2014. Vol. 15. No. 2

Victor Nee was interviewed by Alexander Kurakin, Senior Lecturer at the Higher School of Economics. This interview was conducted during the international conference “Embeddedness and Beyond: Do Sociological Theories Meet Economic Realities?” (Moscow, 25–28 October 2012), at which Prof. Nee co-chaired the mini-conference “Organizations and Institutions in Emerging Markets.”

Prof. Nee emphasizes that economic sociology cannot be built only on the argument that networks matter. While important, this sole focus does not allow economic sociology to progress to the societal level. For that, economic sociology needs to incorporate institutional structures — both formal and informal — into its analysis, as it extends the sociological perspective to the study of economic behavior. Prof. Nee also discusses his recent book “Capitalism from Below” (co-authored with S. Opper, 2012), which puts into practice and explains through such multi-dimensional institutional analysis how private-enterprise capitalism emerged in China.

In this issue the journal presents the first part of the interview. The second part will be published in May 2014.

This article explores the process by which a subfield of sociology, the sociology of consumption, became institutionalized in Russia. By “institutionalization” is meant the process of its establishment as an autonomous field of scientific knowledge, university-level discipline and academic community of scholars. Drawing on data from document analysis (field journals and books) and expert interviews, the article reviews the evolution of the sociology of consumption — its topics, methodologies and approaches — in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. We look at its emergence and functioning as a discipline in university curricula and the formation of a community of scholars self-identifying as belonging to this field. The main observations are the following: while the institutionalization of the sociology of consumption accelerated in the 1990s, its origins can be traced to the beginning of the 20th century. The discipline continues to be in the process of formation in Russia. Currently, two major approaches can be discerned: the socio-economic and socio-cultural approaches. Since the 1990’s, Sociology of Consumption was included in university curricula as an elective course for students preparing themselves for a professional career in sociology. On one hand, this provoked a certain standardization. At the same time, scholars in Russia remain free to manipulate the content of a particular course. In terms of community, the experts we interviewed noted the lack of a “strong promoter” or “charismatic leader” but emphasized the existence of “centers of growth,” namely, places across the country where scholars at various universities play a particularly key role in developing the field and contributing to its further institutionalization.

From trade monopolies in XVIIcentury empires to modern institutions such as WTO, International Monetary Fund and World Bank, countries used different tools to gain advantages from globalization. Economic narratives of those times, including Gold Standard, the Bretton Woods regime, the “Washington Consensus”, were considered to be an overwhelming success as well as a great fail. Challenging the common views on globalization, Dani Rodrik suggests a new narrative indicating the insurmountable contradiction: we cannot simultaneously have democracy, national state and economic globalization. When social mechanisms of democracy inevitably meet globalization’s requirements, national interests have to come to the fore. Combining fascinating historic evidences with sound economic analysis, the author argues for curbing globalization with the help of international rules allowing standing against global challenges that we face in trade, finance and labour markets.

The journal “Economic Sociology” publishes the introduction (“Recasting Globalization’s Narrative”) to the book “The Globalization Paradox” by D. Rodrik. In the introduction, the author indicates the research problem and elaborates his approach to its solution. Rodrik considers his approach to be an alternative to the shared views of economists and politicians, calling for full support of globalization. The author’s narrative is based on two ideas: (1) markets and governments are compliments, not substitutes; (2) there are many models of capitalism, which can contribute to economic growth.

This article focuses on the contrasting urbanisms that characterize the two cities of Heihe and Blagoveshchensk on the Sino-Russian border. Since 1990, with the bulk of international trade taking place on the Chinese side, Heihe has rapidly developed into a modern town; by contrast, Blagoveshchensk appears sedate and almost stagnant. Another stark contrast between the two cities is in the ways in which ideas of modernity are spatialized through their urban practices, with Blagoveshchensk demonstrating a preference for horizontal functionalism while Heihe largely follows the iconic and vertical model found in the megacities of the Chinese south.

Foregrounding this very spatial imbalance, the paper argues that the Russian association between horizontality and modernity unwittingly collapses Heihe’s riverfront skyline into a smooth surface lacking depth, and renders invisible those economic drivers that operate below this surface as well as along a vertical axis. As a result of this, spatiality provides an initial cultural grid through which the development, success and modernity of the Other is assessed.

The methodology followed in this article is primarily anthropological. The research was carried out in October and November2011. A dozen semi-structured and open-ended interviews were conducted with informants of diverse ages and social backgrounds, including businessmen and women, academics, young professionals and students. This research was funded through a grant by the Newton Trust (Cambridge, UK).

Consumer confidence surveys are regularly conducted in more than 50　countries, including Russia. Most of them measure how optimistic or pessimistic consumers are with respect to the economy in the near future and test the predictive power of CSI components. Only a few studies analyze the determinants of consumer expectations and examine various socio-demographic determinates of CSI components, including age. However, when assessing the effects of age one should separate age and cohort effects. The term cohort effect is used to describe the effects of being born at about the same time, exposed to the same events in the process of their socialization. The paper provides an overview of theoretical approaches and empirical research which can be used for cohort analysis of consumer expectations. The paper deals with the psychological economics of G. Katona, generation theory of K. Mannheim, N. Ryder's conceptual approach to cohort analysis in social sciences. Special attention is given to the discussion of possible strategies to address the ”identification problem”, i. e. the linear dependency of cohort membership, age, and period. Based on consumer surveys data on saving and consumption, the paper analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of both “formal” and ‘substantive’ approaches aimed at clarifying the definitions and interpretations of age, period and cohort effects. The article raises the question of how to relate the generational and cohort analysis, as well as describing the principles of historical sociology as a methodological paradigm of such studies.

