The great transformation of embeddedness: Karl Polanyi and the new economic sociology

Abstract

MPIfG Discussion Papers are refereed scholarly papers of the kind that are publishable in a peer-reviewed disciplinary journal. Their objective is to contribute to the cumulative improvement of theoretical knowledge. The papers can be ordered from the institute for a small fee (hard copies) or downloaded free of charge (PDF). AbstractI argue that in its adaptation from Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, the concept of embeddedness has itself undergone a great transformation. In the process, signifi cant meanings of the concept have vanished, while others have been added. First I explore the different meanings the concept of embeddedness has achieved in the new economic sociology. Then I argue that it is not the embeddedness of economic action that should constitute the vantage point of economic sociology, but rather three coordination problems that actors face in economic exchange: the valuation of goods, competition and the problem of cooperation deriving from the social risks of exchange. I show that by proceeding from these coordination problems economic sociology, economic anthropology and economic history can fi nd common research questions which allow them to enter into dialogue with each other more systematically. In the next section I focus on the social-reformist inclinations of Polanyi's use of the notion of embeddedness and thereby highlight a challenge posed in The Great Transformation that was largely not taken up by economic sociologists. Finally, I discuss limitations for developing a macro theory of the economy that result from making embeddedness the core concept of economic sociology.

The power of money: Critical theory, capitalism, and the politics of debt

“…While a full consideration of these debates is beyond the scope of the article, my analysis here aligns with those who take Polanyi to be arguing for an “always‐already embedded” view of markets (for the debate on embeddedness, see Beckert, ; Block & Somers, ; Gemici, ; Krippner et al., ; Krippner, ). However, democracy, rather than social embeddedness, is the key normative concept in Polanyi's thought.…”

Market-Based Fisheries Management

“…Polanyi's work gave rise to extensive debates in anthropology around the further elaboration of his ideas (for example : Beckett 2009;Gudeman 2008;Hann and Hart 2009). While many of Polanyi's general points still stand today, some of his arguments have been refined or dismissed.…”

“…The strong dichotomy between embedded and disembedded economies has been much criticized (Beckett 2009;Gudeman 2008;Hann and Hart 2009). The academic consensus seems to be that even in a market economy, social relations and networks still play a large economic role, and economies are always both embedded (mutual, reciprocal, and based on networks) and disembedded (based on impersonal exchange) (Beckett 2009;Graeber 2001;Granovetter 1985;Gudeman 2001Gudeman , 2008Hann and Hart 2009).…”

“…The academic consensus seems to be that even in a market economy, social relations and networks still play a large economic role, and economies are always both embedded (mutual, reciprocal, and based on networks) and disembedded (based on impersonal exchange) (Beckett 2009;Graeber 2001;Granovetter 1985;Gudeman 2001Gudeman , 2008Hann and Hart 2009). Perhaps Polanyi's strong dichotomy should be seen as part of his project to criticize classical economics, with pessimistic predictions for the future of the market economy (Hann and Hart 2009).…”

Development Theory and the Constitution of Market Society: A Polanyian View

“…However, as Granovetter himself notes, his use of the economic embeddness/ disembeddedness thesis, borrowed from Polanyi, is quite different from that of Polanyi himself, and indeed runs counter to the latter's intentions and arguments. See Jens Beckert, 2009, for a very useful discussion of the career of the notion of embeddedness. If Polanyi has a disciplinary home at all then it is perhaps among economic anthropologists.…”