competitive productivity, and language. The question “why do we behave?” is usually answered following the same logic: at the individual level without reference to historical or systemic conditions, in Anglo-Saxon journals, stimulating productivity, without positioning on urgent proble ms of society, and as a result of a competition to defend one’s own theories through the use of entrenched and narrowly defined publication habits. The analysis focuses on proposing an epistemological ethics for the practice of a psychology, that embodies psychology’s radical application in the quest for concrete solutions to structural psychosocial problems.

In this paper, we elaborate on the premises of studying problem substance use and treatment disparities among migrants and ethnic minorities. Due to the growing medicalisation of research on problem substance use and disparities in this group, policy makers, health researchers and practitioners often feel compelled to rely on epidemiological studies when grounding and understanding the link between ethnicity, problem substance use and treatment disparities. We argue that the bulk of epidemiological research suffers from crucial methodological and conceptual flaws that necessitate a reconsideration of their usefulness in policy and treatment practice. First, epidemiological research is based on static concepts of ethnicity and race as primordial analytical categories. Second, and as a consequence of the first argument, such research rarely distinguishes sufficiently between ethnic and non-ethnic determinants and mechanisms influencing problem substance use and treatment disparities. And third, these studies often depart from methodological individualism and subordinate contextual and structural determinants and mechanisms. This paper aims to re-evaluate (the factors and mechanisms mediating) the relationship between ethnicity, the nature of problem substance use, and treatment disparities, and to overcome some of the gaps in existing research methods mentioned above. More specifically, this implies (1) a critical revision of the ethnicity concept in epidemiology, (2) the inclusion of non-ethnic determinants and mechanisms by means of applying intersectional analysis and ethnic boundary making perspectives, (3) the broadening of methodological individualism in order to include all levels (from micro to macro) and loci (individual, community, society) of research in holistic research designs. Such “doubled research” allows researchers to analyse and have an impact on treatment disparities among migrants and ethnic minorities., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Today a convergence between the fields of anthropology and economics has re-emerged after decades during which the dictates of methodological individualism, as strikingly elucidated by Kenneth Arrow, had seriously limited and hampered effective scholarship in studies of economic and social development in developing countries. A new generation of development economists represented by Spolaori and Wacziarg (2013) and (Spolaori 2016) has reopened the possibility of fruitful cross-disciplinary interaction, enabling economists and anthropologists to investigate those many social structures wherein resources are jointly held and wherein social goals are the product of interests held by groups, rather than exclusively by pairs of individuals stripped of a context of ethics.The continually expanding data of Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (Murdock and White 1969) provide a wide range of variables that make it possible to test theories regarding development and causality in human societies. Furthermore, new software facilitates the testing of these theories in the context of diffusion, historical language families and ecological contexts. Together, the data and the new software are essential to any effort to test theories of human evolutionary history and development.

Today a convergence between the fields of anthropology and economics has re-emerged after decades during which the dictates of methodological individualism, as strikingly elucidated by Kenneth Arrow, had seriously limited and hampered effective scholarship in studies of economic and social development in developing countries. A new generation of development economists represented by Spolaori and Wacziarg (2013) and (Spolaori 2016) has reopened the possibility of fruitful cross-disciplinary interaction, enabling economists and anthropologists to investigate those many social structures wherein resources are jointly held and wherein social goals are the product of interests held by groups, rather than exclusively by pairs of individuals stripped of a context of ethics.The continually expanding data of Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (Murdock and White 1969) provide a wide range of variables that make it possible to test theories regarding development and causality in human societies. Furthermore, new software facilitates the testing of these theories in the context of diffusion, historical language families and ecological contexts. Together, the data and the new software are essential to any effort to test theories of human evolutionary history and development.

