Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:17:49.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theorizing Efficient Markets: A Sociology of Financial Ideas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2015

Simone Polillo
Simone Polillo*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia, Charlottesville [Sp4ft@virginia.edu].
Get access

Abstract

In this paper, I use the case of financial economics to show how an innovative idea can shape a research agenda. I focus on why the efficient-market hypothesis, crystallized in Eugene Fama’s research, acquired core theoretical status in the discipline of financial economics, whereas the Capital Asset Pricing Model, championed by, among others, Fischer Black, did not. I draw attention both to differences in the networks propagating these models, in particular differences in cohesion and coherence, and to differences in the methodologies underlying the models. I argue that Fama’s use of “data-dredging” techniques and frequentist statistics increased the coherence of the intellectual circle around him, turning the analysis of efficiency into a collective project oriented towards the discovery of objective properties. By contrast, Black’s adoption of more subjectivist methods exacerbated the individualistic tendencies of his approach and his network, increasing the incoherence of his research group.

Résumé

Cet article étudie l'économie financière pour montrer de quelle manière une idée innovante peut donner forme à un agenda de recherche. Il s'intéresse en particulier aux raisons pour lesquelles l'hypothèse de l'efficience des marchés financiers, cristallisée dans les travaux de Eugene Fama, est devenue centrale pour l'économie financière, au contraire du modèle d'évaluation des actifs financiers, pourtant défendu entre autres par Fischer Black. L'auteur attire en particulier l'attention sur les différences entre ces modèles du point de vue de leurs réseaux de diffusion (cohésion, cohérence) mais également du point de vue de leurs référents méthodologiques. L'utilisation par Fama des techniques de data mining et des statistiques fréquentistes accroît la cohérence de son cercle intellectuel, transformant l'analyse de l'efficience en un projet collectif orienté vers la découvertes de propriétés objectives. À l'inverse, le fait que Black adopte des méthodes plus subjectives tend à exacerber les tendances individualistes de son approche et de son réseau, augmentant par là-même le degré d'incohérence de son groupe de recherche.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag über die Finanzwirtschaft untersucht, inwieweit eine innovative Idee zu einem neuen Forschungskalender führen kann. Er hinterfragt, wie die Effizienzhypothese der Finanzmärkte, in Eugene Famas Forschung exzerpiert, zu einem zentralen Element der Finanzwirtschaft werden konnte, im Gegensatz zum Evaluierungsmodell der Finanzaktiva, das u.a. von Fischer Black verteidigt worden ist. Der Autor interessiert sich insbesondere für die Unterschiede zwischen diesen Modellen, sowohl aus Sicht der Verbreitung (Kohäsion und Kohärenz), als auch aus Sicht ihrer methodologischen Referenten. Famas Rückgriff auf Data Mining Techniken und Statistiken der Frequenz erhöht die Kohärenz seines intellektuellen Kreises, mit Umwandlung der Effizienzanalyse in ein kollektives Projekt zwecks Darstellung objektiver Eigenschaften. Blacks subjektivere Methoden führen zur Verstärkung sowohl der individualistischen Tendenzen seines Ansatzes und Netzes, als auch des Inkohärenzgrades seiner Forschungsgruppe.

