Homo socio-economicus

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The homo socio-oeconomicus is understood as a sociological model of action that has elements of the homo oeconomicus and the homo sociologicus .

Definition and origin

Dissatisfaction with the sociological actor model, the homo sociologicus, and the economic actor model, the homo oeconomicus, has led to the development of a new model of action that tries to combine the advantages of both models.

In contrast to homo sociologicus and homo oeconomicus, the homo socio-oeconomicus is an open model that can be used for both economic and sociological questions. The homo socio-economicus makes his decisions on the one hand on the basis of rational considerations of benefits, on the other hand this actor model takes into account that the choice of action can also be influenced by social determinants such as social role, social status, reference groups, etc.

The term homo socio-economicus appears for the first time with Otto Neuloh and is now used as a synonym for the RREEMM model developed by Siegwart Lindenberg .

Criticism of the model of homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus

Both homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus are endowed with properties that only enable survival in a world of equilibrium.

The homo oeconomicus is only interested in maximizing his own utility. It does not matter to him with whom he enters into an exchange relationship for this purpose. For him, his fellow men are merely competitors for scarce resources. The homo oeconomicus only conforms to social norms if this serves to maximize his benefit. If market errors occur, homo oeconomicus is overwhelmed. In this situation he would have to make agreements or contracts with other people, but the homo oeconomicus is not able to adapt his behavior to his fellow men. Some economists, especially in the field of behavioral economics , criticized the model of homo oeconomicus. This model can only be used to analyze perfect markets . In fact, we humans do not act in a world of equilibrium, but our world is marked by numerous market imperfections. The homo oeconomicus model is unsuitable for analyzing such market errors.

The homo sociologicus is completely alien to the weighing of benefits. It only complies with the specified standards. In the equilibrium world of homo sociologicus, all behavior is regulated by norms. The homo sociologicus makes no decisions and has no personality. In this way, the behavior of every individual can be calculated in this actor model. For the homo sociologicus, due to the numerous norms, there is just as little need for the homo oeconomicus to adapt his behavior to other people. The limited applicability of homo sociologicus has been criticized by numerous sociologists. People not only obey social constraints, but often also have to make decisions themselves. In the world in which we humans act, not all behavior is standardized and not all norms are observed. Would you like If, for example , you analyze sociological questions in the area of deviant behavior, you will quickly notice that you are reaching your limits with the model of homo sociologicus.

The RREEMM model

The REMM (resourceful, evaluating, maximizing man) model developed by William H. Meckling is considered to be the forerunner of the RREEMM (resourceful, restricted, expecting, evaluating, maximizing man) model. With the REMM, Meckling has already developed an actor model that has characteristics of both homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. Lindenberg added two more characteristics to this model: restrictions (material and social restrictions) and expectations. As mentioned above, this extended model is called the RREEMM model or homo socio-oeconomicus.

The homo socio-economicus can be understood as an individual actor (man) who is confronted with restrictions and has to make a choice between different action alternatives (restricted). Essentially, the homo socio-oeconomicus can perform two types of action. Like homo oeconomicus, he can satisfy his own needs through his actions. On the other hand, he can coordinate behavior through his actions. In contrast to homo sociologicus and homo oeconomicus, he can adapt his behavior to his fellow men. In order to be able to make a choice of action, the homo socio-economicus evaluates all possible alternative actions (evaluating) according to his subjective assessment (expecting). In doing so, he tries to maximize his utility. In retrospect, the homo socio-oeconomicus reflects on his choice of action and can learn from the past. In addition, he is also able to act creatively (resourceful).

The homo sociologicus and the homo oeconomicus can be viewed as special cases of the homo socio-oeconomicus. If all behavior is regulated by norms and these are adhered to by every individual, the homo socio-economicus only acts as a homo sociologicus. In this special case, the individual no longer has to choose between different alternative courses of action, since every type of activity is standardized. There is no longer any need to make agreements with fellow human beings because everything has already been agreed and converted into norms. The homo sociologicus thus corresponds to a homo socio-economicus without the will to make decisions and without needs. If, on the other hand, there are no social constraints that coordinate the behavior of the individuals and if each individual is able to evaluate all possible alternative courses of action, the individual will act in a utility-maximizing manner. The homo socio-oeconomicus only acts as homo oeconomicus. The coordination of behavior is no longer necessary, since the coordination comes about automatically through the will to maximize utility of each individual. The homo oeconomicus thus corresponds to a homo socio-oeconomicus who satisfies his needs as best as possible without having to communicate with his fellow human beings.

