法律社会学的定位问题:Max Weber与Hans Kelsen的比较

德国社会学家韦伯(Max Weber,1864-1920)与奥地利法学家凯尔森(Hans Kelsen,1881-1973)对"法律社会学"(Rechtssoziologie,sociology of law)的定位存在异同。他们一个从社会学家的立场,一个从法学家的立场,探讨了"法律社会学"在19世纪末叶跟着社会学(Soziologie)一起诞生的时候,究竟应该如何对这新兴的学问加以定位的问题。他们两位都是法学家出身,同样受到当时哲学思潮新康德主义(Neukantianismus)的影响,主张划分"实然"(Sein)与"应然"(Sollen),也同样对促进德语世界法律社会学的诞生有积极贡献的"自由法学派"(Freirechtle-hre)与奥地利法律社会学家艾利希(Eugen Ehrlich,1862-1922)提出了批评意见,但是他们对于"法律社会学"这门新兴的学科,却还是有不完全相同的定位。     

Footnotes to Guamán Poma: Transtemporal Encounters in Nacha Vollenweider's Notas al pie

The graphic memoir Notas al pie (2017) written by Argentinian Nacha Vollenweider includes an illustration which reinterprets an image from the Nueva corónica y buen gobierno, a colonial document written by Quechua nobleman Felipe Guamán Poma de Ayala around 1615, when Peru was under Spanish rule. This article argues that if Guamán Poma's image portrays a critique of Western colonial power, Vollenweider's reappropriation follows its aftermath, and targets the structures of coloniality that underpin the formation of both individual and collective identity.     

Who captures whom? Regulatory misperceptions and the timing of cognitive capture

To explain cognitive capture, economic sociologists often examine the structure of relationships between regulators and market participants. This paper argues that the nature of regulators' misperception should be subject to analysis as well. Different types of misperceptions develop over timelines of varying lengths. Depending on the misperception, different sets of relationships and parties may therefore be the cause of regulators' capture. The paper illustrates this point with a case study of regulators' failure to detect pervasive market power in California's electricity markets between 1998 and 2001. Existing explanations focus on sellers' short-term attempts to distract regulators from widespread evidence of market power. Using data from three archives and in-depth interviews, I show that the regulators did not fall prey to such “information problems.” Instead, their misperception resulted from a more foundational “worldview problem.” This error affects regulators' basic conception of the marketplace and can be traced to earlier and more gradual forms of influence exerted by utilities that, ironically, would become the victims of market power.