Skip to main content

Max Weber, Ideal Types and Commons

In the chapter Reasonable Value in Institutional Economics, Commons spends a significant amount of time on thinking about the sociologist Max Weber.   One point emphasized is Weber being interpreted by  Commons as saying that, "it converts the whole process of economic theorizing from a theory in the older sense of the logical consistency of reality, to a mere methodology of constructing intellectual tools to be used in investigation." Here we see a very clear statement of how Commons views the role of abstractions and general principles that are set outside of the empirical reality.  I don't believe commons uses the word "mere" to trivialize the statement but rather as an expression that theory is not meant to reflect reality per se, as it might in the physical or biological sciences, but rather it is a mental model for the systemic understanding of goings on in the world.

Weber talks about ethical ideals, some of which are attainable and unattainable.  Commons focus is on attainable ethical ideals which he terms identical in economics to the notion of reasonable value.  Commons writes that, "but if it is attainable as shown by the best examples that survive, then a theory of the attainable is as much a scientific theory as is a theory of the attained". He also writes about bringing those individuals and entities that are average or below average to above average to the most attainable ethical ideal.  Commons is attempting to set an ideal that pushes organizations and individuals to the high level, yet still attainable of practices and activities.

At the same time, Commons recognizes that there are limiting factors that prevent those at the above average level from going further.  These limits include: 1) efficiency, 2) scarcity, 3) conflict, 4) working rules, 5) habitual assumptions and many other issues. He also writes about the "unfinished but attainable future" which makes one think about something that is always in the future and always pushing individuals and organizations to be better.

In using Webers ideal type, Commons identifies two flaws which are crucial in what understanding what he was trying to acheieve in this section.  First, the Weberian ideal type was not transactional or in other words looking at relationships between human actors.  Secondly, the idea that custom is about the past.  In Commons view, customs are about setting the stage for future transactions or his concept of futurity.

I find this section of the book very informative to Commons methodology and yet I cannot locate much literature on exploring the Weber and commons connection. More to come.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commons Futurity pg.526-528

Commons Futurity VII. The Margin for Profit pg 526-528  In this section, Commons turns to thinking about a specific aspect of modern banker capitalism addressing the question of profit's role in the economy. He starts with some terminology regarding profit share - the share of national income that goes to profit earners and the profit margin - the dynamic aspect that drives a going concern forward. We then move into another set of terms that are rate of profit and profit yield.  The rate of profit is related to the par value of stock and yield is related to market value of stock or outstanding equity. The social question to Commons is what the role of profit in keeping the overall economy and does society or community pay too much or too little for this service. Economists have long thought about the role of profits in driving the economy up or down.  Commons believes there are profit share theories and profit margin theories as two diction categories in economic thinking...

Commons Futurity pg. 510-526 VI. The Transactional System of Money and Value

VI. The Transactional System of Money and Value  The overall objective of this section is to understand money and its role and relationship to economic value in the institutional economics of John R. Commons. Commons writes that, "It is because Value is a two-dimensional concept (omitting futurity)—with two different causations, the one being the scarcity-value, or price, determined by supply and demand, the other being the greater or smaller output of use-value which will be created in the labor process that follows the transaction. " (Commons, pg. 517, 1934). The point here is again Commons is fighting against what he observes are the limits of other definitions of economic value such as simply individual utility or the classical case of exchange value only.   In this section, Commons make an important move on pages 520 and 521. He states that for a thing to be objective it needs to be independent of any objective will as opposed to other competing definitions. He will ...

Commons commenting on Marx and Proudhoun

Commons provides a short discussion to contrast Karl Marx (communism) and Pierre Joseph Proudhon (anarchism) in Institutional Economics.  His point in writing about these two authors is to continue to flesh out the idea of theory of efficiency versus an economic theory of value. This is section eight in the chapter of efficiency and scarcity pages 366 to 378.  Commons wants us to understand that Ricardo and later Marx led us to a theory of efficiency and not a theory of value.  This is not in itself a negative as a theory of efficiency is important to Commons. However, Commons wants us to understand that a theory of efficiency as espoused by Ricardo and Marx is only half the story of a theory of value.  Marx is the real part of the story in this section with some attention paid to Proudhon. As usual, Commons points out both the advanced and faults in the various thinkers he is addressing. Marx, Commons writes, did improve on Ricardo and others by replacing a subjec...