Predmet teze je kognitivna teorija akcije (KTA) savremenog francuskog sociologa Rejmona Budona. Rad ima dva cilja: 1) objašnjenje osnovnih principa KTA, najznačajnih domena njene primene i mesta u celini Budonovog dela 2) prikaz Budonovog rada koji uključuje najvažnije elemente Budonove akademske i lične biografije, oblasti kojima se bavio, odnos prema savremenicima i ulogu vanakademskih činilaca. Centralni deo rada, posvećen je KTA, modelu društvene akcije koji predstavlja glavni deo teorijskog programa R. Budona. KTA se posmatra iz dva ugla: kao teorija akcije i kao model za objašnjenje socioloških fenomena (sociologija saznanja, kognitivna sociologija, istorijska sociologija i sociologija morala) i posebno u oblastima kognitivne sociologije, sociologije saznanja i sociologije morala. KTA se smešta u širi okvir savremene i klasične sociologije kako bi se razumela njena pozicija u Budonovoj sociologiji (klasici sociologije, metodološki individualizam, teorija racionalnog izbora, teorije društvene akcije, analitička sociologija, kognitivistička teorija i interpretativni pravci). KTA počiva na tri postulata: metodološki individualizam (društveni fenomeni se objašnjavaju na osnovu individualnih akcija), razumevanje (svaka individualna akcija se može razumeti u Veberovom značenju pojma) i (kognitivna) racionalnost. Jezgro KTA je pojam kognitivne racionalnosti, pojam zasnovan na „dobrim razlozima“ aktera da je nešto tačno, ispravno ili dobro. Socijalni akter poput naučnika gradi i procenjuje „teorije“ za određenu situaciju i tako formira uverenja koja čine osnovu akcije. Kognitivna racionalnost je šira od instrumentalne racionalnosti i ima bolji potencijal da objasni društvene pojave koje nisu uvek nužno zasnovane na ovom tipu racionalnosti. Na ovoj pretpostavci se zasniva veliki deo Budonove kritike teorije racionalnog izbora koja počiva na instrumentalnoj racionalnosti. Budon želi da izgradi opšti model objašnjenja koji bi bio alternativa objašnjenjima tipa „crne kuti, The Thesis explores Cognitive Theory of Action (CTA), as developed by a contemporary French sociologist Raymond Boudon. There are two main objectives of the analysis: 1) Explaining the key postulates of CTA, its application and its position in Boudon’s work in general; 2) Presenting an overview of Boudon’s work based on relevant aspects of his academic and personal biography, research interests, relations with contemporaries, and influence of non-academic factors. Central part of the paper focuses on the CTA model of social action, and the core of Boudon’s scientific program. CTA is analyzed as general theory of social action and a model that was applied to a variety of social pheonomena (sociology of knowledge, cognitive, sociology, sociology of morality). The place of CTA in Boudon’s sociology is addressed from different perspectives, including contemporary and classical social theory (classical sociologists, methodological individualism, rational choice theory, theories of social action, analytical sociology, cognitivist and interpretative theories). CTA is based on three postulates: methodological individualism (social phenomena should be explained by individual actions), comprehension (any individual action can be understood in Weberian sense), and (cognitive) rationality. The concept of cognitive rationality is the central aspect of the CTA. The basic principle of cognitive rationality is defined in terms of good reasons for individual action, i.e. an actor has good reasons to believe that something is true, right or good. The social actor acts as a scientist who develops “theories“ and evaluates them trying to understand the situation and acts based on these beliefs. Cognitive rationality is more general than instrumental rationality, and has comparatively better heuristic capacity for explaining social phenomena which are not based on this type of rationality. Boudon’s goal is to develop a general model of explanation that would be an alternative to “black-b

The economy has been dominated by the neoclassical orthodoxy since the XIX century, imposing its premises, its methods and orientations. The criticism made by John Keynes, in the decade of the 30s, was one of the greatest challenges that orthodoxy faced, based on full employment and money neutrality, and that Keynes successfully criticized. Nevertheless, Keynes criticism meant a temporal deviation that despite its importance then and even now, was assimilated by orthodox theory that keeps as main fundamentals full employment and money neutrality. Orthodox theory also extended its methods and reasoning to other social sciences colonizing them with the maximization principal, process that has been named imperialism. How do economist change theories? In Colombia, even Marxists gave themselves away to neoclassical economy., A economia tem estado dominada pela ortodoxia neoclássica, desde o século XIX, impondo suas premissas, seus métodos e sua orientação. A crítica de John Keynes, na década de 1930, foi um dos retos mais desafiantes para a ortodoxia, baseada no emprego pleno e a neutralidade do dinheiro, e que Keynes questionou de maneira exitosa. Porém, a teoria de Keynes significou um desvio temporal, que se bem foi importante e o continua sendo, foi assimilada pela teoria ortodoxa, que continua defendendo o emprego pleno e a neutralidade do dinheiro, como seus fundamentos. Também, a economia ortodoxa estendeu seus métodos e seus razoamentos a outras ciências sociais, colonizando-as, com o principio de maximização, processo que tem se denominado imperialismo. ¿Como os economistas mudam de teoria? Em Colômbia, até os marxistas se renderam perante a economia neoclássica., La economía ha estado dominada, desde el siglo XIX, por la ortodoxia neoclásica, que impuso sus premisas, sus métodos y su orientación. La crítica de John Keynes, en la década de 1930, fue uno de los retos más desafiantes para la ortodoxia, basada en el pleno empleo y la neutralidad del dinero, y que Keynes cuestionó de manera exitosa. Sin embargo, la teoría de Keynes significó un desvío temporal, que si bien fue importante y lo sigue siendo, fue asimilada por la teoría ortodoxa, que sigue sosteniendo el pleno empleo y la neutralidad del dinero como sus fundamentos. También, la economía ortodoxa extendió sus métodos y sus razonamientos a otras ciencias sociales, colonizándolas, con el principio de maximización, proceso que se ha denominado imperialismo. ¿Cómo los economistas cambian de teoría? En Colombia, hasta los marxistas se rindieron ante la economía neoclásica.

