Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Network homophily: Homophily in networks describes the tendency of individuals to form connections with others who share similar characteristics, interests or traits. See also social networks, filter bubbles, misinformation, communication, internet, internet culture, networks._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Guido E. Tabellini on Network Homophily - Dictionary of Arguments
Mokyr I 3 Nework homophily/Mokry/Tabellini: Social organizations can be viewed as social networks, i.e. as groups of people who interact regularly and cooperate on specific domains. Which social networks are more likely to form depends on prevailing homophily criteria, that is with whom people prefer to interact (Jackson 2008)(1). This in turn is shaped by value systems and cultural traits. Traditionally, strong ties between individuals related by kin have facilitated cooperation within extended families. As social interactions became more complex, however, cooperation within families was no longer sufficient, and inter-family arrangements had to emerge to sustain cooperation. The social arrangements that emerged in China vs Europe in the second millennium AD were very different in this respect. In China, inter-family cooperation was organized within clans - patrilineal alliances among families who traced their origin to a common ancestor. In Europe, associations of unrelated individuals became central to the way individuals cooperated outside the family. These different arrangements reflected differences in value systems. In China the Confucian tradition, encouraged by the imperial authorities during the Song and subsequent dynasties, emphasized ancestor worship and strong kinship ties. This in turn promoted extended family structures and facilitated cooperation between descendants of the same male ancestor. In Europe, the Catholic Church played a major role in reshaping family ties towards the nuclear family, and in diffusing a universalistic value system detached from one’s narrow community of friends and relatives. Mokyr I 4 Between the 6th and 11th centuries, the Church doctrine strongly discouraged marriage between cousins and other relatives, insisted on women’s consent to the marriage, dissuaded from adoptions and remarriage, prohibited all forms of polygamy (Henrich, 2020(2); Schulz, 2022(3)). As noted by Goody (1983)(4), these Church policies reduced the importance of unilineal descent and led to the dissolution of large kinship groups. This facilitated the emergence of the so-called European Marriage Pattern, namely late age of marriage, high rates of celibacy, neolocality (i.e. newly married couples living on their own), consensuality and bilineal descent customs (Hajnal 1982)(5). As pointed out by Roland (2020)(6), if ancestry is determined symmetrically from father and mother, the number of ancestors becomes quickly so large that common descent is no longer a viable criterion to organize social networks. As a result of these different traditions, after the first millennium AD, while in China the clan based on ancestry became the paramount form of social organization, in Europe cooperation was instead achieved through a variety of other organizational arrangements among unrelated individuals, that following Greif (2006a(7),b(8)), we call corporations. >Corporations, cf. >Chinese history, >Chinese Economy. 1. Jackson Matthew. 2008. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 2. Henrich, Joseph. 2020. The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux. 3. Schultz, Jonathan F. 2022. “Kin Networks and Institutional Development.” The Economic Journal, Vol. 132, No. 647, pp. 2578-2613. 4. Goody, J. 1983. The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5. Hajnal, John. 1982. “Two Kinds of Preindustrial Household Formation System.” Population and Development Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 449–494. 6. Roland, Gerard. 2020. “The Deep Historical Roots of Modern Culture: A Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 48, pp. 483-508. 7. Greif, Avner. 2006a. “Family Structure, Institutions, and Growth: The Origins and Implications of Western Corporations,” American Economic Review, Vol. 96, No. 2, pp. 308-312. 8. Greif, Avner. 2006b. “The Birth of Impersonal Exchange: The Community Responsibility System and Impartial Justice.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Spring), pp. 221–236._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
EconTabell I Guido Tabellini Torsten Persson The size and scope of government: Comparative politics with rational politicians 1999 Mokyr I Joel Mokyr Guido Tabellini Social Organizations and Political Institutions: Why China and Europe Diverged CESifo Working Paper No. 10405 Munich May 2023 |
||
> Counter arguments against Tabellini
> Counter arguments in relation to Network Homophily
Authors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Concepts A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
