Talk:Embeddedness

Soliciting expert input
This is a particularly poor definition of embeddedness (which is a far more general concept, and one that is foundational to the new economic sociology). Input from an expert is sorely needed. DarwinPeacock (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I've just been reading some stuff and think I can contribute.

Granovetter himself writes: "[...]I call the argument the argument of embeddedness: the argument that the behaviour and institutions to be analyzed are so constrained by ongoing social relations theat to construe them as independent is a grievous misunderstanding." (Granovetter, Mark (1985): Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. AJS Volume 91, 3 (November), pp. 481-510.) So maybe a better definition would be: Embeddedness is the idea that social behaviour and institutions are constrained and influenced by ongoing social relations. In particular, the concept criticises Role Theory and Rational Choice Theory for constructing individual behaviour as exclusively determined by roles or, repectively, the pursuit of maximal utility.

Best Greetings, Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.37.101 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No expert is needed: as any number entries on Google (including some on Wiki) will show, the notion of embeddedness has been coined by Karl Polanyi ("The great transformation", 1944) Barbara Czarniawska 83.248.107.98 (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)