"Das Prinzip der Konsumentensouveränität wird in jüngster Zeit vermehrt aus umweltethischer Sicht in Frage gestellt. Kritikpunkte sind insbesondere die Instabilität der Präferenzen in Verbindung mit mangelndem Wissen der Individuen über ihre wahren Präferenzen sowie eine Hierarchie der Präferenzen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass alle Einwände gegen die Konsumentensouveränität zwar gute Gründe für eine Einschränkung des Prinzips bieten, jedoch keineswegs zur Aufgabe des Konzepts insgesamt zwingen." (Autorenreferat), "The principle of consumer sovereignty is recently increasingly criticized from the perspective of environmental ethics. The main subjects of this criticism are the instability of consumers preferences, incomplete knowledge of individuals referring to their real preferences and a hierarchy of preferences. In this paper, however, it is argued that although these objections against consumer sovereignty provide good reasons for restrictions of the concept, there is no need to give up the principle completely." (author's abstract)

Social scientists associate agent-based simulation (ABS) models with three ideas about explanation: they provide generative explanations, they are models of mechanisms, and they implement methodological individualism. In light of a philosophical account of explanation, we show that these ideas are not necessarily related and offer an account of the explanatory import of ABS models. We also argue that their bottom-up research strategy should be distinguished from methodological individualism.

Social scientists associate agent-based simulation (ABS) models with three ideas about explanation: they provide generative explanations, they are models of mechanisms, and they implement methodological individualism. In light of a philosophical account of explanation, we show that these ideas are not necessarily related and offer an account of the explanatory import of ABS models. We also argue that their bottom-up research strategy should be distinguished from methodological individualism.

The economy has been dominated by the neoclassical orthodoxy since the XIX century, imposing its premises, its methods and orientations. The criticism made by John Keynes, in the decade of the 30s, was one of the greatest challenges that orthodoxy faced, based on full employment and money neutrality, and that Keynes successfully criticized. Nevertheless, Keynes criticism meant a temporal deviation that despite its importance then and even now, was assimilated by orthodox theory that keeps as main fundamentals full employment and money neutrality. Orthodox theory also extended its methods and reasoning to other social sciences colonizing them with the maximization principal, process that has been named imperialism. How do economist change theories? In Colombia, even Marxists gave themselves away to neoclassical economy., A economia tem estado dominada pela ortodoxia neoclássica, desde o século XIX, impondo suas premissas, seus métodos e sua orientação. A crítica de John Keynes, na década de 1930, foi um dos retos mais desafiantes para a ortodoxia, baseada no emprego pleno e a neutralidade do dinheiro, e que Keynes questionou de maneira exitosa. Porém, a teoria de Keynes significou um desvio temporal, que se bem foi importante e o continua sendo, foi assimilada pela teoria ortodoxa, que continua defendendo o emprego pleno e a neutralidade do dinheiro, como seus fundamentos. Também, a economia ortodoxa estendeu seus métodos e seus razoamentos a outras ciências sociais, colonizando-as, com o principio de maximização, processo que tem se denominado imperialismo. ¿Como os economistas mudam de teoria? Em Colômbia, até os marxistas se renderam perante a economia neoclássica., La economía ha estado dominada, desde el siglo XIX, por la ortodoxia neoclásica, que impuso sus premisas, sus métodos y su orientación. La crítica de John Keynes, en la década de 1930, fue uno de los retos más desafiantes para la ortodoxia, basada en el pleno empleo y la neutralidad del dinero, y que Keynes cuestionó de manera exitosa. Sin embargo, la teoría de Keynes significó un desvío temporal, que si bien fue importante y lo sigue siendo, fue asimilada por la teoría ortodoxa, que sigue sosteniendo el pleno empleo y la neutralidad del dinero como sus fundamentos. También, la economía ortodoxa extendió sus métodos y sus razonamientos a otras ciencias sociales, colonizándolas, con el principio de maximización, proceso que se ha denominado imperialismo. ¿Cómo los economistas cambian de teoría? En Colombia, hasta los marxistas se rindieron ante la economía neoclásica.

Social scientists associate agent-based simulation (ABS) models with three ideas about explanation: they provide generative explanations, they are models of mechanisms, and they implement methodological individualism. In light of a philosophical account of explanation, we show that these ideas are not necessarily related and offer an account of the explanatory import of ABS models. We also argue that their bottom-up research strategy should be distinguished from methodological individualism.

Social scientists associate agent-based simulation (ABS) models with three ideas about explanation: they provide generative explanations, they are models of mechanisms, and they implement methodological individualism. In light of a philosophical account of explanation, we show that these ideas are not necessarily related and offer an account of the explanatory import of ABS models. We also argue that their bottom-up research strategy should be distinguished from methodological individualism.

Social scientists associate agent-based simulation (ABS) models with three ideas about explanation: they provide generative explanations, they are models of mechanisms, and they implement methodological individualism. In light of a philosophical account of explanation, we show that these ideas are not necessarily related and offer an account of the explanatory import of ABS models. We also argue that their bottom-up research strategy should be distinguished from methodological individualism.

