European Sociological Review VOLUME 20 NUMBER 3 JULY 2004 263269 263Book Reviews What is New in Soziologie? A Rejoinder to Karl-Dieter Opps Review The book project Soziologie, in seven volumes, reviewedbyKarl-DieterOppwasnotplannedinthewayitwasfinallyrealizedandcouldnothavebeenwellplannedthat way. The actual aim only emerged step by step andit was precisely this aim which in the end made the pro-cess so long and the volumes so extensive: the theoreticalintegrationofthedifferentsociologicalparadigmsintoone unitary and comprehensive concept of a sociologicalexplanation, which allowed and this is where it differsfrom other attempts each ofthe varietiesofsociologytoretainitsrelevantcore.However,theyhavebeenintegratedintothelogicofexplanatorysociologyandenrichedbytherespectiverelevantcontributionsofneighbouringdisciplines,especiallyofeconomicsand(social)psychology.Attheverybeginningtheaimwasmuch more modest: a synopsis of the basic ideas, method-ological rules and theoretical instruments of explanatorysociology,whicharoseaboutthemiddleofthe1970sand has been promoted primarily within European soci-ology,andespeciallybyRaymondBoudon,SiegwartLindenberg,ReinhardWippler,RolfZiegler,andlateralso by John H. Goldthorpe, as well as quite early on byKarl-DieterOpp.Thisdevelopmentreachedacertainpeak with the major work entitled Foundations of SocialTheory by James S. Coleman (1990). The proponents ofexplanatorysociologyanchoredtheindispensablenomologicalcoreintheonly(atleastatthattime)theoryofactionthathasalsoprovedmethodologicallysatisfactory:theso-calledrational-choice(RC)theory.As a result the whole approach was quickly labelled andone-sidedly perceived as the RC paradigm. Rightfromthestart,anddespiteallitsadvantages,the explanatory sociology project has thus displayed thisspecialweakness:Becauseallotherparadigmsofsoci-ologydefendedthemselvesagainstthisverycorewithargumentsthatinpartareunderstoodonlytodayandthat are meanwhile much more clearly substantiated, theRCprojecthadtocouchitsclaimtobeingageneraltheoreticalframeworkintheformoftheoreticalimperialism.Objectionsandanomalieshaveeitherbeenignored,moreorlessrepairedorsimplytrans-lated into the terms of the RC theory unless they weremerely sorted and exhibited as a kind of curiosity show(likeJonElsterdidformanyyears).Withoutdoubtthere have also been great achievements in this respect,but many blind spots have remained as well to date theexistenceofwhichseveralproponentsoftheRCapproachdonot(wantto)acknowledge.Probablythe most important example is that human behaviourisoftenmassivelyculturallyguidedbyideas,therebydeactivatinganyrationalorstrategicconsiderations(such as calculation of consequences). This fact becomesmanifest,forexample,inethnicandreligiousconflictsthatcancurrentlybeobservedthroughouttheworld.This blindness has in turn made it easy for the affectedparadigmstorepulsetheimperialisticclaimsoftheRC approach, to isolate it as a special paradigm and sotorenderitharmless.AccordingtoRandallCollins,forinstance,theRCapproachisnothingbutthecontinuationofonlyoneofthefoursociologicaltradi-tionsthatotherwisedonothavemuchincommon.It was not least James S. Coleman with his Foundationswho gave sufficient reasons for this displacement intoaspecialniche.Colemanhasalwaysinsistedonthe(pure)theoryofrationalaction,andthechaptersandparts in which he addresses cultural and non-rationalphenomenaaresoweakthatcriticscouldindeedwinhandsdown.Tooverridethissegmentationofsocio-logicalparadigmsthereforebecamethecentralaimofSoziologie.Thus, the volumesdo notdescribeafurtherparadigmorconstitutemerelyanextensionoftheconventionalRCapproach,butratherpresentanattemptatatheoreticalframeworkthatincludes(asmuch as possible) all relevant aspects of social processes,suchas,forinstance,materialinterests,institutionalrules and the cultural definition of situations. And inso-farasthevariousparadigmshavemadeimportantcontributions here, they are also considered althoughwithin a comprehensive theoretical context and strictlysubjecttotheconditionsofmethodologicallysatis-factory sociological explanations. Itwouldbepresumptuoustoexpectthat,takentogether,thesevenvolumesofSoziologiereachedthis264 BOOK REVIEWSaim of theoretically integrating sociology into a compre-hensivelogicofsociologicalexplanationdowntothesmallest detail. But this surely cannot be demanded fromone single author. However, I would like to state that thework, with its aim, makes a much clearer contribution toprogress thanOppsreview suggests(although itother-wiseaspirestocomprehension,fairnessandaccuracy).In