Abstract
Many scholars (A. Marshall, M. Weber, V. Parete, J. M. Keynes, J. A. Schumpeter) have attempted to integrate theories of economy and society. But these attempts are one-sided approaches either from the economic or from the sociological side and are therefore incomplete. The reason for such lack of success in these attempts at integration was that we did not have any concept to use in bridging the gap between the two. Parsons proposes “a general theory” in “Economy and Society” (1956). This is in verity a “Columbian” attempt. Now let us analyze Parsons' theory. This consists of two main propositions (1) economy is one aspect of society, (2) economy is a system characterized by an interdependency of units in same the manner as is society. It may be said, then, that (3) because economy is a sub-system of society and therefore may be thought of as one function of society we can conclude, (4) that economy is a functional sub-system of society.
Thus we can extract two key concepts. They are :
(1) Distinction between “system” (analytical) and “collectivity” (concrete).
Parsons thinks that society can be divided into system and collectivity. Such a proposition is the starting point of his theory.
(2) Four functional problems.
This concept was elaborated with Bales in their “Working Paper” and was the result of integration of Parsons' “functional problems” (paradigm of motivational process) and Bales' “four system problems.” Its essence, therefore is a process of social control of “deviant action.” Stated in more detail, whenever the stability of a system is disturbed by deviand action, stability is regain by means of social control Parsons and Bales have discerned the follwing dimensions as a result of their analysis of the phases in the process of restoring equilibrium. These four dimensions are adaptive (A), goal-gratification (G), integration (I) and latent pattern maintenance and tension management (L). Then, because the economy performs the adaptive function in society, economy constitutes the adaptive functional subsystem. Parsons analyzes the boundery interchange among these four sub-systems. It may be said that this work of Parsons represents a significant step of progress towards integration of economic and social theory. On the other hand, it should be point out that this theory contains the danger of functional teleology, suffers from the limitations of equilibrium theory, and is very abstruct.