Mises y Hayek proponen una revaluación a los postulados de la economía clásica y a aquellos que emergen de la posterior aplicación del método científico,para enmendar las fallas que dieron origen a las formulaciones teóricas de Marx y a la consolidación de la ciencia económica como un tipo de ingeniería social. Dichodesarrollo en palabras de Mises corresponde a “problemas mal enfocados y peor resueltos”1. Las propuestas teóricas y metodológicas de la escuela austriaca, parten del individuo, de su capacidad de raciocinio, de aprehensión del conocimiento y de sus motivaciones, con lo cual moldean un esquema lógico y comprensivo de la acción del hombre en la sociedad, del papel de la información y la incertidumbre, así como los procesos de adaptación en la explicación de las elecciones humanas. El método apriorístico-deductivo constituye una alternativa para el estudio de la economía y de las instituciones que lleva a revaluar los fundamentos epistemológicos del pensamiento económico, los alcances y límites del abordaje teórico y la importancia de otras disciplinas para la realización de éste.AbstractMises and Hayek propose a revaluation to the postulates of the classic economy and to those that emerge of the later application of the scientific method, to amend the faults that gave origin to Marx’s theoretical formulations and to the consolidation of the economic science as a type of social engineering. The above mentioned development in Mises’s words corresponds to “ problems badly focused and worse decisive. The theoretical and methodological offers of the Austrian school, they depart from the individual, from his capacity of reason, from apprehension of the knowledge and from his motivations, with which they mold a logical and comprehensive scheme of the action of the man in the company, of the paper of the information and the uncertainty, as well as the processes of adjustment in the explanation of the human choices. The hasty-deductive method constitutes an altern

Una de las cuestiones más controvertidas en el estudio de las Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones (TIC) es qué lleva a unos ciudadanos y no a otros a iniciarse en el uso de este tipo de tecnologías. La teoría más común en los estudios individualistas metodológicos sobre el uso de las TIC es la etiquetada como Technological Acceptance Model (TAM ). Este modelo privilegia las variables individuales y subjetivas en la explicación del uso de Internet (percepción de utilidad y facilidad de uso de la tecnología). En nuestro trabajo aplicamos, a los datos de una encuesta nacional, una metodología estadística que incorpora al modelo TAM un conjunto de variables sociodemográficas. Con ello tratamos de mostrar en qué medida afectan estas últimas variables, fundamentalmente el nivel educativo y la edad, a las utilizadas por el TAM . Así, pretendemos ofrecer una versión sociológica del modelo TAM con una mayor capacidad explicativa., One of the most controversial questions in the study of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) is what leads some citizens and not others to start using this type of technology. The most common theory in individualist studies regarding the use of ICTs known as Technological Acceptance Model (TAM ). This model prioritizes individual and subjective variables in explaining the study of Internet usage (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use). In our paper we apply to the data from a national survey a statistical method that incorporates to the TAM model a set of social and demographic variables. Our aim is to show to what extent these variables, mainly level of education and age, affect the individual variables used by the TAM . Thus we aim to offer a sociological version of the TAM model that is characterized by its greater explanatory power., Depto. de Sociología Aplicada, Fac. de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología, TRUE, pub

In this article we are concerned with an analysis of «methodological individualism » that is on the ground of weberian work, as himself states in “Die «Objetivität» sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis”. This individualism means, not only a scientific methodology , but a accurate subjectivity scheme: the subject is constrained in its ability to provide a thorough meaning to life. Also, this study claims that the German Methodensreit was a central discusión in the weberian theory. The global aim of this article is to emphasize the value of methodological individualism as a way of understanding the society in the scheme of the social action drawn by Max Weber., El siguiente artículo tiene como objetivo destacar el «individualismo metodológico » que el propio Weber se atribuye en el artículo “La «objetividad» del conocimiento en la ciencia social y en la política social”. Este individualismo implica, además de una metodología científica, una determinada concepción de la subjetividad, la idea de que el individuo es capaz de dotar de significado pleno a su conducta individual, caracterizando su acción valorativamente y estableciendo una jerarquía axiológica de su conducta. Creemos que la Methodensreit alemana, fue una disputa que determinó la propuesta de Weber de forma considerable. A su vez, esta investigación histórica nos permitirá caracterizar al individualismo metodológico weberiano dentro del contexto de la acción social.

En este artículo se analiza a la psicología social en su etapa de emergencia y se señalan los planteamientos centrales que distintos autores -desde la filosofía, la sociología, la propia psicología social y otras disciplinas- fueron haciendo, a lo largo del período, acerca de su objeto de estudio, la metodología para abordar éste, la teoría con la cual explicarlo y/o comprenderlo y el enfoque epistemológico que debería usarse. Se menciona que no obstante su carácter variopinto respecto de sus fuentes, objetos y teorías -que la hizo moverse en un marco de dualismos y tensiones-, pudo finalmente constituirse como un campo del saber enteramente autónomo, alcanzando dos grandes consensos metodológicos: uno en torno al holismo y visión colectivista, sostenido básicamente por autores europeos, que sirvió para llamarla psicología social sociológica, y otro identificado como individualismo metodológico, cultivado más tarde en tierras norteamericanas, que por tener al individuo como centro de análisis, mereció ser denominada psicología social psicológica., In this article the social psychology is analyzed in its emergency phase and is pointed the central ideas that different authors – from philosophy, sociology, the social psychology itself and other disciplines- were doing among a long term, about its study object, the methodology to take up, the theory to explain and understand, and the epistemological approach that should be used. It’s mentioned that nevertheless its varied nature respect of its sources, objects, and theories, that made her move in a framework of dualisms and tensions, could finally become a field of knowledge entirely autonomous, reaching two major methodological consensus: the first on a holistic and collectivist view, promoted primarily by European authors, which served to call it sociological social psychology, and the second identified as methodological individualism, later cultivated in North American lands that, by having the individual as the centre of analysis, deserved the nomination of psychological social psychology.

