ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 2003

Scandinavian Rational Choice Sociology

Christofer Edling and Charlotta Stern
Stockholm University

ABSTRACT The present status of rational choice sociology in Scandinavia is discussed in the form of a review, examining representative work and highlighting important scholars. Despite a reputation of having a strong Scandinavian rational choice tradition, rational choice sociology is practically non-existent in Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Rational choice sociology in Scandinavia is by-and-large concentrated in Oslo and Stockholm universities, where insightful discussions and relevant applications are found, but not in impressive numbers. KEYWORDS: action theory, embeddedness, intentional action, methodological individualism, model of man, rational action

Introduction When faced with several courses of action, people usually do what they believe is likely to have the best overall outcome. This deceptively simple sentence summarizes the theory of rational choice (Elster, 1989a: 22). Even if we agree that this trivial description of human action summarizes the theorys basic property, rational choice sociology is quite diverse. To simplify, this diversity can be described in relation to how hard the basic assumptions are being pushed, and rational choice sociology can be found anywhere on a continuum ranging from the more soft-spoken rational choice inspired sociologist to the hard-core rational choicer. Hard-core rational choice is characterized by explicit assumptions about selfinterested, intentionally rational action, that allow for a mathematical formulation of the theory in terms of utility theory. Typically, hard-core studies use the deductive power of mathematical models or computer simulations to analyse the macro outcomes of individual action. On this side, then, we nd the technically most sophisticated studies.1 On the other side of the continuum, we nd researchers who perhaps do not explicitly use rational choice terms, or researchers who reject

some of the assumptions of hard-core rational choice. Such research may still be included in what we mean by rational choice sociology as long as it is based on a theory where individuals have intentions and face opportunities that structure their chosen action. Framed in this way, rational choice sociology is based on a particular way of theorizing, rather than a theory about rational choices.2 This particular way of theorizing embraces above all the principle of methodological individualism, i.e. that social phenomena are to be explained in terms of individual action and interaction, and the idea that people act intentionally, based on an evaluation of the situation. On this side of the continuum, we include various models where assumptions deviate from the hard-core rational choice model, such as formalized models of bounded rationality (e.g. Tversky and Kahneman, 1981), learning models (e.g. Breen, 1999), and evolutionary game theory (e.g. Macy and Skvoretz, 1998). However, on this side we also include non-formal research that uses a rhetorical action model of human beings in explanatory reasoning (e.g. Hechter, 1987). This is research that uses the rhetoric of choice, constraints, opportunities, incentives and so on but also includes references to favoured sociological ideas, such as social norms or social networks.

Acta Sociologica Copyright 2003 Scandinavian Sociological Association and SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: www.sagepublications.com) Vol 46(1): 516[0001-6993](200303)46:1; 516; 032405

6 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 46(1)

Coleman (1990) uniquely covered a huge stretch of the continuum by splitting his magnum opus Foundations of Social Theory into two parts. The rst part gives a non-formal explication of the theory, and the second part rephrases much of part one into mathematical language. In this article, we review the position of rational choice sociology in Scandinavia.3 Often when we interact with sociologists from abroad we nd that Scandinavian sociology has a reputation for having a strong rational choice tradition. To a sociologist reasonably knowledgeable about Scandinavian sociology, this reputation is rather surprising. There are no institutionalized rational choice centres or institutes in Scandinavia, in contrast to, for example, the cross-disciplinary Inter-University Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology (ICS: University of Groningen, Utrecht University and University of Nijmegen), which has a very strong focus on rational choice sociology (see Buskens, 2000). A recent review of rational choice theory in sociology (Voss and Abraham, 2000) names only three Scandinavians beside Jon Elster, and two of them are economists.4 There are no rational-choice sections at the Nordic Sociological Association meetings, the closest session being one in Economic Sociology,5 nor at the national meetings in the several Scandinavian countries. And, as will become evident, there is not an abundance of Scandinavian studies using a rational choice framework. As of 2002, only six Scandinavian sociologists have published in the leading journal for rational choice sociology, Rationality and Society, totalling seven papers. However, Scandinavian sociologists are involved in the editorial work of Rationality and Society,6 courses in rational choice theory are taught relatively frequently at both Oslo and Stockholm University, and interesting contemporary rational choice sociology are to be found in the Nordic countries. How did Scandinavian sociology get its rational choice reputation? As we will see, rational choice hardly dominates in Scandinavian sociological research though it does enjoy some strongholds. Surprising, then, that our fellow sociologists think of Scandinavia as a bastion of rational choice sociology. For sure, Nordic sociology has always had a strong rationalistic streak. It can be argued that Scandinavian sociology itself developed from a

philosophical movement, reacting against German metaphysics (see, e.g., Allardt, 2000; Kalleberg, 2000). One might also speculate that the rational choice reputation originates from the image of the Scandinavian welfare state. In an amusing paper titled Rational Humanitarians, Hans Zetterberg (1984) puts forward the basic mental characteristics of Scandinavian political life: A democratic debate over [core socio-political problems] is a debate among rational experts, and the solutions proposed have the appearance of applied social science (p. 85). In the post-war era, Scandinavian sociology indeed thought of itself as an applied social science in the service of the ruling democratic governments. Alva Myrdal serves as a sort of emblem of this mentality (Ekerwald, 2000), and it seems that Icelandic sociology of today still tends toward this mentality (see Gunnlaugsson and Bjarnason, 1994). In all Scandinavian countries, except perhaps Denmark, we find a widespread image of the sociologist as an expert on current policy issues. Indeed, one of the most prolific research initiatives in contemporary Swedish social science, the Level of Living Surveys, was initiated by Sten Johansson under the explicit assumption that, in everyday life, people strive to get the most out of the resources that can be mobilized in their working, political and domestic life (see Johansson, 1973). From the start, Scandinavian sociology was mostly about descriptive empirical investigations. In general, it can still be said that theoretical contributions are scarce, but probably no scarcer than in other western nations. Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish sociology developed in an almost positivistic fashion, and remained so into the 1960s. This changed quite dramatically in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when sociologists reacted against the rationalism and empiricism and turned to the continent for fresh inspiration. In that time much sociology became profoundly Marxist in orientation.7 If anything, sociology in Scandinavia during the 1980s and 1990s can be characterized by the same diversication and fragmentation seen in sociology elsewhere. Perhaps the image of rational Scandinavians and social engineering, in combination with the fact that Jon Elster is a Norwegian, is enough to make the rational choice label stick? These are just speculations, and we do not try and provide a rm answer to the question raised. We will however return to it in our conclusion.

