Rationality and Irrationality in Economics.

Stanner, W. E. H.; Godelier, Maurice; Pearce, Brian

doi:10.2307/2800058

Cited by 50 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Radical criticism came from neo‐Marxists, who argued that the key to the scientific analysis of economic systems lay in distinguishing their modes of production, rather than in typologies of modes of transaction. Maurice Godelier (1972) and others highlighted problems in distinguishing between redistribution and reciprocity and analyzing their interaction. Actors (givers as well as receivers) commonly explain redistribution normatively in terms of mutual obligations—in other words, reciprocation in the colloquial sense that Lotta Björklund Larsen (2018, 2023) pursues with reference to the social contract pioneered by the Scandinavian welfare state in its heyday.…”

Section: The Economic Anthropology Of Karl Polanyimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Actors (givers as well as receivers) commonly explain redistribution normatively in terms of mutual obligations—in other words, reciprocation in the colloquial sense that Lotta Björklund Larsen (2018, 2023) pursues with reference to the social contract pioneered by the Scandinavian welfare state in its heyday. In precapitalist societies, the normative dimension was shaped not by contract or social class but by factors such as kinship and religion (Godelier, 1972, 98). But while the actors might understand redistributive transfers in terms of expanded notions of reciprocity and mutual responsibility, the task of the Marxist analyst (irrespective of whether power lay with a chief, a feudal lord, or an elected government) was to expose the smokescreens that concealed exploitation.…”

Section: The Economic Anthropology Of Karl Polanyimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taxation and the Polanyian forms of integration in socialist and postsocialist Hungary

Hann¹

2023

Economic Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reciprocity, redistribution, and (market) exchange were the “forms of integration” put forward by Karl Polanyi as a “special tool box” to investigate relations between economy and society where the principle of price‐forming markets is not (yet) dominant. Though intended as the basis for a comparative alternative to the universalist assumptions of mainstream (neoclassical) economics, Polanyi did not make significant use of these concepts to analyze the noncapitalist societies of his day. This article investigates his Hungarian homeland, which in four decades of socialism evolved from Stalinist central planning to a mixed economy in which (re)distribution was supplemented by the expansion of market exchange, with personal taxation playing a negligible role. The constellation of (re)distribution and market has changed significantly in the postsocialist (neoliberal) era, but Scandinavian‐type societal reciprocity has remained elusive. Long after admission to the European Union, Hungarian fiscal and social policy regimes are distinctive as the market form of integration combines with low taxation and political interventions to (re)distribute resources (including transfer income from the EU) to support the formation of a national bourgeoisie. Theoretically, the perspective of the socialist Karl Polanyi is contrasted with that of the liberal institutionalist economist János Kornai.

show abstract

Section: The Economic Anthropology Of Karl Polanyimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Economic Anthropology Of Karl Polanyimentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxation and the Polanyian forms of integration in socialist and postsocialist Hungary

Hann¹

2023

Economic Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We are developing our consciousness of why we must rage against the inequalities, discriminations, and sufferings of our contemporary world. We grow through our own self‐critiques, such as that of Clifford and Marcus (1986), as well as incorporated critiques, such as the one Godelier (1972) derived from structural Marxism. Asad (1973) reminded us of our colonial origins, Weiner (1976) demonstrated the implications of feminism, and Anderson (2019) documented the contradictions in anthropological approaches to racism.…”

Section: The Past and The Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The maturing of anthropology

Miller

2023

American Ethnologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As anthropology reaches maturity, its contributions are likely to grow. This is because the discipline's practitioners, in writing parochial ethnography, can link a respect for individual difference to our understanding of global humanity. Such a practice aligns with the growing political struggle to retain meaning in an expanding world. Moreover, anthropology's commitment to life as lived research, including private domains and engagement with digital worlds, will also become more significant, while anthropology's ethos of empathy will expand beyond the human. Reaching maturity will require a further repudiation of inequality and colonialism, developing a different relationship to theory, philosophy, and engaged anthropology, as well as fostering a much wider commitment to global education.

show abstract

Economic Anthropology and the Problems of Development

Clammer¹

1985

Anthropology and Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationality and Irrationality in Economics.

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Taxation and the Polanyian forms of integration in socialist and postsocialist Hungary

Taxation and the Polanyian forms of integration in socialist and postsocialist Hungary

The maturing of anthropology

Economic Anthropology and the Problems of Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About