En este artículo se analiza a la psicología social en su etapa de emergencia y se señalan los planteamientos centrales que distintos autores -desde la filosofía, la sociología, la propia psicología social y otras disciplinas- fueron haciendo, a lo largo del período, acerca de su objeto de estudio, la metodología para abordar éste, la teoría con la cual explicarlo y/o comprenderlo y el enfoque epistemológico que debería usarse. Se menciona que no obstante su carácter variopinto respecto de sus fuentes, objetos y teorías -que la hizo moverse en un marco de dualismos y tensiones-, pudo finalmente constituirse como un campo del saber enteramente autónomo, alcanzando dos grandes consensos metodológicos: uno en torno al holismo y visión colectivista, sostenido básicamente por autores europeos, que sirvió para llamarla psicología social sociológica, y otro identificado como individualismo metodológico, cultivado más tarde en tierras norteamericanas, que por tener al individuo como centro de análisis, mereció ser denominada psicología social psicológica., In this article the social psychology is analyzed in its emergency phase and is pointed the central ideas that different authors – from philosophy, sociology, the social psychology itself and other disciplines- were doing among a long term, about its study object, the methodology to take up, the theory to explain and understand, and the epistemological approach that should be used. It’s mentioned that nevertheless its varied nature respect of its sources, objects, and theories, that made her move in a framework of dualisms and tensions, could finally become a field of knowledge entirely autonomous, reaching two major methodological consensus: the first on a holistic and collectivist view, promoted primarily by European authors, which served to call it sociological social psychology, and the second identified as methodological individualism, later cultivated in North American lands that, by having the individual as the centre of analysis, deserved the nomination of psychological social psychology.

In this article we are concerned with an analysis of «methodological individualism » that is on the ground of weberian work, as himself states in “Die «Objetivität» sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis”. This individualism means, not only a scientific methodology , but a accurate subjectivity scheme: the subject is constrained in its ability to provide a thorough meaning to life. Also, this study claims that the German Methodensreit was a central discusión in the weberian theory. The global aim of this article is to emphasize the value of methodological individualism as a way of understanding the society in the scheme of the social action drawn by Max Weber., El siguiente artículo tiene como objetivo destacar el «individualismo metodológico » que el propio Weber se atribuye en el artículo “La «objetividad» del conocimiento en la ciencia social y en la política social”. Este individualismo implica, además de una metodología científica, una determinada concepción de la subjetividad, la idea de que el individuo es capaz de dotar de significado pleno a su conducta individual, caracterizando su acción valorativamente y estableciendo una jerarquía axiológica de su conducta. Creemos que la Methodensreit alemana, fue una disputa que determinó la propuesta de Weber de forma considerable. A su vez, esta investigación histórica nos permitirá caracterizar al individualismo metodológico weberiano dentro del contexto de la acción social.

"Das Konzept sozialer Mechanismen gilt derzeit als vielversprechende Alternative zum deduktiv-nomologischen Erklärungsmodell und daran orientierten quantitativen und komparativen Forschungsstrategien. Es soll der Historizität des Gegenstandsbereichs der Soziologie Rechnung tragen, ohne dabei den Anspruch generalisierbarer Kausalerklärung aufzugeben. Die grundlagentheoretischen Probleme dieses Versuches, den Gegensatz zwischen nomothetischem und idiographischem Wissenschaftsverständnis zu überwinden, verdienen intensiv diskutiert zu werden. Dazu gehört nicht zuletzt die zugrunde gelegte Sozialontologie. Das der Biologie entlehnte Konzept der Mechanismen ist Bestandteil eines Forschungsprogramms, das beobachtete Phänomene durch Prozesse auf einer 'niedrigeren' Realitätsebene kausal zu rekonstruieren beabsichtigt. In der Soziologie verbindet sich dieses Programm oftmals mit einer 'Mikrofundierung' makrosoziologischer Aussagen. Umstritten ist indessen erstens, ob eine solche Mikrofundierung notwendigerweise an den methodologischen Individualismus gebunden ist oder auch kollektive Akteure berücksichtigen sollte. Kontrovers ist zweitens, ob sie am ehesten mit Rational Choice Theorie oder auch mit anderen, insbesondere interpretativen Handlungstheorien zu leisten sei. Und drittens ist unklar, wie sich mikrofundierte soziale Mechanismen ihrer zeitlichen Struktur nach zu den oft langfristigen Prozessen makrosozialen Wandels verhalten. In diesem Beitrag wird gefragt, ob und inwieweit die drei genannten Probleme von Akteurs-, Sinn- und Zeitbezug sozialer Mechanismen durch die Umstellung auf eine relationale Sozialontologie, wie sie Andrew Abbott und Charles Tilly vertreten, geklärt werden können. Der theoretische Kern dieser Perspektive ist die Privilegierung sozialer Relationen und Interaktionsmuster gegenüber individuellen und kollektiven Akteurseinheiten; letztere werden nicht als gegeben hingenommen, sondern vielmehr als erklärungsbedürftig betrachtet. Dies eröffnet gegenü