Edling and Stern: Scandinavian Rational Choice Sociology 7

Rational choice in contemporary Scandinavian sociology For the present review, we used citation indices and library catalogues, as well as collections of our own and those of our colleagues, to look for books and articles published by Scandinavian sociologists that discuss rational choice sociology or apply rational choice theory to sociological problems. We looked in particular for books in English and for articles published in international journals, and in particular we searched in Acta Sociologica and Rationality and Society. We also talked to a number of Scandinavian sociologists (see the acknowledgements section) both to get their view of the position of rational choice sociology in Scandinavia, and for suggestions for omitted books and articles. In this review, we hope to provide not a complete but an accurate picture of the present state of rational choice sociology in Scandinavia, highlighting representative work and important scholars. Various papers and books are discussed throughout the text and in Table 1 we also provide brief biographical details for six key scholars. In our readings and discussions, these scholars emerged as central actors in contemporary Scandinavian rational choice sociology. After completing our investigation we found, somewhat to our surprise, that rational choice sociology did not exist in Denmark, Finland or Iceland. Several scholars in the three countries have conrmed our conclusion. The one exception seems to be Heine Andersen at Copenhagen University who has been commenting upon rational choice theory as part of his general interest in social theory (Andersen, 1992, 1993). Applications of rational choice theory in Denmark, though, are completely left to economists and political scientists. The institutional turbulence in modern Danish sociology might partly explain this absence. Icelandic sociology was established in the early 1970s at the University of Iceland and, from the start, Icelandic sociology focused on describing and trying to solve social problems, without much analytical or explanatory ambition (see the overview by Gunnlaugsson and Bjarnason, 1994). Despite the fact that graduate students have to get their education abroad (mainly in the UK, US, or the other Scandinavian countries), so far no specic theoretical approach seems to have had any lasting inuence on Icelandic sociology. The Finnish case is a different story altogether. Here academic sociology is old and well

established. Finland had its rst professor of sociology appointed as early as 1890. The rst permanent professorship in Scandinavia was established at the Swedish speaking bo academy in 1926, approximately 10 years before Denmark and 20 years before Norway and Sweden (see Lindbekk and Sohlberg, 2000). In contrast to Denmark, sociology in Finland has always been an active discipline. For some reason though, the traditional focus is exclusively on structural and cultural conceptions (Alapuro, 1995), paying almost no attention to their emergence from social interaction. Perhaps for geo-political reasons, Marxist perspectives have been strong in post-war Finnish sociology and, unlike Norway, Iceland and Sweden, Finnish sociology has historically had stronger links to the UK than to the US. Evidently, then, rational choice theory hardly sets the agenda for most Scandinavian sociologists. This is underscored by recent overviews of sociology in the Scandinavian countries, in which rational choice is barely mentioned (see Dahlstrm, 1994; Gunnlaugsson and Bjarnason, 1994; Alapuro, 1995; Engelstad, 1996). Nevertheless, it seems that rational choice as a phenomenon provokes a lot of feelings, and almost every sociologist has an opinion about the approach, and such opinions may not infrequently be patronizing, dismissive, or hostile.8 One is very often confronted with the criticism that rational choice sociology is the same as economics. The argument then simply boils down to statements like economic imperialism is a mistake and the economic approach can offer only a partial explanation of social life (Dahlstrm, 1994: 82), which we think is a serious and misleading simplication. Leaving aside the bigger and to rational choice friendly sociologists bleaker picture, there are insightful discussions and ne applications of rational choice in Norway and Sweden to which we devote the rest of this review. The reception of Colemans foundations We chose to start our overview of contemporary Scandinavian rational choice sociology in 1990, the year of publication of Colemans Foundations of Social Theory. What better way to start than to look at the reception of Colemans book in Acta Sociologica? The second issue of 1991 contains three short reviews of Colemans work. The number of reviews alone indicates that

8 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 46(1)

Table 1. Key people in contemporary Scandinavian rational choice sociology Name Gudmund Hernes Important works 1976, 1978, 1985, 1989 Biographical note Hernes got his PhD from Johns Hopkins University in 1971. Returning to Norway, he became professor of sociology at the University of Bergen. Between 1990 and 1997 he served in the Norwegian Government as Minister of Education and Minister of Health. He is now director at UNESCOs International Institute of Educational Planning. Hernes retained a close relation with Coleman throughout the years, and in the foreword to Individual Interests and Collective Action, Coleman (1986, Cambridge University Press) gives Hernes credit for persuading him to assemble the papers into a book. Walter Korpi spent his undergraduate years at Stockholm University and University of Colorado. After receiving a Bachelors degree in 1958, Korpi worked at the Institute of Military Psychology of the Swedish armed forces and at the Swedish Metal Workers Union. He got his PhD from Stockholm University in 1966 using a book published while at the Institute of Military Psychology as his dissertation. He was a visiting scholar at Columbia University in 19645. Korpi learned bounded rationality from March and Olsens Organizations. He is now professor at the Swedish Institute of Social Research at Stockholm University. After earning a PhD at Harvard, partly supervised by Aage Srensen, one of Colemans students, Hedstrm spent a couple of years at the sociology department at Chicago in the late 1980s. An early interest in rational choice theory, primarily inspired by work by Boudon and Elster, was boosted under the inuence of Becker, Coleman and Elster who were all at Chicago then. When offered a full professoral post at Stockholm University in 1989, Hedstrm returned to Sweden. Petersen received his PhD from University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1987 under the supervision of Aage Srensen, and worked at Harvard University from 1985 to 1989. He now holds joint professorships at Oslo University and at the University of California, Berkeley. Dahlbck came to the sociology department at Stockholm University in the 1970s. His PhD work was supervised by Carl-Gunnar Janson. Due to a conict, Dahlbck never graduated despite the fact that the thesis was defended and accepted. He left the department and spent several years in the business department at Stockholm University. When Hedstrm returned to Stockholm in 1989, he stumbled upon Dahlbcks work and convinced him to graduate and return to the sociology department. Skog received his PhD from Oslo University in 1980. Besides rational choice sociology, his work includes social diffusion and social network theory. He has been director of the National Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research, and is now professor of sociology at Oslo University and research director at the Centre for Advanced Study of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. He has also held a professorship in the sociology department at Stockholm University.