addition again contrary to what Opp suggests it isnosimplecontinuationorcompletionoftheRCapproach in such a narrowly defined sense, as Colemaninparticular,andmostofthosewhocurrentlyfeelobliged to this paradigm, has always decidedly presentedit. On the one hand, Opp indicates at the beginning andattheendofhisreviewthatSoziologierepresentsafar-reachingsteptowardsthedevelopmentofareliable,explanatory sociology, which goes in the right direction,andthatthevolumeshavesomesuggestionsinstorefor an integrative view. However, he actually retains theexact perspective that the work tries to override: namelythat it is in fact the RC approach, which is the basis forthereconstructionofallotherperspectives.Soziologiewants more and offers more: it also encompasses the RCapproach(initsnarrowsenseaswellasinitsbroadersense,e.g.byincludingaltruisticmotivesinanutilityfunction)andassignsaspecialrangetoitjustasitdoesforotherparadigms.TheonlyfeaturethatstilldistinguishestheRCapproachfromallothers,andwhichSoziologieevennowcompletelyshareswithit,isitssystematicorientationtowardthemethodologicalrequirementsofadequateexplanations[andtherelated(formal)modelingofsocialprocesses].Therefore,itis not surprising that Soziologie systemizes and uses, toa large extent, the currently available theoretical instru-mentsoftheRCapproach(e.g.thoseofgametheoryortheformalizationofprocessesofaggregation).Butinitsexplanationsitisnotrestrictedbythenarrowconditions of (neoclassical) RC theories limits whicheconomists themselves are facing right now. AllthisbecomesmostobviousintheevaluationofthepartthatOppcallsthemostinnovativepart:theframe-selectiontheory(FST).Inshort,FSTstatesthatany behaviour of actors is preceded by a definition of thesituationintheformofanactivationofcertainmentalmodelsstoredinthememory.Theactivationisatfirstcontrolledbyausuallyextremelysimpleactofpatternrecognition. Inthe case of perfectrecognition,behaviourfollowstheshadowofthepastinthestoredmental models without any further reflection. A rationalcalculation of future consequences will only occur under(very)specialcircumstances.Inshort,whattheRCapproachconsidersasagenerallawconstitutesonlyaspecialcaseinFST.Theconsequencesareprofound,for instancefortheexplanationofnormativeaction:ifnorms are strongly anchored as mental models and acti-vatedsituationally,e.g.bysignificantsymbols,actorswillnotreflectanyfurther,andallcomplicatedRCmodelsof(strategic)adherencetonormswillbecomesuperfluous.Insofarasculturalideasandcollectiverepresentationsarecasesofsuchmentalmodels,FSTallows for the (easy) integration of non-strategic institu-tionalandculturalaspectsofsocietalprocesses,whichareignoredbyconventionalRCapproaches,intooneexplanatory frame. Frederico Varese and Meir Yaish, forinstance, impressively demonstrated some time ago thatsuch an unconditional and non-strategic impact of cul-turalmodels,e.g.helpingbehaviourevenin(extreme)high-costsituations(here,rescueofJewsintheSecondWorldWar),doesinfactexist.However,RCexpla-nations of (normative) action will by no means becomesuperfluouswithFST(forexample,theexplanationwhichhasbeendevelopedfortheresultsofempiricalgametheoryoncooperationindilemmasituations).However,theydohavespecialconditionsthatcanbeprecisely specified by the FST. An important by-productofthisintegrationofculturalphenomenaintotheframeworkofexplanatorysociologyisthatoneisnowabletogofarbeyondthecommonethnographicthickdescriptions found there, and that there is no longer anexcusefornottryingtofindacorrect(nomological)explanationofculturalprocesses.InseveralofthereceptionsofSoziologiethishascausedeasilyunder-standable excitement within the various paradigms anunmistakablesignofthefactthatonecannotsimplyclassifySoziologieasacompletionoftheconventionalRC approach only. Withoutdoubt,theintegrativeeffortshavehadtheirprice: Various things had to remain preliminary or couldnot be illustrated in detail, and the traditional fields ofsociology(suchasfamily,religion,city,socialmove-ments,etc.)werenotincludedseparately.Andagainwithoutdoubt,therearemanyreasonsforcriticism.Justly,Oppstatesseveraloftheminhisreview,suchas,forexample,GeorgeC.Homansbeingtreatedasa stepchild.However,Idonotwanttoaddressthisin moredetail,themoresosinceagreatpartofOppsobjectionsrelatetospecialmethodologicaldiscussionsthat can also be viewed in a different way (as, for exam-ple, in connection with the concept of social productionfunctions,ortheprincipleofdecreasingabstraction).A coupleofOppsobjectionsareincorrect,suchastheclaimthatFSTrequirescomplicatedcalculationsorthecriticismrelatedtoeverydaybehaviour,orIdoBOOK