In vielen Entwicklungsländern findet Wertschöpfungskettenansatz (WSK-Ansatz) verbreitete Anwendung zur Wirtschaftsförderung von Kleinst-, Klein-, und Mittelunternehmen sowie ländlichen Produzenten. Viele Studien belegten, dass WSK-Upgrading von der vorherrschenden WSK-Governance stark abhängt. Jedoch beschränkten sich Diskussionen über WSK-Governance bisher auf Themen wie Koordinierung, Regulierung, Technologie, und Macht. Soziokulturelle Aspekte, die auf das individuelles Verhalten starke Einflüsse ausüben, wurde en passant erwähnt bzw. vollständig ignoriert. Aus diesem Grunde erweitert diese Studie das Governancekonzept durch die Einbeziehung institutioneller Perspektive, die regulative, normative, und kulturell-kognitive Elemente beinhaltet. Diese Erweiterung wird in den Fallstudien von Milch-WSK in Indonesien angewendet. Dabei wird die WSK mit erfolgreichen und erfolglosen Upgradingsresultaten verglichen. Mit einer explorativen Vorgehensweise werden Daten durch Beobachtungen, Interviews sowie den eigenen praktischen Erfahrungen in einem WSK-Förderungsprojekt gesammelt. Die Kausalität zwischen WSK-Governance und –Upgrading wird anhand der qualitativen Herangehensweise des Makro-Mikro-Modells erklärt. Dabei werden die Role von WSK-Operatoren, ihre Wahrnemung, und ihr Entscheidungsverhalten in dem Upgradingsprozess akzentuiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen dass Regulierung und ihre effektive Durchsetzung von entscheidender Bedeutung sind. Paralel dazu haben aber gesellschaftliche Beziehungen, Werte, und Normen sowie Orientierung und Gewohnheit besonders starke Einflussnahme auf das individuelle Verhalten und somit die Interdependenz zwischen WSK-Operatoren. Deswegen sollen weitere Studien in ähnlichem Kontext, nämlich im ländlichen Raum wo soziokulturelle Aspekte von größerem Belang sind, das erweiterte Governancekonzept in die WSK-Analyse integrieren, um verbesserte Erklärung, Voraussage, und technische Empfehlung über die Förderung der Upgradingsprozesse zu generieren., Value Chain (VC) approach has been widely applied in developing countries to promote economic growth particularly of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and rural producers. Many cases have shown that VC upgrading is strongly determined by the prevailing governance structure. However, hitherto the discussion on VC governance has been limited mainly on coordination, regulation, technology, and power; whereas socio-cultural aspects, albeit influential in determining individual behaviour, are mentioned en passant or totally neglected. Thus, this study calls for the extension of governance concept by introducing a wider institutional perspective incorporating regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements to portray a more realistic picture of the interaction between VC operators. Then, it applies the extended concept in case studies of dairy VCs in Indonesia, comparing the governance of successful and unsuccessful upgrading cases. Using an exploratory procedure, data were collected from observations, interviews, and author’s own experiences involved in a practical VC promotion project. The causalities between VC governance and upgrading are explained using the qualitative approach of Macro-Micro Model to accentuate the role of VC operators, their perception, and selected action in the upgrading processes. The results show that regulations and their effective enforcement are necessary; but also social relations, values, and norms, as well as orientation, common practices, and habit exert strong influences on determining the behaviour of and thus the interdependency between VC operators. Hence, further VC re-searches in similar context, i.e. rural areas where socio-cultural aspects are more influential, are to systematically integrate the extended concept of governance into the analysis in order to generate explanation, prediction, and technical recommendation on the facilitation of upgrading processes.

"Die Ausdifferenzierung von Wirtschaft und politischen Institutionen hat sich durch die Entwicklung der internationalen Kapitalmärkte verstärkt. Gleichzeitig geschieht eine Integration durch Globalisierung. Die Verselbständigung der Märkte und der Versuch politische Beschlüsse zu dominieren bedroht die Demokratie. Im westlichen Kapitalismus stehen sich heute die neoliberale Gestaltung und die soziale Marktwirtschaft gegenüber. Ihre charakteristische Merkmale werden erstens analysiert. Die neoliberale Marktwirtschaft wird eher als extrem individualistisch gesehen. Die soziale Marktwirtschaft setzt durch ihre Betonung der Wertrationalität Grenzen für die instrumentelle Vernunft. Zweitens werden die ideologischen Hintergründe der Theorien, auf die sich die Vertreter der beiden Varianten stützen, analysiert. In diesem ideologiekritischen Unternehmen werden fünf Dimensionen von methodologischer und ontologischer Art hervorgehoben: 1. methodologischer Individualismus kontra Holismus; 2. politischer Individualismus kontra Kommunitarianismus; 3. strategisches soziales Handeln kontra kommunikatives; 4. zweckrationelles Verhalten kontra wertrationelles; 5. utilitaristische Moral kontra Gerechtigkeit und Gleichheit als moralische Ziele. Diese fünf Dimensionen bilden ein Gerüst für die Theoriebildung, die Weber und Marx mit der heutigen Entwicklung verbindet." (Autorenreferat)