Walter Korpi

1974a, 1974b, 1985, 2001

Peter Hedstrm

1994, 1996, forthcoming

Trond Petersen

1992a, 1993, 1994

Olof Dahlbck

1990, 1995, 1998b

Ole-Jrgen Skog

1993, 1994, 1997, 2001

Edling and Stern: Scandinavian Rational Choice Sociology 9

Colemans book was considered important. All three reviewers are from the sociology department at Stockholm University. Olof Dahlbck (1991a) is mostly concerned with the limits of the principles of rationality and egoism as primary factors in understanding individual action. He suggests that altruism and similar drives, when internalized, might be as important primary factors as rationality. The problem that follows concerns the testability of the primary factors: how can we know the ultimate cause of seemingly altruistic behavior (p. 140)? Dahlbck recently elaborated his criticism further and in more detail (Dahlbck, 1995, 1998b). Though a sharp and merciless critic, he nevertheless concludes that, as compared with the assumptions inhering in several other theoretical approaches [the rational choice perspective] forms a relatively good foundation for explaining many social phenomena (Dahlbck, 1995: 258). Gsta Carlsson (1991) is also sceptical of the assumption of rationality and claims that it is a heavy price to pay (p. 138) and that the idea of foundations is problematic in sociology where the foundations change and become obsolete over time. Gran Ahrne (1991) is less concerned with the principle of rationality and more concerned with the idea of choice. According to Ahrne, Colemans basic assumption of authority resting on deliberate choice neglects issues of power. Furthermore, the assumption is unrealistic, and provides no explanation of what corporate actors do (p. 141). Despite the scepticism about Colemans foundations, however, both Ahrne and Carlsson are rather uncritical about Colemans work. And this kind of sceptical but respectful attitude has continued to be the leading response to rational choice sociology among serious commentators in mainstream Scandinavian sociology. In 1993, Acta Sociologica had a special issue on rational choice theory, issue 36(3). Introducing the issue, Peter Hedstrm, then editor stated that: although the utility of rational choice theory is still being debated among sociologists, it is clear that rational choice theory has made deep inroads into the discipline, not only intellectually but also institutionally (p. 167). In retrospect, we feel that this statement was wishful thinking rather than an accurate description. The main argument in the editorial introduction is that rational choice has an integrative force, providing a common framework that can bridge many social sciences. The special issue itself is displayed as an example of the integration, with contributions by both sociologists

and economists. Four out of the seven papers were written by Scandinavian academics, three of them active at Nordic universities. However, ve of the seven articles included in the special issue are pure theoretical discussions without any empirical applications. Two articles concern problems of rational choice theory: Elster (1993) and Udehn (1993) write about problems related to the assumption of human rationality. Similarly, Lindenberg and Freys (1993) contribution is concerned with extending hard-core rational choice theory to include more explicit social and situational aspects. Eggertsson (1993) makes a similar argument in his overview of institutional economics (see Eggertsson, 1990). Also, Skogs (1993) article on the voting paradox is critical of hard-core rational choice. He concludes that analytical models ought to be based on empirical ndings and include social characteristics. His simulation of the voting paradox in socially integrated populations is an example of an extension of hard-core rational choice. Only one of the articles in the issue is empirical Evanss (1993) article on the association between class position and political preferences. Finally, Coleman (1993) explicitly takes up the integrative aspect, addressing the impact of Gary S. Beckers work on sociology. Further commentaries The special issue of Acta Sociologica is a good example of a tendency to discuss the pros and cons of the rational choice framework itself (see Mjset, 1991; Therborn, 1991; Andersen, 1992; Udehn, 1993; Dahlbck, 1995; Hedstrm, 1996; Hedstrm et al., 1998). For instance, in a paper on the role of explanation in social science, Therborn (1991) is very sympathetic to explanatory theorizing and puts forward rational choice theory as an example of what theorizing should be about. Nevertheless, he concludes that norms, beliefs and identities are irreducible to instrumental rationality. Andersen (1992) is similarly sympathetic to rational choice and to Colemans Foundations of Social Theory but concludes that, without introducing personal traits other than self-interest and rationality, Coleman and hard-core rational choice fail to account for norms. In a similar manner, Johan Asplund (1992), while very respectful of Elsters work, offers two essays arguing against Elsters (1984) analysis of rationality. Asplund especially targets the idea

10 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 46(1)

that the rational model of man is an inevitable starting point a conception that Asplund feels must consist of some sort of optical illusion (p. 76, our translation).9 Also, Lars Udehns (1987) doctoral dissertation, a thorough treatise on methodological individualism, has become a minor modern classic in Scandinavia despite the fact that it has not yet been published (however, see Udehn, 2001). It is a critical assessment of the ontological and epistemological status of methodological individualism in the social sciences. Udehn remains focused on the problems of methodological individualism and rational choice theory, with a sort of sceptical sympathy. In The Limits of Public Choice (Udehn, 1996), for example, he puts forward a sociological critique of public choice, arguing that economic theory of politics needs to learn more from sociology as well as from economics. The foundations of rational choice theory are important and should be scrutinized. When it comes to the state of the art of Scandinavian rational choice sociology, however, one could rudely summarize it as lots of talk but little action. The talkers are often sceptical of rational choice theory but, at the same time, they see this kind of theorizing as potentially fruitful if extended with more plausible assumptions. Another type of rational choice debate was provoked by a discussion among (mainly) quantitative analysts in European sociology on the coupling between rational choice models and so called large-scale data analysis (see Blossfeld and Prein, 1998). Both Hedstrm and Swedberg (1996a) and Edling (2000) are sceptical of the marriage between survey data and rational choice models. Hedstrm and Swedberg opt for a strategic collection of quantitative data beyond random sampling, while Edling argues that a rational choice narrative can easily supplement almost any correlation between quantitative variables yet provide neither a test of the model nor new insight into the data. Many Scandinavian sociologists seem to be annoyed with the anthropology underlying rational choice theory. One can ponder upon whether the annoyance is provoked by rational choice theorists habit of making their simplifying assumptions explicit. Would explicating the assumptions underlying structuralist theorizing provoke the same response? Such an explanation suggests that it is the language of rational choice that annoys people. A test of the explanation would be possible by investigating what would happen if, for instance, a scholar of