REVIEWS 265notagree with them, such as theextensivecriticismonthewaythenormproblemisaddressed.Inthisrespect(aswithmanyotherpointsthathecriticizes),Opphasignoredthefactthatduepreciselytotheintegrativedesigndetailsareaddressedthroughoutthedifferentvolumes. Therefore, the solution lies in the reception ofthe various theoretical details described often in differentpartsofthevolumesandtheirfinalintegrationinaspecial chapter as, for instance, for the explanation ofthe emergence ofinstitutional rules or norms. Andthismaywellbethecentralstructuralweaknessoftheproject:duetotheintegrativegoal,thevolumeshadto go far back and thus became longer than is normallythecasewithtextbooks.However,thislengthmaywellcoverupwhatinfactisnewinSoziologie:The(atleastattempted)overcomingofitsdivisionintoparadigms. I wish to thank Karl-Dieter Opp very much for prov-idinganinformedsummaryofthebasicstructure,thegeneraldirectionandmanycriticaldetailsofthisattempt.Ihope,however,thatinthecourseoftimetherewillbeagoodmanyreaderswhotaketimetoverifyforthemselveswhatisreallynew,ornot,inSoziologie,andwhetherthemostimportantgoal,namely the integration of the various paradigms of soci-ologyintoonecomprehensiveexplanatoryframework,was indeed achieved. Hartmut Esser University of Mannheim, Germany DOI:10.1093/esr/jch021,availableonlineatwww.esr.oupjournals.orgElmar Rieger and Stephan Leibfried. Limits to Globalization. Welfare States and the World Economy Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003. 402 pp. With their new book, Elmar Rieger and Stephan Leibfriedcompilefiveessaysthataddresstherelationbetweeneconomic globalization and the future of national welfarestates from a political economy perspective. To take theirstanceontheglobalizationissue,RiegerandLeibfrieddraw on a rich economic, sociology, political science andlegal literature to trace the post-war development of theGATT,IWFandWTOsystemsthatinstitutionalizedinternational free trade, and combine this with nationalcasestudymaterialonsocialandtradepoliciesintheUSA, Germany and, in the final chapter, East Asia. Beingfocusedontheregulationofinternationaleconomicexchange, the theme of much of the book is then delib-eratelysetagainstthepopularcomplaintthatglobaliz-ation would sweep away national governments capacitiesforpolicyformulation.Rather,RiegerandLeibfriedquite firmly assert that the rise of international economicexchangehastobeseenasonespecificelementofprimarily national production systems that so their keythesis were able to exploit efficiency gains from inter-national trade because of favourable political conditionsduring the post-war years. Taken together, Rieger and Leibfrieds essays thus addimportant twists to both the sociological globalization lit-eratureand,maybeevenmoreimportantly,thebroadersocialsciencedebateontheefficiencyvalueofmodernwelfare states. With respect to the former, Limits is firminconsideringglobalizationasanessentiallyendogenousoutcome of the post-war domestic political constellationsin the Western world. To be precise, Rieger and Leibfrieddonotargueagainstaperceptionthatincreasingeco-nomiccompetitionmayactasanexogenousforceofchange in many countries. They do assert, however, thatthe globalization we are witnessing today is the productofsuccessfulregulationofeconomicexchangeacrossnationalborders,whichenablesnationalproductionsystems to reap the welfare gains resulting from increasesin economic efficiency. Chapter2,arguablythestrongestpieceinthecollec-tion, provides Rieger and Leibfrieds main arguments forthis.Undertherubricofwelfaremercantilism,RiegerandLeibfriedprovideapoliticaleconomyofglobaliz-ation that departs from the observation that democraticsocieties tie policy-making to the interest of the averagecitizen,sothatgovernmentssurvivalrestsonthewelfare of the middle classes, broadly speaking. In conse-quence, governments prime political concern is with itsdomesticconstituency,ineconomictermsthecontrastbetweendomesticandforeignmarketsisnotnearlyasevident, however. Rather, precisely because governmentswill have incentives to increase the welfare of the middleclasses,democraticgovernmentsalsohaveconsiderableincentives to exploit the efficiency gains of both nationalandinternationalmarkets.However,asvotersarelikelytorespondmorequicklytowelfarelossesthangains(whatRiegerandLeibfriedtermtheconservativewelfarefunction),governmentsalsohaveclearincentivestomanagearegulated,piecemealentryintointernationalmarkets that involves exposing highly competitive sectors