lust  as  constraints  on  the  commercial  or  competi-
tive structure  of  markets  are  imposed  by  impinging
non-economic  factors,  so  in  many  collectivities
there  are  constraints  on  the  political  primacy  of
their  organization  and  orientation  to  situations.  In
the  business  firm,  the  standard  of  monetary  success
incorporates  one  set  of  such  criteria.  In  one  direc-
tion, it  limits  devotion  to  "technical"  perfection  by
applying  criteria  of  monetary  profit — a  fact  the
importance  of  which  technocrats  cannot  see —
while  also  limiting  the  relevance  and  legitimacy  of
pursuing  political  power.  In  both  directions,  the
limitations  take  the  form  of  institutionalized  mech-
anisms of  control  which  establish  rank  orders  of
considerations  which  are  legitimately  taken  into
account  in  decision-making.
Another  example  of  the  interpenetration  of  poli-
tics and  economics  is  the  universality  with  which,
in  societies  with  a  highly  developed  monetary  econ-
omy, command  of  adequate  monetary  funds  be-
comes an  indispensable  condition  of  effective  oper-
ation— especially  as  the  mechanism  for  mobilizing
both  physical  facilities  and  necessary  human  serv-
ices. The  differences  between  types  of  functionally
specific  collectivities  lie  in  the  importance  of  the
criterion  of  monetary  success — whether  all  mone-
tary costs  are  expected  eventually  to  be  balanced  by
proceeds  derived  from  operation,  or  it  is  legitimate
for  the  organization  to  incur  deficits  which  must  be
made  up  by  special  measures  like  taxation  or  solicit-
ing contributions.  It  is  significant  that,  in  the  mod-
ern liberal  type  of  society,  the  criterion  of  monetary


Talcott  Parsons:  An  Outline  ot  the  Social  System


55


independence  applies  above  all  to  two  classes  of  col-
lectivities, business  firms  and  households.