The following table is intended to illustrate the different characteristics of the actor models homo socio-oeconomicus, homo-oeconomicus and homo sociologicus.

Different characteristics of the different actor models
homo oeconomicus homo sociologicus homo socio-economicus
Resourceful x
Restricted x x
Evaluating x x
Expecting x x
Maximizing x x

Discussion of the model

The criticism of the model of the homo socio-economicus is primarily directed against the characteristic "resourcefulness", which is often equated with opportunism . The homo socio-economicus is assumed that he always tries to deceive or lie to others in order to maximize his own benefit. This interpretation, which comes mainly from representatives of the transaction cost theory , cannot be theoretically justified according to another view. The homo socio-oeconomicus knows that in the long term he cannot maximize his benefit with malice. In order to be able to achieve his goals in the best possible way, he will behave honestly, friendly and trustingly towards his fellow human beings.

literature

  • Wenzel Matiaske: Pourquoi pas? Rational Choice as a Basic Theory of HRM . In: management review . tape 15 , no. 2 , 2004, p. 249-263 .
  • Otto Neuloh: Sociology for economists Homo socio-oeconomicus. Short textbook for studying and practicing economists and business administrators . 1st edition. Sociology for Economists, Stuttgart / New York 1980, ISBN 3-437-40024-X .
  • Robert Rolle: Homo oeconomicus. Economic anthropology from a philosophical perspective . 1st edition. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 2005, ISBN 3-8260-3148-2 .
  • Peter Weise : Homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. The terrifying men of the social sciences . In: Journal of Sociology . Volume 18, Issue 2, 1989, pp. 148-161 ( digital copy ; PDF ).

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Otto Neuloh: Sociology for economists Homo socio-oeconomicus. Short textbook for studying and practicing economists and business administrators. 1980, pp. 14-15.
  2. ^ Otto Neuloh: Sociology for economists Homo socio-oeconomicus. Short textbook for studying and practicing economists and business administrators. 1980, pp. 14-15.
  3. ^ Wenzel Matiaske : Pourquoi pas? Rational Choice as a Basic Theory of HRM. 2006, p. 255.
  4. ^ Peter Weise: Homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. The terrifying men of the social sciences. 1989, p. 148.
  5. ^ Peter Weise: Homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. The terrifying men of the social sciences. 1989, pp. 152-155.
  6. ^ Wenzel Matiaske: Pourquoi pas? Rational Choice as a Basic Theory of HRM. 2006, p. 255.
  7. ^ Peter Weise: Homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. The terrifying men of the social sciences. 1989, p. 155.
  8. ^ Wenzel Matiaske: Pourquoi pas? Rational Choice as a Basic Theory of HRM. 2006, p. 255.
  9. ^ Peter Weise: Homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. The terrifying men of the social sciences. 1989, p. 153.
  10. ^ Wenzel Matiaske: Pourquoi pas? Rational Choice as a Basic Theory of HRM. 2006, p. 255.
  11. ^ Wenzel Matiaske: Pourquoi pas? Rational Choice as a Basic Theory of HRM. 2006, p. 256.
  12. ^ Robert Rolle: Homo oeconomicus. Economic anthropology from a philosophical perspective. 2005, p. 234.
  13. ^ Peter Weise: Homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. The terrifying men of the social sciences. 1989, pp. 154-155.
  14. ^ Robert Rolle: Homo oeconomicus. Economic anthropology from a philosophical perspective. 2005, pp. 234-235.
  15. ^ Peter Weise: Homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus. The terrifying men of the social sciences. 1989, pp. 156-197.
  16. ^ Wenzel Matiaske: Pourquoi pas? Rational Choice as a Basic Theory of HRM. 2006, p. 256.
  17. ^ Wenzel Matiaske: Pourquoi pas? Rational Choice as a Basic Theory of HRM. 2006, p. 257.