IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Market as an Environment

Listed author(s):
  • Viskovatoff Alex

    (University of Pittsburgh)

Registered author(s):

    More than perhaps any other major social theorist, Niklas Luhmann adopted a perspective on society at the opposite end of the atomistic-holistic spectrum to that of mainstream economics. While the position of mainstream economics is that society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, so that it can be understood simply in terms of those individuals and their interactions, Luhmann abstracts from individuals entirely, understanding social phenomena as being produced by society itself, with individuals playing a merely peripheral or enabling role. This radical reconceptualization of society and the relation of the individual to society allowed Luhmann to build from the ground up a highly systematic theory of society which allows one to formulate economic and social questions in new ways, freed from preconceptions that are poorly grounded or simply wrong. After providing a brief overview of Luhmanns general social theory, this article considers two questions for which Luhmanns theory can produce a fresh point of view. The first concerns what is the nature of markets. According to Luhmann, markets are not a kind of system (the common if tacit view), but collections of observations--the observations of market participants of other market participants. The second concerns the old question of what is the appropriate degree of intervention in the economy. Mainstream economics approaches this problem through the distinction between (free) markets and planning. According to Luhmann, this is a false dichotomy, since all economies have markets and planning. The real question is who should do the planning: private organizations or the state. The former operate on the basis of competition, that is, rivalry; the latter operates on the basis of cooperation. The problem with socialist or centrally planned economies was not that they were planned or centrally organized, since free market economies have planning and centralization too; it was that they relied solely on cooperation, with there being no space for competition. The paper concludes with some reflections on whether freemarket economies with minimal intervention by the state are any more sustainable than are socialist economies.Niklas Luhmann, peut-être plus que les autres auteurs en théorie sociale, a adopté une approche de la société qui est à lopposé du spectre individualismeholisme des économistes orthodoxes. Alors que léconomie orthodoxe considère que la société nest rien dautre que la somme des individus et quelle ne peut être appréhendée quen termes dindividus et de leurs interactions, Luhmann fait totalement abstraction des individus et comprend les phénomènes sociaux comme étant produits par la société elle-même dans laquelle les individus jouent un rôle périphérique ou un rôle dhabilitation. Cette radicale reconceptualization de la société ainsi que la relation des individus à la société a permis à Luhmann de construire une théorie très méthodique de la société qui permet dappréhender de façon différente les questions économiques et sociales, sans préreprésentations fragiles ou erronées. Après avoir donné un aperçu général de la théorie sociale de Luhmann, larticle considère deux questions pour lesquelles la théorie de Luhmann peut apporter un nouveau point de vue. La première traite de la nature des marchés. Daprès Luhmann, les marchés ne sont pas une sorte de système (comme cela est souvent considéré) mais des sommes dobservations faites par les participants au marché sur les autres participants. La seconde question concerne léternel problème du degré dinterventionnisme dans léconomie. Les économistes orthodoxes abordent cette question à travers la distinction entre les marchés (libres) et la planification. Daprès Luhmann cette dichotomie est erronée dans la mesure où toutes les économies connaissent à la fois le marché et la planification. La véritable question est: Qui devrait planifier: les organisations privées ou lEtat?. Les premières agissent sur la base de la concurrence, i.e de la rivalité; lEtat agit sur la base de la coopération. Le problème avec les économies socialistes ou centralement planifiées nest pas quelles sont planifiées ou quelles relèvent dune organisation centralisée puisque les économies de marché libre connaissent aussi la planification et la centralisation. Le problème vient du fait quelles reposent uniquement sur la coopération et naccordent pas de place à la concurrence. Le papier conclut en sinterrogeant sur lidée selon laquelle les économies de libre marché avec une intervention étatique minimale sont plus viables que les économies socialistes.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by De Gruyter in its journal Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines.

    Volume (Year): 14 (2004)
    Issue (Month): 2 (December)
    Pages: 1-19

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:bpj:jeehcn:v:14:y:2004:i:2:n:4
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Alex Viskovatoff, 2003. "Rationalism and mainstream economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 397-415.
    2. Alex Viskovatoff, 2003. "Searle, Rationality, and Social Reality," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 7-44, 01.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jeehcn:v:14:y:2004:i:2:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.