Today entrepreneurship as an interdisciplinary area of research attracts increased attention of representatives of different schools, being actively developed in theoretical and applied areas. But there is one unpleasant exception. Mainstream research is presented here mostly by foreign researchers whose achievements have gone far ahead of foundations laid down by Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter, but they are little known for wide audience of Russian lecturers and students, which are together storming economic, sociological, psychological and managerial principles of entrepreneurship.

The reviewed book has all the reasons to fill this information gap in, as it introduces a reader to the formed approaches and ongoing discussions on theory, methodology and practice of entrepreneurship research at the international level. After all, there is a collection of articles on the creative biography and scientific contributions of the winners of the most prestigious in its field International Prize for Research of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which was founded jointly by Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research (FSF) and Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (NUTEK) in 1996. Adding the whole picture, specially prepared lectures of the Prize winners accent the priority and the most promising directions for further research in this area. In addition an extensive bibliography, finalizing excursus into laureates’ achievements and forming “knowledge platforms” on the main aspects of research at the international level is there.

Most of existing studies of social mobility in the post-Soviet Russia provide measurements in terms of absolute mobility. However, the problem with such measurements is that they do not account for the structural differences when applied for cross-temporal (or cross-national) comparisons (which might be caused, for instance, by the change in the relative number of certain occupations, the expansion of higher education, etc.). Thus, absolute mobility (be it downward, upward or no mobility at all) does not distinguish the change which is caused by the institutional (i.e. qualitative), rather than the structural (i.e. quantitative) change.

In this project we aim to fill in this gap and to analyze the dynamics of relative social mobility (i.e. mobility “net” of structural factors) in the post-Soviet period. Precisely, we would use the so called log-linear and log-multiplicative models designed to analyze contingency tables. By social mobility in this research we will understand intra- and intergenerational individual shifts in terms of occupational status, education and spatial (i.e. urban/rural) location.

The data we will use come from representative surveys conducted in 1994, 2002, 2006 (2013 is work-in-progress at the stage of grant application). The surveys were initially designed by professor Shkaratan for the purpose of studying mobility and stratification processes in modern Russia. In order to guarantee the accuracy of our results we also intend to run parallel estimations by drawing on alternative data (RLMS, Generations & Gender Survey, International Social Survey Programme and European Social Survey).

The regular workshop “Economic Policy during the Transitional Period”, organized by professor Gregory Yasin (academic supervisor of the Higher School of Economics), was held on January 30, 2014. At this workshop professor Vadim Radaev (first vice-rector of HSE) delivered a report on “Is It Possible to Save Russian Apparel and Textile Industry?”, initiating a discussion of the current problems faced by the industry and development perspectives. Prominent experts in this sphere took part in debates on the future of Russian apparel and textile industry: Vugar Isaev (president and founder of the chain stores “Snezhnaya Koroleva”), Andrei Razbrodin (president of The Russian Union of Entrepreneurs of Textile and Light Industry, board member of TheRussian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs), Andrei Yakovlev (director of the Institute for Industrial and Market Studies).

The central issue discussed at the workshop dealt with the reasons of the Russian textile and apparel industry survival after Soviet Union collapse despite sharp productivity decline. Nevertheless textile and apparel industry still vulnerable, facing the risks posed by global competition. Vadim Radaev suggests modernization strategies for textile and apparel, facilitating its growth. Do we have chances to enter in global supply chains? What role should government and companies play in this process? This article provides an overview of answers to those questions.

Victor Nee was interviewed by Alexander Kurakin, Senior Lecturer at the Higher School of Economics. This interview was conducted during the international conference “Embeddedness and Beyond: Do Sociological Theories Meet Economic Realities?” (Moscow, 25–28 October 2012), at which Prof. Nee co-chaired the mini-conference “Organizations and Institutions in Emerging Markets.”

Prof. Nee emphasizes that economic sociology cannot be built only on the argument that networks matter. While important, this sole focus does not allow economic sociology to progress to the societal level. For that, economic sociology needs to incorporate institutional structures — both formal and informal — into its analysis, as it extends the sociological perspective to the study of economic behavior. Prof. Nee also discusses his recent book “Capitalism from Below” (co-authored with S. Opper, 2012), which puts into practice and explains through such multi-dimensional institutional analysis how private-enterprise capitalism emerged in China.

In this issue the journal presents the first part of the interview. The second part will be published in May 2014.

This article focuses on the contrasting urbanisms that characterize the two cities of Heihe and Blagoveshchensk on the Sino-Russian border. Since 1990, with the bulk of international trade taking place on the Chinese side, Heihe has rapidly developed into a modern town; by contrast, Blagoveshchensk appears sedate and almost stagnant. Another stark contrast between the two cities is in the ways in which ideas of modernity are spatialized through their urban practices, with Blagoveshchensk demonstrating a preference for horizontal functionalism while Heihe largely follows the iconic and vertical model found in the megacities of the Chinese south.

Foregrounding this very spatial imbalance, the paper argues that the Russian association between horizontality and modernity unwittingly collapses Heihe’s riverfront skyline into a smooth surface lacking depth, and renders invisible those economic drivers that operate below this surface as well as along a vertical axis. As a result of this, spatiality provides an initial cultural grid through which the development, success and modernity of the Other is assessed.

The methodology followed in this article is primarily anthropological. The research was carried out in October and November2011. A dozen semi-structured and open-ended interviews were conducted with informants of diverse ages and social backgrounds, including businessmen and women, academics, young professionals and students. This research was funded through a grant by the Newton Trust (Cambridge, UK).