Bourdieu clearly stated that the basic assumption of the habitus is that individuals are so thoroughly socialized and their situation so structured that actions are solely founded upon habits and social norms, so that self-interest has no explanatory role and choice is more or less eliminated. An alternative source of the annoyance can be that sociologists are provoked by rational choice theorists assumptions per se. One can think of two different reasons why sociologists would despise assumptions of self-interest and choice. The assumptions might be provoking because of their close association to economics, i.e. due to the threat of sociology becoming part of the economic empire (as indicated by the quote from Dahlstrm, 1994). The assumptions might also be provoking because the individual that rational choice theorizing portrays is an individual that sociologists nd hard to swallow. Favoured concepts such as altruism, socialization, habits and rituals, false consciousness, etc. do not easily t into a framework based on selfinterest and choices based thereupon.10 Examples of rational choice sociology in Norway Of course, in rational choice theory, the most well-known Scandinavian is without doubt the Norwegian Jon Elster. His work is familiar to anyone remotely interested in social theory, in general, and rational choice theory, in particular. However, we will not discuss Elsters impressive body of scholarly work here because it would take up a considerable amount of space and produce little new information. Also, we do not conceive of Elster primarily as a sociologist, but rather as a political theorist. As a matter of fact, it is interesting to note that, despite the fame and respect that surround Elsters work and person, he has had few sociological followers in Norway. Rather, the leading rational choice advocate in Norwegian sociology has been Gudmund Hernes, a former student of Coleman. Hernes and his colleagues at the University of Bergen published rational choice inspired studies in the 1970s and 1980s (see Hernes, 1976, 1978, 1985). In the last 15 years, Hernes has been involved in Norwegian politics and his research has become more oriented towards Norwegian domestic policy, explaining why his international publications are few and far between (but see, for instance, Hernes, 1989, 1998). Two of Hernes most

Edling and Stern: Scandinavian Rational Choice Sociology 11

successful students, Knud Knudsen and Tom Colbjrnsen, applied a soft version of rational choice models in their dissertations but their current research is not framed in these terms. Most discussions of Norwegian, and Scandinavian too for that matter, rational choice sociology are focused exclusively on Elster and Hernes (for instance, see Mjset, 1991: chs 910, Hagen, 1999). Although there is no institutionalized setting for rational choice sociology in Norway today, studies within the rational choice framework exist, and are concentrated in the sociology department at Oslo University. Occasionally within a rational choice framework, we nd Ole-Jrgen Skog. Skog is a technically sophisticated sociologist, comfortable with both theoretical and statistical modelling. His main area of study is addictive behaviour, in which he has published a large body of purely empirical and theoretically driven work (for the latter, see Skog, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001; and Elster and Skog, 1999). A recent project has been devoted to exploring the leverage of rational choice theory in explaining addictive behaviour (Skog, 1997, 1999; Elster and Skog, 1999). In one of these papers, Skog (1997) develops a rational choice model that incorporates actors capacity for changing their future orientations, building on Becker and Murphys (1988) analysis of rational addiction. In addition, Skog has applied rational choice models in a couple of analyses of the voting paradox (Skog, 1993, 1994). Trond Petersen is another Norwegian sociologist who has worked on and off within a rational choice framework. He has published work on the promise of game theory in sociology (Petersen, 1994), on organizational issues analysing the contribution from principal agent theory (Petersen, 1993), and on solutions to work-group incentive schemes to reduce freerider problems without direct supervision (Petersen, 1992a, 1992b). Also, in the eld of labour markets and wage settings, Marianne Nordli Hansens analyses of wage formation in Norway use a broad rational choice framework, testing hypotheses about the connection between family background and wage benets (Nordi Hansen, 1996). She argues that the benets associated with social and cultural capital are context sensitive. Therefore such benets will mainly fall on individuals who follow the path of their parents, and only in contexts where it is not easy to measure work performance. In another study, she examines the impact of different recruitment

channels on wages (Nordi Hansen, 1997), nding empirical support for the idea that being recruited through informal channels benets the employee at higher educational level, if the employer initialized the contact. Meanwhile, Geir Hgsnes studies wage bargaining in Norway, using norms of fairness as an important concept for understanding Norwegian wage formation in recent years (Hgsnes, 1989, 1994). He extends the standard economic analyses of wage formation to include social norms. Perceptions of fairness and legitimacy have also been the focus of some of Fredrik Engelstads work. Using Elsters (1989b) criteria of distribution, Engelstad (1990) analyses the legitimacy of seniority as a selection mechanism achieving local justice in work force reductions. In another article, he uses ample historical illustrations in discussing the normative and efciency effects of assigning political ofce by lottery (Engelstad, 1989). Examples of rational choice sociology in Sweden In Sweden, rational choice sociology is concentrated at Stockholm University. Since the early 1970s, Walter Korpi, an inuential Swedish sociologist at the Institute for Social Research in Stockholm, has worked, off and on, with a soft version of rational choice. Korpi (1971) argued against most political sociologists at the time and suggested that communist support among European workers was indeed rational behaviour that had little to do with various societal strains operating behind the back of social actors. A major theme in his work since then has been the power resource perspective, developed to account for desires, beliefs and intentions of actors (e.g. Korpi, 1974a, 1974b, 1985). In Korpis work, rational action stems from a persons power resources, and these resources are treated as dependent variables in his analyses. Recently he has applied a rational choice perspective to the analysis of welfare state institutions (Korpi, 2001). The main theme is still power, but a major aim in this recent paper is to combine rational choice sociology with new institutionalism in an analysis of the emergence of social insurance systems in the OECD countries. Korpis interest in rational choice has not been particularly inuential on the rest of the work at the Institute for Social Research, however. In fact, only a few rational choice

