Economization, part 1: shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization

Abstract

This article proposes a research programme devoted to examining ‘processes of economization’. In the current instalment we introduce the notion of ‘economization’, which refers to the assembly and qualification of actions, devices and analytical/practical descriptions as ‘economic’ by social scientists and market actors. Through an analysis of selected works in anthropology, economics and sociology, we begin by discussing the importance, meaning and framing of economization, as we unravel its trace within a variety of disciplinary backgrounds. We show how in combination, these works have laid the foundations for the study of economization. The second instalment of the article, to appear in the next volume of Economy and Society, presents a preliminary picture of what it might mean to take processes of economization as a topic of empirical investigation. Given the vast terrain of relationships that produce its numerous trajectories, we will illustrate economization by focusing on only one of its modalities – the one that leads to the establishment of economic markets. With emphasis on the increasingly dominant role of materialities and economic knowledges in processes of market-making, we will analyse the extant work in social studies of ‘marketization’. Marketization is but one case study of economization.

Keywords:

• economization
• economic sociology
• economic anthropology
• performativity
• markets, marketization

Acknowledgements

The comments and criticisms of many colleagues have helped us to revise and rewrite this article. We would like to extend a specific word of thanks to Andrew Barry, Julia Elyachar, Bruno Latour, Bill Maurer, Tim Mitchell, Janet Roitman and two anonymous reviewers for Economy and Society. We are also grateful to our colleagues at the CSI and Bogazici University for their suggestions and support, as well as to Martha Poon for her cautious re-reading.

Notes

1. We have chosen not to introduce the topic of political economy in this article. Given what is of interest to us here (establishing grounds for the analysis of processes of economization) such a discussion would not have contributed anything additional. For the contribution of political economy in the processes of economization see Çalişkan (forthcoming).

2. Characterized in these terms, the formalist programme can be greatly enhanced. As ‘progress’ is made by certain strands of economics, the individual agent's calculative capacities can be upgraded to take strategic interactions into account, as they are, for example, in game theory. It is also possible to introduce information searches and to select less restrictive optimization criteria. This is done by replacing maximization by the criterion of satisfaction or by introducing the simple ranking of preferences.

3. Some economists go beyond simply recognizing these institutions. They also want to analyse their emergence, transformation and maintenance. For a review of this rich literature see North (1990) and Williamson (1985, 1991), and for a useful synthesis see McMillan (2002).

4. On the role of economists as professionals, see Fourcade (2006).

5. For a presentation of an analysis of the decline of institutionalism, see Yonay (1998).

6. The list of elements conceived of by sociologists as dissolving economic relationships into the social grows by the day: after culture, norms and interpersonal relations, it is now individual emotions or even collective spirit that give capitalism the strength it needs (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005).

7. Several syntheses have been attempted, for instance those of Carruthers and Uzzi (2000), DiMaggio (2001), Guillen (2003), Smelser and Swedberg (2005) and Swedberg and Granovetter (2001).

8. On the centrality of the notion of convention, but defined differently, see also Dupuy (1989).

9. See also, among many others Carruthers (1996), Carruthers and Stinchcombe (1999), Davis, Diekmann and Tinsley (1994), Duina (2004), Fligstein and Mara-Drita (1996), Fligstein and Markowitz (1993), Podolny (2001), Roy (1997) and Uzzi (1996).

10. This analytical deconstruction is substantively different from the genealogical deconstruction proposed by Derrida.

11. Thomas's originality is that he chooses to start with the circulation/transformation of things to answer the classical questions: is it a gift? Is it an exchange of a commodity? Is there reciprocity?

12. Zelizer achieves the same result in economic sociology. Her critique of the notion of hostile worlds and her fine analysis of people's practical contribution to the creation of values is equally attentive to the active hybridization of modes of values.

13. Some markets, such as those for art, wine, children and domestic services, are obviously strategic locations for studying these switches of framings. In these markets we find a constant entanglement of regimes. It could be interesting to draw a parallel between the concept of earmarking and that of affordance (Gibson, 1979; Norman, 1988). Affordance indicates how, owing to their specific characteristics, things can both propose (promise) and permit (permission) some particular courses of action.

14. Apart from Zelizer, see Miller (2001).

15. This is the approach that one of us (Callon, Meadel & Rabeharisoa, 2002) has followed. He has proposed that an equivalence be established between processes of production and processes of (re)qualification, and between processes of (re)qualification and those of valuation.