Es wird gezeigt, dass Hartmut Essers Entwurf einer universalen soziologischen Theorie einem Wissenschaftsideal verhaftet bleibt, das das Prinzip der Dichotomisierung (über)betont und dabei in Gefahr gerät, dieses Prinzip aus der Analyse- in die Objektebene zu übertragen. In diesem Zusammenhang wird zunächst der Ansatz von Max Weber dargestellt, der auf der Gegenstandsebene durchaus die Vagheit der Welt anerkannt hat, allerdings keine Möglichkeit sah, diese Erkenntnis auf die soziologische Erfassungsebene zu übertragen. Als "Kontrastfolie" zu Essers Ansatz wird die Systemtheorie von Niklas Luhmann dargestellt, der einerseits die zweiwertige Logik zu überwinden versucht, letztlich aber nur eine bivalent operierende Systemtheorie entgegensetzen kann. Dass Esser in seiner Handlungstheorie einerseits über die Handlungstypologie Max Webers hinausgeht, andererseits dabei aber, logisch eher Luhmann folgend, ausblendet, was Max Weber für die Gegenstandsebene anerkannt hat, nämlich Mischformen und Ungenauigkeiten, wird anschließend verdeutlicht. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich daher, dass die Essersche Theorieanlage ebenso wie die Luhmannsche Systemtheorie nicht nur weiterhin dem bivalenten Denken verhaftet ist, sondern den bivalenten Ansatz sogar durch Übertragung auf die Gegenstandsebene radikalisiert. Stattdessen wird die Entwicklung von Techniken, Logiken und Theorien empfohlen, die Polyvalenzen berücksichtigen. (GB)

"In vielen Natur- und Humanwissenschaften finden eigendynamische Vorgänge eine systematische Berücksichtigung. Dies gilt auch für die Sozialwissenschaften und das Gebiet der Migrationsforschung. Keineswegs immer, aber doch häufig, lässt sich bei Migrationsprozessen eine mehr oder weniger ausgeprägte 'eigendynamische' Komponente feststellen. Gelegentlich werden entsprechende Migrationserscheinungen auch als 'Kettenwanderungen' beschrieben und mit 'sozialen Netzwerken' in Zusammenhang gebracht. Nicht selten bleiben die dabei wirksamen sozialen Mechanismen aber nur allgemein oder ungenau dargestellt. Vor diesem Hintergrund will der Beitrag drei Anliegen verfolgen. Zum einen soll der Begriff der 'Eigendynamik' sozialer Prozesse theoretisch und methodologisch exakter gefasst und expliziert werden, wobei dies hauptsächlich von einem dem methodologischen Individualismus zurechenbaren Standort aus erfolgt. In einem zweiten Gedankenschritt wird an mehreren älteren und aktuellen Fallbeispielen der Ost-West-Wanderungen in Europa genauer zu prüfen sein, inwiefern diese 'eigendynamische' Komponenten aufweisen. Dem folgen Darlegungen zu den wichtigsten Teilaspekten und Wirkungszusammenhängen der Eigendynamik von Migrationsvorgängen, die zwar ineinander greifen, zunächst aber analytisch getrennt zu betrachten sind. Schließlich sollen auf der Grundlage der gewonnenen Erkenntnisse einige Anmerkungen zur Relevanz eigendynamischer Vorgänge im Migrationsgeschehen festgehalten und ein Ausblick auf weiterführende Untersuchungen gegeben werden, durch die spezifische Bedingungskonstellationen herauszufinden sind, unter denen Migrationsprozesse ausgeprägte eigendynamische Züge erwarten lassen." (Autorenreferat)