12 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 46(1)

applications exist. Bckman, for example, uses a rational choice framework in his analysis of sickness absence (Bckman, 1998) and Jonsson (1999) applies a rational choice model to explain sex differences in educational choice. We expect to see more rational choice applications coming out of the Institute in the future. The type of research conducted is very much what John Goldthorpe who is well read and respected in this milieu has in mind in his plea for incorporating more (rational choice) theory into quantitative analysis (Goldthorpe, 1996, 2000). A student of Korpi, Peter Hedstrm is now without doubt the strongest proponent of rational choice in Sweden. In the early 1990s, Hedstrm established a group of colleagues and students who studied the diffusion of new social movements and collective action using a rational choice framework (see primarily Hedstrm, 1994; Sandell and Stern, 1998; Sandell, 1999; Hedstrm et al., 2000; berg, 2000). In these papers, the hard-core rational choice model is extended to include network structures. Together with Richard Swedberg, Hedstrm has published Social Mechanisms (Hedstrm and Swedberg, 1996b), a sociological manifesto proposing theory-building based on a microfoundation of rational actors, with a middlerange scope, very much in line with such theorists as Merton, Coleman and Elster (see also Hedstrm et al., 1998). In a forthcoming book, Hedstrm develops his vision of analytical sociology in detail, where several key aspects of rational choice theorizing are incorporated (Hedstrm, forthcoming). The theme of social mechanisms is important in the department, where a seminar series has been held since 1998 on the theme social behavior and social mechanisms. Although the seminar is not restricted to rational choice modelling, the seminar has included talks on rational choice sociology by Peter Abell, Richard Breen, Andreas Diekman, Jon Elster, Gudmund Hernes, Siegvart Lindenberg, Werner Raub and Ole-Jrgen Skog. The department also publishes a social mechanisms dissertation series and working-paper series. Also in the sociology department at Stockholm University is Olof Dahlbck, who has been working on decision theory and risk taking for more than 20 years. His publications include work on saving (e.g. Dahlbck, 1991b) and criminal behaviour (e.g. Dahlbck, 1998a, 1998c), including experimental work (e.g. Dahlbck, 1990). As suggested earlier, he is also interested

in the explanatory power of rational choice models (Dahlbck, 1991a, 1995, 1998b). Although it is clear that the department at Stockholm is perhaps the centre for rational choice inspired sociology in Sweden, there are a few other Swedish sociologists who work within the framework of rational choice. For instance, Sten Anttila has analysed the provision of snowmobile trails as a tragedy of the commons problem, and studied the voluntary provision of trails as an outcome of social network mobilization and social sanctions (see Anttila, 1999, 2001). Similarly, rjan Widegren has analysed environmentally friendly behaviour as a commons problem, where he argues that there is more environmentally friendly behaviour than would be expected from a hard-core rational choice model (see Widegren, 1997, which emanates from Hechter, 1987). In explaining the discrepancy, Widegren (1998) develops a framework where norms of fairness are included and nds that this framework works well to explain attitudinal data on environmentally motivated behaviour among Swedish citizens. Not to be missed here is Tom Burns, professor of sociology at Uppsala University and a scholar of many traits. Burns has an interest in the relaxed versions of rational choice theory and has been working on game theory since the early 1970s (see, e.g., Burns, 1973; Burns et al., 2001; Burns and Gomolinska, 2000).11 Concluding remarks This review has concentrated primarily on papers by Scandinavian sociologists published in English. Not mentioned are several unpublished papers and theses that apply a rational choice framework. It is also worth noting that, as disciplinary borders in the social sciences become more and more blurred, it is somewhat supercial to limit the discussion just to sociologists. In the case of rational choice, this is certainly true. If we enlarged our eld of vision and included economics and political scientists, a few relevant themes would turn up. We have already mentioned the institutional analysis of economist Eggertsson (1993). By way of illustration, we can add to this example economists taking an interest in social norms, drawing on the work of Elster (e.g. Lindbeck et al., 1999) and a political scientist drawing on Goffman in a game-theoretical analysis of voting (verbye, 2002).

Edling and Stern: Scandinavian Rational Choice Sociology 13

A nding along the way to the completion of this review is the consistent appearance here and there of Aage Srensen. Peter Hedstrm worked with Srensen during the preparation of his dissertation at Harvard University. In the foreword to his dissertation, Tom Colbjrnsen recounts how he met the Srensens during his year at the University of Wisconsin. Also, several graduate students from Stockholm University worked with Srensen as part of an exchange programme with Harvards sociology department in the 1990s. It seems that the late Srensen, a student of James Coleman, may have been a key gure in promoting rational choice sociology in Scandinavia. It is also clear that there is a strong link to Colemans rational choice tradition, both in Norway and in Sweden. We have put forward two explanations as to why Scandinavia seems to have a reputation for having a strong rational choice tradition. One focused on the strong rational humanitarian tradition in Scandinavia; the other focused on the association of Jon Elster with Scandinavia. Our bet is on the latter, although in an extended fashion. As mentioned previously, Scandinavian sociologists such as Gudmund Hernes, Peter Hedstrm, Aage Srensen and Trond Petersen are, or have been, active in the international rational choice arena. Although not superstars like Elster, their work is published internationally and probably well known to many of the people working in the eld. What we nd mostly, then, in todays Scandinavian sociology is writings about rational choice theory. Some sociologists seem to have an eager fascination, almost obsession, with the assumptions and models of rational choice. Discussions about the pros and cons of assumptions and models, however, focus mostly upon the hard-core model. This is unfortunate, since most sociologists would nd the combination of rational man with social structure more appealing and more suited to explaining social phenomena (see Granovetter, 1985). The impact of rational choice sociology on empirical work is still negligible, but seems to have more potential at least if sociologists who believe it to be a worthwhile approach produce relevant empirical work. Scandinavian rational choice sociologists need to be doers and not talkers. If the doing is successful and is followed by persuasion, Scandinavian sociologists in general have ample doer-potential, as most are standing rmly in the midst of empirical analysis of topical problems.

