Social structure and how it affects economic growth
- Part 1 -

Rajendra Kshetri *

A segment of a social network :: Pix - Wikipedia / DarwinPeacock

( The following is the full text of two invited Lectures , combined together for purpose of continuity, delivered on 6th January 2014 at the Refresher Course in Economics ( 16th Dec. 2013 – 7th Jan 2014) conducted by the UGC-Academic Staff College, Manipur University ,Canchipur, Imphal).

My dear fellow Social Scientists

"Good Morning" and a "Happy and Peaceful New Year 2014". It has always been a pleasure to come to Manipur University, the" Academic Hub" and the "Intellectual City" of the State. Today is no different. However it was with mixed feelings of reluctance and opportunity that I have accepted the invitation to be a Resource Person here for the UGC Refresher Course in Economics. Reluctance, because, economists by and large the world over, have this characteristic trait of exclusiveness and rarely acknowledge the relevance and contributions of other Social Science disciplines. Opportunity, because I thought here is another academic platform to reiterate- as I often did elsewhere in the country –a long recognised 'social fact' but ignored (deliberately? no pun intended) by most economists. I am obviously referring to the sociological aspects of Economic Growth and/or outcomes. So I stand here today in front of you to re-state what I have been stating all along my Sociological journey.

My discourse this morning shall consist of two phases. In the first phase, I shall give a sociological treatment of the much-used term "Social Structure", and later, in the second phase, I shall focus on the "Sociology of Economic Life", in other words, how social structure affects Economic Growth and/or outcomes.

What is Social Structure? This is a concept often used in social sciences, particularly sociology, but rarely discussed at any length (and I shall not do it here either). But it is possible to identify two (2) broad approaches.

a) The first envisages social structure as observable patterns in social practises. An example of this approach is FUNCTIONALISM (theories in Sociology and Social anthropology which explains social institutions primarily in terms of the Functions they perform, the works and contributions of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, are classic examples of this approach).

b) The second approach is to treat Social structure as the underlying principle of social arrangements which may not be observable. REALISM would be an example of this approach (the assertion that social reality, social structure, social currents, etc. have an existence over and above the existence of individual actors e.g. Marx's emphasis on the overriding importance of the "base" or infrastructure and the more or less dependent "superstructure "as the two main components of social structure; and Durkheim's social reality "sui generis" , his conception of "social facts as things" could be cited as classic example of this approach).

My Approach: - Without attempting to join the debates vis-a-vis the two approaches, mentioned above, my approach would be simply to say that social structure refers to the enduring, orderly and patterned relationships between elements of a society. In other words, it is the more or less enduring pattern of social arrangements within a particular Society, group or social organisation. E.g. The social structure of Manipur.

Even this approach, my approach, so to say, is not free from criticism in that it begs the obvious question as to what would count as an "element". Many sociologists, and social anthropologists, particularly Radcliffe-Brown, thought of social structures as relationships of a general and regular kind between people. On the other hand, others, notably Nadel, suggested roles as the elements. Whether to treat Social structure as 'relationships' or 'roles' or as both, the undeniable fact is that it refers to the enduring pattern of social arrangements within a particular society. And this will be my definitional point.

Having said what needs to be said, let me now give you a sociological treatment of a term, a concept which is very commonly used both by social scientists and educated lay-men alike- a concept which is increasingly gaining international currency. I am, of course, referring to the concept of Social Network, which I think and believe, is at the core of social structure.

The concept of social network is used here to describe the observable pattern of social relationships among individual units of analysis. We sociologists derive this pattern by mapping interactions. The content of the social relationships involved in these networks will, obviously vary from case to case (For Example, sociologists have studied patterns of friendships, kinships, influence, domination, economic exchange and assistance). Depending on the focus of the research, the units in a network may be individuals, groups or corporate entities (companies).

Networks may be shown as maps containing a series of points, which represents the units, and lines joining the points, which represent the interactions among units.

This sociological treatment of 'network' leads me to say that it is a useful tool to study the relational level of the broader social structure which, in turn, leads me further to suggest that the patterns of social relations among individuals constitute the social structure.

Social networks may also be used in explaining the actions of individuals (I shall address this in the second session of my discourse).The arrangements of social relationships and the location of the individual in these are both a constraint and a resource. Individuals face demands and expectations from other members of the networks, which constrain what they can do. But, at the same time, other members are also resources who may be used, for example, to get a job, to borrow money, to influence those in positions of power.

Different types of network structure provide different levels of advantage. Immediate networks, which are dense with strong and close ties, but which overlap more distant networks based on weaker ties (e.g. acquaintances rather than friends) and where resources do not duplicate what is available on the immediate network, provide the most benefits.Labour Market (the basic requirement is that a person's capacity to work –that is, their Labour power-should exists as a commodity which can be bought and sold), studies often use these aspects of networks to explain how some people get jobs (and some do not). In most Labour markets, social networks play a key role, Prospective employees and employers prefer to learn about one another from personal source whose information they trust. This is an example of what has been called SOCIAL CAPITAL (to which I shall come later on).

This said, I must hasten to add here that it is not that weak ties do not provide advantages. In fact, and more often than not they do in that more novel information flows to individuals through weak than through strong ties. Because our close friends tend to move in the same circles that we do, the information they receive overlaps considerably with what we already know. Acquaintances, by contrast, know people that we do not and, thus, receive more novel information. Moving in different circles from ours, they connect us to a wider world. They may therefore be better sources when we need to go beyond what our own group knows, as in finding a new job or obtaining a scarce service.

This whole process of the weak ties providing advantages (novel information) is what has been coined (and called) as the "The Strength of Weak Ties" by Mark Granovetter, Professor of Sociology at Stanford University. (Granovetter 1973, 1983). (To be contd)

This sociological treatment of social structure and social network, I think, has laid the much needed social foundation to bring the first phase of my discourse to a terminal end. This social foundation is crucially important as it prepares us/equips us to move to the second phase of my discourse- i.e." Sociology of Economic Life or Outcomes. Or if I am allowed to paraphrase: How Social Structure/Social Networks affects economic life or outcomes".

To be continued..