In vielen Entwicklungsländern findet Wertschöpfungskettenansatz (WSK-Ansatz) verbreitete Anwendung zur Wirtschaftsförderung von Kleinst-, Klein-, und Mittelunternehmen sowie ländlichen Produzenten. Viele Studien belegten, dass WSK-Upgrading von der vorherrschenden WSK-Governance stark abhängt. Jedoch beschränkten sich Diskussionen über WSK-Governance bisher auf Themen wie Koordinierung, Regulierung, Technologie, und Macht. Soziokulturelle Aspekte, die auf das individuelles Verhalten starke Einflüsse ausüben, wurde en passant erwähnt bzw. vollständig ignoriert. Aus diesem Grunde erweitert diese Studie das Governancekonzept durch die Einbeziehung institutioneller Perspektive, die regulative, normative, und kulturell-kognitive Elemente beinhaltet. Diese Erweiterung wird in den Fallstudien von Milch-WSK in Indonesien angewendet. Dabei wird die WSK mit erfolgreichen und erfolglosen Upgradingsresultaten verglichen. Mit einer explorativen Vorgehensweise werden Daten durch Beobachtungen, Interviews sowie den eigenen praktischen Erfahrungen in einem WSK-Förderungsprojekt gesammelt. Die Kausalität zwischen WSK-Governance und –Upgrading wird anhand der qualitativen Herangehensweise des Makro-Mikro-Modells erklärt. Dabei werden die Role von WSK-Operatoren, ihre Wahrnemung, und ihr Entscheidungsverhalten in dem Upgradingsprozess akzentuiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen dass Regulierung und ihre effektive Durchsetzung von entscheidender Bedeutung sind. Paralel dazu haben aber gesellschaftliche Beziehungen, Werte, und Normen sowie Orientierung und Gewohnheit besonders starke Einflussnahme auf das individuelle Verhalten und somit die Interdependenz zwischen WSK-Operatoren. Deswegen sollen weitere Studien in ähnlichem Kontext, nämlich im ländlichen Raum wo soziokulturelle Aspekte von größerem Belang sind, das erweiterte Governancekonzept in die WSK-Analyse integrieren, um verbesserte Erklärung, Voraussage, und technische Empfehlung über die Förderung der Upgradingsprozesse zu generieren., Value Chain (VC) approach has been widely applied in developing countries to promote economic growth particularly of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and rural producers. Many cases have shown that VC upgrading is strongly determined by the prevailing governance structure. However, hitherto the discussion on VC governance has been limited mainly on coordination, regulation, technology, and power; whereas socio-cultural aspects, albeit influential in determining individual behaviour, are mentioned en passant or totally neglected. Thus, this study calls for the extension of governance concept by introducing a wider institutional perspective incorporating regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements to portray a more realistic picture of the interaction between VC operators. Then, it applies the extended concept in case studies of dairy VCs in Indonesia, comparing the governance of successful and unsuccessful upgrading cases. Using an exploratory procedure, data were collected from observations, interviews, and author’s own experiences involved in a practical VC promotion project. The causalities between VC governance and upgrading are explained using the qualitative approach of Macro-Micro Model to accentuate the role of VC operators, their perception, and selected action in the upgrading processes. The results show that regulations and their effective enforcement are necessary; but also social relations, values, and norms, as well as orientation, common practices, and habit exert strong influences on determining the behaviour of and thus the interdependency between VC operators. Hence, further VC re-searches in similar context, i.e. rural areas where socio-cultural aspects are more influential, are to systematically integrate the extended concept of governance into the analysis in order to generate explanation, prediction, and technical recommendation on the facilitation of upgrading processes.

This article focuses on agent-based computational (ABC) modeling of social interaction. It begins with an overview of ABC modeling as a computational implementation of ‘methodological individualism’, the search for the microfoundations of social life in the actions of intentional agents. It then considers how the ABC method differs from an earlier generation of modeling approaches, including game theory, equation-based models of computer simulation (such as system dynamics), and multivariate linear models. It also discusses potential weaknesses of ABC modeling and proposes research strategies to address them. The article suggests that ABC modeling will lead to significant advances in the bottom-up approach to the study of social dynamics.

In the present paper a critical revision of some assumptions that underlie in the Theory of the Neoclassical Consumer, specially those referring to the characteristics of the Economy or Consuming Agent, which has among other characteristics an extreme rationality and a tendency towards the mathematical optimization in the consumption decisions. Some historical and methodology aspects are reviewed that explain the origin and development of the Homo-Economicus. Among the critics stand out: the Methodological Individualism, Preferences Exogeneity, Preferences Individuality, Opposition between Preferences and Values, Instrumental Rationality, and Information Limitless Management. In the paper one argues that the form in which it has been constructed, from the economy theory and especially of the consumer theory, the Homo-Economicus corresponds to a traditional philosophical approach, whereas some guidelines set out from Heidegge's Existentialist Philosophy to surpass the limitations., En el presente trabajo se realiza una revisión crítica de algunos supuestos que subyacen en la Teoría del Consumidor Neoclásica, en particular aquellos referidos a las características del Agente Económico o Consumidor, el cual posee entre otras características una racionalidad extrema y una tendencia hacia la optimización matemática en las decisiones de consumo. Se repasan algunos aspectos históricos y metodológicos que explican el origen y desarrollo del Homo-Economicus. Entre las críticas se destacan: el Individualismo Metodológico, la Exogeneidad de las Preferencias, la Individualidad de las Preferencias, la Oposición entre Preferencias y Valores, la Racionalidad Instrumental, y el Manejo Ilimitado de la Información. En el trabajo se argumenta que la forma en que se ha construido, desde la teoría económica y en particular de la teoría del consumidor, al Homo-Economicus se corresponde a un enfoque filosófico tradicional, en tanto que se proponen algunos lineamientos desde la Filosofía Existencialista de Heidegger para superar las limitaciones.

In this paper is analysed the role of incentives, of the rationality, and of agent’s choices and knowledge in the formation of social networks, i. e. of small worlds. Suggesting a definition of small worlds based in the Duncan Watts and the Kleinberg´s works, here is made a methodological reflection, where the roleof methodological individualism in the emergence of small worlds is clarified. The conclusion is that it acts as a methodological stage complementary to the structural approach in social networks research, in which the individual choices are the point of departure to explain the attainment of certain network equilibria., En este artículo se analiza el rol de los incentivos, de la racionalidad y de las elecciones y el conocimiento de los agentes en la formación de redes sociales y, en particular, en la emergencia de mundos pequeños. Proponiendo una definición de los mundos pequeños basada en los análisis de Duncan Watts y de Kleinberg se hace una reflexión metodológica en la que se precisa el papel del individualismo metodológico en la investigación sobre la manera como emergen los mundos pequeños. Se concluye que éste actúa como una etapa metodológica complementaria al enfoque estructural de las redes sociales, en el que se parte de las decisiones individuales para explicar la emergencia de determinados equilibrios en red.