Our main conclusion is that, despite Scandinavia having strong individual contributors, rational choice sociology is not institutionally established in Scandinavia. Institutionalization is merely one measure of academic success, but it does signal the presence of a theoretical stronghold. Rational choice does not have a stronghold in Scandinavian sociology and, for now, we conclude that this reputation does not hold true. Notes
1. Hard-core rational choice is what Voss and Abraham (2000: 546) call the rational choice model of man. What we call rational choice inspired research, they would include under alternatives and extended models of man (pp. 5960). 2. Rational choice sociology as part of a particular way of theorizing is what some would call explanatory sociology (Wippler, 1985; Wippler and Lindenberg, 1987) and others would call analytical sociology (Hedstrm, forthcoming; Hedstrm and Swedberg, 1998). 3. We use Scandinavia and the Nordic countries interchangeably, meaning Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian Sociological Association embraces the same set of countries. 4. Apart from Jon Elster, Voss and Abraham (2000) highlight Icelandic economist Thrain Eggertsson, Norwegian sociologist Trond Petersen, and Swedish economist Jrgen Weibull. 5. Economic sociology in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe is not, however, particularly prone to rational choice theorizing; on the contrary, it appears (see, e.g., Economic Sociology: European Electronic Newsletter website at http://www.siswo. uva.nl/ES/ and two recent special issues: European Societies 1, 2001 and European Journal of Social Theory 4, 2001). 6. Peter Hedstrm is presently an associate editor of the journal, as he has been from the beginning in 1989. Gudmund Hernes was on the editorial board from 1989 to 1996, and Trond Petersen has also been on the board since 1996. Another Scandinavian by citizenship, Aage Srensen, was on the board from 1996 until his death in 2001. However, since his days as a graduate student in the 1960s, Srensen was working solely in US universities and should rather be regarded as a North American sociologist. 7. For a description of Sweden, in particular, see Dahlstrm (1994) and Swedberg (1994). 8. For example, when we asked around about the status of rational choice in contemporary Scandinavian sociology, one professor replied that he didnt think there were any followers left of this obsolete doctrine. 9. Asplund also brought rational choice theory to public attention in a very sharp review of Colemans Foundations published in Dagens Nyheter, the largest Swedish daily newspaper. 10. Since the very start, sociologists have had a tendency to favour an over-socialized conception of man (Wrong, 1961) or to favour social facts over individual action (Homans, 1964). This seems to be the foremost surviving imprint of structural functionalism, convincingly rejected by Granovetter (1985). 11. Over the years, Burns has drifted from the analysis of noncooperative games towards a theoretical programme on generalized game theory, with more wide-ranging ambitions than classic game theory.

14 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 46(1)

Acknowledgements
We have discussed rational choice sociology in Scandinavia with several people in both face-to-face and email conversations. Among these, we wish to thank Thomas Brante, Tom Colbjrnsen, Thrainn Eggertsson, Jrgen Elm Larsen, Knud Knudsen, Klaus Mkel, Mattias Smngs, Richard Swedberg, Gran Therborn, Thorolfur Thorlindsson and, in particular, Fredrik Engelstad, Peter Hedstrm, Gudmund Hernes, Daniel Klein, Lars Mjset and Ole-Jrgen Skog for friendly assistance and useful information. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the meeting of the International Sociological Association in 2002. Financial support from the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

References
Ahrne, G. (1991) Foundations of Social Theory Coleman, J. S., Acta Sociologica 34(2): 1401. Alapuro, R. (1995) Structure and Culture Finnish Sociology, 199094, Acta Sociologica 38(2): 16780. Allardt, E. (2000) Edward Westermarck: A Sociologist Relating Nature and Culture, Acta Sociologica 43(4): 299306. Andersen, H. (1992) Self-Interest, Rationality, Social Norms and James Coleman, Sociologisk Forskning 29: 324. Andersen, H. (1993) Rationelle Valg En Ny Strmning I Sociologisk Teori (Rational Choice a New Current in Sociological Theory), Dansk Sociologi 4(1): 420. Anttila, S. (1999) The Snowmobile Issue as a Commons Dilemma: A Problem of Concept Formation. stersund: Mitthgskolan. Anttila, S. (2001) Voluntary Provision of Snowmobile Trails on Private Land in Sweden, paper presented at the Swedish Sociological Association Meeting, Uppsala January 256. Asplund, J. (1992) Storstderna Och Det Forteanska Livet. Gteborg: Korpen. Becker, G. S. and Murphy, K. M. (1988) A Theory of Rational Addiction, Journal of Political Economy 96: 675700. Blossfeld, H.-P. and Prein, G. (1998) Rational Choice Theory and Large-Scale Data Analysis. Boulder, CO: Westview. Breen, R. (1999) Beliefs, Rational Choice and Bayesian Learning, Rationality and Society 11: 46379. Burns, T. R. (1973) A Structural Theory of Social Exchange, Acta Sociologica 16(2): 188208. Burns, T. R., Gomoli, A. and Meekers, L. D. (2001) The Theory of Socially Embedded Games: Applications and Extensions to Open and Closed Games, Quality & Quantity 35(1): 132. Burns, T. R. and Gomolinska, A. (2000) The Theory of Socially Embedded Games: The Mathematics of Social Relationships, Rule Complexes, and Action Modalities, Quality & Quantity 34: 379406. Buskens, V. (2000) Rational Choice in the Netherlands at the Start of the New Millennium, The Agora Online (Newsletter of the Rational Choice Section of the American Sociological Association and the Research Committee on Rational Choice of the International Sociological Association 8). Bckman, O. (1998) Longitudinal Studies on Sickness Absence in Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Social Research. Carlsson, G. (1991) Foundations of Social Theory Coleman, J. S., Acta Sociologica 34(2): 1379. Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coleman, J. S. (1993) The Impact of Gary Beckers Work on Sociology, Acta Sociologica 36(2): 16978. Dahlbck, O. (1990) An Experimental-Analysis of Risk-Taking, Theory and Decision 29: 183202. Dahlbck, O. (1991a) Foundations of Social Theory Coleman, J. S., Acta Sociologica 34(2): 13940.

Dahlbck, O. (1991b) Saving and Risk-Taking, Journal of Economic Psychology 12: 479500. Dahlbck, O. (1995) The Scope of the Rational Choice Perspective in Sociological Research, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 25: 23761. Dahlbck, O. (1998a) Analyzing the Relationships between Individual Criminal Behavior and the Severity and Probability of Punishment, Quality & Quantity 32: 25773. Dahlbck, O. (1998b) The IndividualismHolism Problem in Sociological Research, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 28: 23772. Dahlbck, O. (1998c) Modelling the Inuence of Societal Factors on Municipal Theft Rates in Sweden: Methodological Concerns and Substantive Findings, Acta Sociologica 41(1): 3757. Dahlstrm, E. (1994) Contemporary Swedish Sociology A Personal View, Acta Sociologica 37: 7592. Edling, C. (2000) Rational Choice Theory and Quantitative Analysis A Comment on Goldthorpes Sociological Alliance, European Sociological Review 16(1): 18. Eggertsson, T. (1990) Economic Behaviour and Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eggertsson, T. (1993) The Economics of Institutions Avoiding the Open-Field Syndrome and the Perils of Path Dependence, Acta Sociologica 36: 22337. Ekerwald, H. (2000) Alva Myrdal: Making the Private Public, Acta Sociologica 43: 34352. Elster, J. (1984) Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elster, J. (1989a) Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elster, J. (1989b) The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elster, J. (1993) Some Unresolved Problems in the Theory of Rational Behavior, Acta Sociologica 36: 17990. Elster, J. and Skog, O.-J. (1999) Getting Hooked: Rationality and Addiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engelstad, F. (1989) The Assignment of Political Ofce by Lot, Social Science Information sur les Sciences Sociales 28(1): 2350. Engelstad, F. (1990) Criteria of Allocation in Work Force Reductions An Analysis of Local Justice, Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning 31: 31939. Engelstad, F. (1996) Norwegian Sociology since 1969: Problems and Challenges, Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning 37: 22452. Evans, G. (1993) Class, Prospects and the Life-Cycle Explaining the Association between Class Position and Political Preferences, Acta Sociologica 36: 26376. Goldthorpe, J. H. (1996) The Quantitative Analysis of LargeScale Data-Sets and Rational Action Theory: For a Sociological Alliance, European Sociological Review 12: 10926. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2000) On Sociology: Numbers, Narratives, and the Integration of Research and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology 91: 481510. Gunnlaugsson, H. and Bjarnason, T. (1994) Establishing a Discipline the Impact of Society on the Development of Icelandic Sociology, Acta Sociologica 37: 30312. Hagen, R. (1999) Rational Choice, in S. Andersson, H. Andersen and L. B. Kaspersen (eds) Klassisk Och Modern Samhllsteori, pp. 23451. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Hechter, M. (1987) Principles of Group Solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hedstrm, P. (1993) Introduction to the Special Issue on Rational Choice Theory, Acta Sociologica 36: 167. Hedstrm, P. (1994) Contagious Collectivities on the Spatial Diffusion of Swedish Trade-Unions, 18901940, American Journal of Sociology 99: 115779.

Edling and Stern: Scandinavian Rational Choice Sociology 15

Hedstrm, P. (1996) Actions, Intentions, and Opportunities: On the Use of Rational-Actor Models in Sociology, in P. Hedstrm and E. Khlhorn (eds) Sociology through Time and Space: Essays in Honor of Carl-Gunnar Janson, pp. 89108. Stockholm: Sociologiska institutionen. Hedstrm, P. (forthcoming) Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedstrm, P., Sandell, R. and Stern, C. (2000) Mesolevel Networks and the Diffusion of Social Movements: The Case of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, American Journal of Sociology 106: 14572. Hedstrm, P. and Swedberg, R. (1996a) Rational Choice, Empirical Research, and the Sociological Tradition, European Sociological Review 12: 12746. Hedstrm, P. and Swedberg, R. (1996b) Social Mechanisms, Acta Sociologica 39: 281308. Hedstrm, P. and Swedberg, R. (1998) Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedstrm, P., Swedberg, R. and Udehn, L. (1998) Poppers Situational Analysis and Contemporary Sociology, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28: 33964. Hernes, G. (1976) Structural Change in Social Processes, American Journal of Sociology 82: 51347. Hernes, G. (1978) Makt Og Avmakt: En Begrepsanalyse. Et Utgangspunkt for Kartlegging Av De Faktiske Maktforhold I Det Norske Samfunn. Bergen: Universitets Forlaget. Hernes, G. (1985) Om Bruk Av Modeller I Sosiologien, in G. Hernes (ed.) konomisk Organisering. Oslo: Universitets Forlaget. Hernes, G. (1989) The Logic of the Protestant Ethic, Rationality and Society 1(1): 12362. Hernes, G. (1998) Real Virtuality, in P. Hedstrm and R. Swedberg (eds) Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, pp. 74101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Homans, G. C. (1964) Bringing Men Back In, American Sociological Review 29: 80918. Hgsnes, G. (1989) Wage Bargaining and Norms of Fairness A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing the Norwegian Wage Formation, Acta Sociologica 32: 33957. Hgsnes, G. (1994) Wage Development for Managers in Norwegian Industries from 1973 to 1992, Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning 35: 54367. Johansson, S. (1973) The Level of Living Survey: A Presentation, Acta Sociologica 16: 21119. Jonsson, J. O. (1999) Explaining Sex Differences in Educational Choice An Empirical Assessment of a Rational Choice Model, European Sociological Review 15: 391404. Kalleberg, R. (2000) The Most Important Task of Sociology Is To Strengthen and Defend Rationality in Public Discourse: On the Sociology of Vilhelm Aubert, Acta Sociologica 43: 399411. Korpi, W. (1971) Working Class Communism in Western Europe: Rational or Non Rational?, American Sociological Review 36: 97184. Korpi, W. (1974a) Conict and the Balance of Power, Acta Sociologica 17(1): 99114. Korpi, W. (1974b) Conict, Power and Relative Deprivation, American Political Science Review LXVIII: 156978. Korpi, W. (1985) Power Resources vs Action and Conict: On Causal and Intentional Explanation in the Study of Power, Sociological Theory 3: 3145. Korpi, W. (2001) Contentious Institutions An Augmented Rational-Action Analysis of the Origins and Path Dependency of Welfare State Institutions in Western Countries, Rationality and Society 13: 23583. Lindbeck, A., Nyberg, S. and Weibull, J. W. (1999) Social Norms

and Economic Incentives in the Welfare State, Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 135. Lindbekk, T. and Sohlberg, P. (2000) Introduction: The Nordic Heritage, Acta Sociologica 43: 2938. Lindenberg, S. and Frey, B. S. (1993) Alternatives, Frames, and Relative Prices A Broader View of Rational Choice Theory, Acta Sociologica 36: 191205. Macy, M. W. and Skvoretz, J. (1998) The Evolution of Trust and Cooperation between Strangers: A Computational Model, American Sociological Review 63: 63860. Mjset, L. (1991) Kontroverser I Norsk Sosiologi. Oslo: Universitets Forlaget. Nordi Hansen, M. (1996) Earnings in Elite Groups: The Impact of Social Class Origin, Acta Sociologica 39: 385408. Nordi Hansen, M. (1997) Sosiale Nettverk, Rekrutteringskanaler Og Lnn I Det Norske Arbeidsmarkedet (Social Networks, Recruitment Channels, and Wages in the Norwegian Labor Market), Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning 38: 17195. Petersen, T. (1992a) Individual, Collective, and Systems Rationality in Work Groups Dilemmas and Market-Type Solutions, American Journal of Sociology 98: 469510. Petersen, T. (1992b) Individual, Collective, and Systems Rationality in Work Groups: Dilemmas and Nonmarket Solutions, Rationality and Society 4: 33255. Petersen, T. (1993) The Economics of Organization The PrincipalAgent Relationship, Acta Sociologica 36: 27793. Petersen, T. (1994) On the Promise of Game-Theory in Sociology, Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews 23: 498502. Sandell, R. (1999) Organizational Life Aboard the Moving Bandwagons: A Network Analysis of Dropouts from a Swedish Temperance Organization, 18961937, Acta Sociologica 42(1): 315. Sandell, R. and Stern, C. (1998) Group Size and the Logic of Collective Action: A Network Analysis of a Swedish Temperance Movement 18961937, Rationality and Society 10: 32745. Skog, O. J. (1993) The Voting Paradox in Socially Integrated Populations, Acta Sociologica 36: 20722. Skog, O. J. (1994) Volonte-Generale and the Instability of Spatial Voting Games, Rationality and Society 6: 27185. Skog, O. J. (1997) The Strength of Weak Will, Rationality and Society 9: 24571. Skog, O. J. (1999) The Prevention Paradox Revisited, Addiction 94: 7517. Skog, O. J. (2000) Addicts Choice, Addiction 95: 130914. Skog, O. J. (2001) The Science of Self-Control, Addiction 96: 51920. Swedberg, R. (1994) Contemporary Sociology in Sweden, in R. P. Mohan and A. S. Wilke (eds) International Handbook of Contemporary Developments in Sociology, pp. 185204. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Therborn, G. (1991) Cultural Belonging, Structural Location and Human Action Explanation in Sociology and in SocialScience, Acta Sociologica 34: 17791. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science 211: 4538. Udehn, L. (1987) Methodological Individualism: A Critical Appraisal. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet sociologiska institutionen. Udehn, L. (1993) 25 Years with the Logic of Collective Action, Acta Sociologica 36: 23961. Udehn, L. (1996) The Limits of Public Choice: A Sociological Critique of the Economic Theory of Politics. London: Routledge. Udehn, L. (2001) Methodological Individualism: Background, History and Meaning. London: Routledge. Voss, T. and Abraham, M. (2000) Rational Choice Theory in

16 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 46(1)

Sociology: A Survey, in S. R. Quah and A. Sales (eds) The International Handbook of Sociology, pp. 5083. London: Sage. Widegren, O. (1997) Social Solidarity and Social Exchange, Sociology The Journal of the British Sociological Association 31: 75571. Widegren, O. (1998) Environmentally Friendly Behaviour as Collective Action: Some Aspects of Non-Rational Motivation, Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning 39: 23158. Wippler, R. (1985) Explanatory Sociology: The Development of a Theoretically Oriented Research Program, The Netherlands Journal of Sociology 21(1): 6374. Wippler, R. and Lindenberg, S. (1987) Collective Phenomena and Rational Choice, in J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Mnch

and N. J. Smelser (eds) The Micro-Macro Link, pp. 13552. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wrong, D. H. (1961) The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology, American Sociological Review 26: 18393. Zetterberg, H. (1984) The Rational Humanitarians, Daedalus 113: 7592. berg, Y. (2000) Individual Social Action and Macro Level Dynamics: A Formal Theoretical Model, Acta Sociologica 43: 193205. verbye, E. (2002) The Rationally Not-So-Uninformed Voter and the Self-Beneting Politician with a Concern for the Common Good, paper presented at the 21st Nordic Congress of Sociology, Reykjavik, 1517 August.

Christofer Edling is Torgny Segerstedt Postdoctoral Fellow at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study in the Social Sciences. His general research interests are in sociological theory and methodology, focusing on processes of contagion and social structure. Recent articles have appeared in Annual Review of Sociology and European Sociological Review. Address: Department of Sociology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. [email: cedling@sociology.su.se] Charlotta Stern is a researcher at the Swedish Institute for Social Research. Her work applies social network theory, based on an explicit model of man, to various social phenomena. For instance, she has been studying how social networks affect the diffusion and competition of social movement organizations and how social capital affects the social welfare of individuals. She has published articles in various international journals, including American Journal of Sociology and Rationality and Society. Address: Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. [email: lotta.stern@so.su.se]