Keywords

Financial economicsCultural productionSocial networksEconomies financièresProduction culturelleRéseaux sociauxFinanzwirtschaftKulturproduktionSoziale Netzwerke
Type
Economic Culture in the Public Sphere
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 56 , Issue 1: Economic Culture in the Public Sphere , April 2015 , pp. 11 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Jennifer Karns, 2008. The Mantra of Efficiency: From Waterwheel to Social Control (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
Bandelj, Nina, 2012. “Relational Work and Economic Sociology”, Politics & Society, 40: 175-201.Google Scholar
Beckert, Jens, 2013. “Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations in the Economy”, Theory and Society, 42 (2): 219-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Peter L., 1992. Capital Ideas: The Improbable Origins of Modern Wall Street (New York, The Free Press).Google Scholar
Bernstein, Peter L., 2009. Capital Ideas Evolving (Hoboken, John Wiley and Sons).Google Scholar
Black, Fischer, 1982. “The Trouble with Econometric Models”, Financial Analysts Journal, 38 (2): 29-37.Google Scholar
Black, Fischer, 1993. “Beta and Return”, Journal of Portfolio Management, 20(1): 8-18.Google Scholar
Black, Fischer and Scholes, Myron, 1973. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities”, Journal of Political Economy, 81 (3): 637-654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodie, Zvi, Kane, Alex and Marcus, Alan J., 2011. Investments and Portfolio Management (New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin).Google Scholar
Bortolini, Matteo, 2012. “The Trap of Intellectual Success: Robert N. Bellah, the American Civil Religion Debate, and the Sociology of Knowledge”, Theory and Society, 41 (2): 187-210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brav, Alon, Heaton, J. B. and Rosenberg, Alexander, 2004. “The Rational-Behavioral Debate in Financial Economics”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 11 (4): 393-409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breslau, Daniel, 1997. “The Political Power of Research Methods: Knowledge Regimes in U.S. Labor-Market Policy”, Theory and Society, 26 (6): 869-902.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S., 2004. “Structural Holes and Good Ideas”, American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2): 349-399.Google Scholar
Camic, Charles and Xie, Yu, 1994. “The Statistical Turn in American Social Science: Columbia University, 1890 to 1915”, American Sociological Review, 59 (5): 773-805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Randall, 1984. “Statistics Versus Words”, Sociological Theory, 2: 329-362.Google Scholar
Collins, Randall, 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Collins, Randall and Guillén, Mauro F., 2012. “Mutual Halo Effects in Cultural Production: The Case of Modernist Architecture”, Theory and Society, 41 (6): 527-556.Google Scholar
Cootner, Paul H., 1964. The Random Character of Stock Market Prices (Cambridge, The MIT Press).Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, 1992. “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective”, Social Studies of Science, 22 (4): 597-618.Google Scholar
Dempsey, Mike, 2013. “The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM): The History of a Failed Revolutionary Idea in Finance?”, Abacus, 49: 7-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derman, Emanuel, 2004. My Life as a Quant: Reflections on Physics and Finance (Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons).Google Scholar
Dimson, Elroy and Mussavian, Massoud, 1998. “A Brief History of Market Efficiency”, European Financial Management, 4 (1): 91-103.Google Scholar
Dobbin, Frank, 1994. Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, France and Britain in the Railway Age (New York, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Espeland, Wendy Nelson and Stevens, Mitchell L., 1998. “Commensuration as a Social Process”, Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 313-343.Google Scholar
Fama, Eugene F., 1965a. “Random Walks in Stock Market Prices”, Financial Analysts Journal, 21 (5): 55-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, Eugene F., 1965b. “The Behavior of Stock-Market Prices”, The Journal of Business, 38 (1): 34-105.Google Scholar
Fama, Eugene F., 1970. “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work”, The Journal of Finance, 25 (2): 383-417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, Eugene F., 1973. “A Note on the Market Model and the Two-Parameter Model”, The Journal of Finance, 28 (5): 1181-1185.Google Scholar
Fama, Eugene F., 1991. “Efficient Capital Markets: II”, The Journal of Finance, 46 (5): 1575-1617.Google Scholar
Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., 1992. “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns”, The Journal of Finance, 47 (2): 427-65.Google Scholar
Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., 1993. “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds”, Journal of Financial Economics, 33 (1): 3-56.Google Scholar
Fama, Eugene F., and Macbeth, James D., 1973. “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests”, Journal of Political Economy, 81 (3): 607-636.Google Scholar
Farrell, Michael P., 2003. Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Fisher, Lawrence and Lorie, James H., 1968. “Rates of Return on Investments in Common Stock: The Year-by-Year Record, 1926-65”, The Journal of Business, 41 (3): 291-316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourcade, Marion, 2009. Economists and Societies: Discipline and Profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourcade, Marion and Khurana, Rakesh, 2013. “From Social Control to Financial Economics: The Linked Ecologies of Economics and Business in Twentieth Century America”, Theory and Society, 42 (2): 121-159.Google Scholar
French, Craig, 2003. “The Treynor Capital Asset Pricing Model”, Journal of Investment Management, 1 (2): 60-72.Google Scholar
