2. A period of mutual separation (late XIX — early XX century). Starts neoclassical stage in economic theory: marginalistic revolution (W. Jevans, L. Valras), Austrian school (Menger, etc.), and A. Marshall. Is the separation of Economics as a professional field of knowledge, the creation of her staff. At the same time laid the foundations of classical economic sociology (K. Marx, E. Durkheim, M. Weber). In the 1890-1920's. first observed its heyday. But despite that, and despite the efforts at building bridges (M. Weber from sociology, Th. Schumpeter on the part of economic theory), the elements of parallelism and repulsion in the movement of the two disciplines are enhanced. The trend toward specialization, methodological and professional disengagement is stronger than all attempts at synthesis.
3. A period of mutual disregard (1930's — mid 1960-ies of XX century). Observed stage of maturity of economic theory, with the separation of the main branches (macro and microeconomics) and theoretical concepts (liberal and Keynesian, behavioral, and institutional). At the same time unfold a neoclassical phase in the development of economic sociology and its design as a professional industry with special conceptual and methodological apparatus (theoretical branch is represented by T. Parsons and other functionalists, empirical industrial sociology). Neither economists nor sociologists by and large are not interested in what is happening in the “neighbouring camp”, and rarely invade other region.
4. The period of economic imperialism (mid 1960s — mid 1980s). Economic theory is experiencing a crisis associated with the partial revision of the assumptions (rational choice theory, new institutional theory). At the same time attempts are made wide expansion in the related field in the social Sciences (Gary Becker, George. Buchanan, etc.). Meanwhile, the economic sociology is entering a period of professional maturity. On the basis of the confrontation functionalist Grand theory and mutual repulsion is the development of “multiple sociologies” — neo-Marxist, nebebe-Lanskoy, phenomenological.
How was the relationship between economists and sociologists? According to the testimony of R. Svedberg, they have always been very difficult. Mutual ignorance, verging on hostility, and at best a polemical struggle with claims to priority in fact never stopped. There are methodological reasons properties caused by the direct subject line. But, of course, not only that. There is a struggle for “place in the sun” for prestige in the community, to be “home” for explaining science, but in the end, not least for funding and the number of seats in universities.
Sociologists do not just do unleashed controversy with economists (Auguste Comte in the mid-nineteenth century, A. small — at the turn of the century, T. Parsons in the middle of the XX century). However, I must say that in such disputes, from the point of view of the scientific community, sociology, as a rule, was lost to economic theory. And not only because as an independent discipline of sociology more youthful. The main reason is rooted in the sustainable reproduction of the positivist standards that can and should be considered “science” From the point of view of the requirements of evaluative neutrality and rigor of empirical verification of judgment, the use of complex mathematical and statistical models of economic theory, no doubt, had and has a better chance to present yourself as a “true science”.
Played a role, in addition, political and ideological factors. It is believed that among sociologists too many people “leftists” beliefs. Indeed, the neo-Marxism of various kinds in sociology retains quite a strong position. The attitude to the “left” was kept even on the European continent, and the universities of the United States of America they were simply pushed around. So the only scientific debate is not limited. Today calls for unity the best economic and sociological forces while largely remain wishful thinking.
Conclusion. The professional community of economists, despite the trends that had emerged in the fragmentation of economic theory, continues to be more powerful and cohesive Corporation compared to sociologists. The observed intensive development of studies in economic sociology in many respects acts as a critical response to the proposed economists ' scheme. Model behavior “sociological man” in economic life yet are formulated in very vague terms. Largely, these diverse areas brings together their critical attitude in respect of certain postulates of economic theory.