Frickel, Scott and Gross, Neil, 2005. “A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements”, American Sociological Review, 70 (2): 204-232.Google Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F., 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists”, American Sociological Review, 48 (6): 781-795.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian, 1984. The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (New York, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Hammond, Daniel, 1990. “McCloskey’s Modernism and Friedman’s Methodology: A Case Study With New Evidence”, Review of Social Economy, 48 (2): 158-171.Google Scholar
Hammond, Daniel, 1992. “An Interview with Milton Friedman on Methodology”, The Philosophy and Methodology of Economics, 1: 216-238.Google Scholar
Heck, Jean Louis and Cooley, Philip L., 1988. “Most Frequent Contributors to the Finance Literature”, Financial Management, 17 (3): 100-108.Google Scholar
Horn, Robert Van, Mirowski, Philip and Stapleford, Thomas A., 2011. Building Chicago Economics: New Perspectives on the History of America’s Most Powerful Economics Program (New York, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Jensen, Michael, 1968. “The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964”, The Journal of Finance, 23 (2): 389-416.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, Franck, 2008. “The Construction of the Canonical History of Financial Economics”, History of Political Economy, 40 (2): 213-242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamont, Michèle, 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Lehmann, Bruce, 2004. The Legacy of Fischer Black (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald, 2006. An Engine, Not a Camera (Cambridge, The MIT Press).Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald and Millo, Yuval, 2003. “Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: The Historical Sociology of a Financial Derivatives Exchange”, American Journal of Sociology, 109 (1): 107-145.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald, Muniesa, Fabian and Siu, Lucia, 2007. Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
McCloskey, Deirdre, 1998. The Rhetoric of Economics (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Neil G., 1998. “Why Do Schools of Thought Fail? Neo-Freudianism as a Case Study in the Sociology of Knowledge”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 34 (2): 113-134.Google Scholar
Mehrling, Perry, 2005. Fischer Black and the Revolutionary Idea of Finance (Hoboken, John Wiley and Sons).Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip, 1991. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics (New York, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip and Plehwe, Dieter, 2009. The Road from Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overtveldt, Johan Van, 2009. The Chicago School: How the University of Chicago Assembled the Thinkers Who Revolutionized Economics and Business (Evanston, IL, Agate B2).Google Scholar
Parker, John N. and Hackett, Edward J., 2012. “Hot Spots and Hot Moments in Scientific Collaborations and Social Movements”, American Sociological Review, 77 (1): 21-44.Google Scholar
Poitras, Geoffrey and Jovanovic, Franck, 2010. “Pioneers of Financial Economics: Das Adam Smith Irrelevanzproblem?”, History of Economics Review, 51: 43-64.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore, 1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Reay, Michael J., 2012. “The Flexible Unity of Economics”, American Journal of Sociology, 118 (1): 45-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roll, Richard, 1977. “A Critique of the Asset Pricing Theory’s Tests Part I: On Past and Potential Testability of the Theory”, Journal of Financial Economics, 4 (2): 129-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Warren J., Biddle, Jeff E. and Emmett, Ross B., 2008. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology (Bingley, Emerald Group Publishing).Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph, 1911. The Theory of Economic Development (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Smith, Tom and Walsh, Kathleen, 2013. “Why the CAPM Is Half-Right and Everything Else Is Wrong”, Abacu,s 49: 73-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spillman, Lyn, 2012. Solidarity in Strategy: Making Business Meaningful in American Trade Associations (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Spillman, Lyn and Strand, Michael, 2013. “Interest-Oriented Action”, Annual Review of Sociology, 39 (1): 85-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spotton, Brenda and Rowley, Robin, 1998. “Efficient Markets, Fundamentals, and Crashes: American Theories of Financial Crises and Market Volatility”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57 (4): 663-90.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, George, 2005. The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others (Durham, Duke University Press).Google Scholar
Treynor, Jack, 1987. “Market Efficiency and the Bean Jar Experiment”, Financial Analysts Journal, 43 (3): 50-53.Google Scholar
Turner, Stephen, 1994. “The Origins of ‘mainstream Sociology’ and Other Issues in the History of American Sociology”, Social Epistemology, 8 (1): 41-67.Google Scholar
Wherry, Frederick F., 2012. “Performance Circuits in the Marketplace”, Politics & Society, 40 (2): 203-221.Google Scholar
Wherry, Frederick F., 2014. “Analyzing the Culture of Markets”, Theory and Society DOI: 10.1007/s11186-014-9218-3.Google Scholar
White, Harrison C., 1981. “Where Do Markets Come From?”, The American Journal of Sociology, 87 (3): 517-547.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard, 1986. “The Rise of Modern Financial Theory”, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 4: 148-178.Google Scholar
Yonay, Yuval, 1998. The Struggle over the Soul of Economics: Institutionalist and Neoclassical Economists in America between the Wars (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Yonay, Yuval and Breslau, Daniel, 2006. “Marketing Models: The Culture of Mathematical Economics”, Sociological Forum, 21 (3): 345-386.Google Scholar
Zelizer, Viviana, 2005. “Circuits within Capitalism” in Nee Victor and Richard Swedberg, eds., The Economic Sociology of Capitalism (Princeton, Princeton University Press: 289-322).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelizer, Viviana, 2010. Economic Lives: How Culture Shapes the Economy (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar