2 Reconfiguring Market Economy: Dimensions of Exchange and Social Relations at Teotihuacan

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Murakami
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Eldred

There is a critique of capitalist market economy that consists in claiming not only that capitalist social relations are uncaring and alienating, nor only exploitative of the working class, but that the process of capitalist economy as a whole is a way of living, today globalized, that has gotten out of hand. Its essential nature is unmasked as a senseless circular movement that, besides ruthlessly exploiting natural resources, demeans human being itself and alienates it from the historical alternative of a purportedly authentic mode of human being rooted in collective, solidaric subjectivity. The present article offers an alternative hermeneutic cast for understanding capitalism as the gainful game that can serve as philosophical orientation in fighting for a free and fair social interplay in which the powers and abilities of free individuals are appropriately and reciprocally estimated and esteemed. This requires, first and foremost, seeing through the fetishisms inherent in the valorization of reified value that the mature Marx identified in his critiques of political economy as the essential nature of capitalism. Such critical insight is necessary for orientation also in today’s predicament of the ever more encroaching and ensnaring cyberworld.


Author(s):  
Mercedes González de la Rocha

Based on longitudinal ethnographic research in Guadalajara, Mexico, from the 1980s to present, I argue that there has been a significant change in the availability of mutual help or support networks for the economically disadvantaged. As time and income have become increasingly scarce, people who used to find support in reciprocal social relationships now find that support-givers are in no position to provide assistance for free. Now, people experiencing scarcity find that they must pay for help formerly available through social relations. In other words, care within the family, in contexts of urban poverty, is becoming a commodity. A paradox arises for those who have fewer resources: they are excluded by the market economy, and by resorting to mercantilist values to survive, they are violating moral principles and norms that exclude them even more from social exchange.


2002 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
LANCE VAN SITTERT

The paper outlines the impetus to, trajectory and impact of enclosure in the Cape Colony between the passing of the Fencing Act in 1883 and 1910. By increasing landowners' control over their environment, fencing enabled a suite of remedial measures that raised the productivity of the commercial small-stock sector. Fences also came to stand in the stead of the landowner in defending farms against human or animal trespass. The compartmentalization of the countryside into enclosures facilitated a more general re-ordering and re-assigning of humans and animals within it, resulting in a depersonalization of rural social relations. In all these ways the enclosure movement laid the ideological foundations for the hegemony of private property and the market economy in the countryside.


2019 ◽  
pp. 251-257
Author(s):  
Peter J. Boettke

Hayek often said that his 1937 paper – “Economics and Knowl- edge” -- was a subtle rebuke of Mises’s apriorism. Not, as many might want to believe, in some root and branch fashion, but in the realm of applied theory of which the study of the market economy is to be included. The realm of pure theory – or what Hayek calls the “Pure Logic of Choice” or in other places he calls “The Eco- nomic Calculus” – the essential building block of economic analy- sis reflects the Misesian (or actually Mengerian) position, and more or less the epistemological status of the pure theory aspect of praxeology is upheld by Hayek. As he put it in a much later essay, there is a “Primacy of the Abstract.” And, one must always remem- ber that Mises’s claim is not that he was unique in this endeavor either. As he put it: “In asserting the a priori character of praxeology we are not drafting a plan for a future new science different from the tradi- tional sciences of human action. We do not maintain that the theo- retical science of human action should be aprioristic, but that this it is, and always has been so.” (1949, 40) I believe the most scientifically productive reading of Hayek’s 1937 paper is as a clarification of the Misesian project with respect to the study of the market economy – or what both Mises and Hayek called “catallactics”. And, in catallactics the pure logic of choice is a necessary component, but not a sufficient one for a full explana- tion. We must, in our quest for a full explanation explore how alter- native institutional arrangements impact the learning of individuals within that system. In this way we move from the pure logic of choice to the situational logic of organizations to the study of the exchange order, and with that productive specialization, peaceful social cooperation, and the entrepreneurial function as an agent of change. This is how I would read the passages in Hayek (1937, 34ff) where he argues that the pure logic of choice is not directly applicable to the explanation of social relations. Equilib- rium for individual choosers, in other words, is quite different from equilibrium achieved by dispersed and diverse individuals. The first is a necessary part of the explanation, but to achieve the sort of dovetailing of plans that defines the equilibrium state in the social relations of the market we must be able to explore how “under certain conditions, the knowledge and intentions of the different members of society are supposed to come more and more into agreement, or, to put the same thing in less general and less exact but more concrete terms, that the expectations of the people and particularly of the entrepreneurs will become more and more correct.” (1937, 45) It is in this manner that economics, Hayek argues, ceases to become purely an exercise in pure logic, and becomes in a sense an empirical science.3 It is in the study of how alternative institutional environments influence the behavior of individuals and how that in turn impacts the ability of these individuals to realize the gains from social cooperation under the division of labor. And the behav- ior we must focus our analytical attention on, is how they acquire and utilize the knowledge dispersed throughout the system, in other words how they learn how best to orient their actions with others so as to achieve a coordination of plans that defines the equilibrium of the system.


Author(s):  
Kristina Pitsyk ◽  
Iryna Kaniuka

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to analyze the characteristics of the inheritance law of the countries of continental Europe, England and USA. Methodology. The methodology includes a comprehensive analysis and a synthesis of available scientific and theoretical information. It is includes the formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. Such methods of scientific knowledge were used: terminological, functional, systemic-structural, logical-normative. Results: it was determined, that complex social relations under the conditions of a market economy have led to the need to solve problems related to the fate of property that remains after the individual’s death. Originality. In the process of research is established that while Ukrainian inheritance law tends to expand the boundaries of the will gradually, in Western countries there is the opposite trend. Practical significance. The results of the research can be used in legislation and law-enforcement activities.


2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Shrinidhi Ambinakudige

Protected Areas, as a conservation strategy, often constrain livelihood outcomes of groups that are less powerful, politically marginalized, and poor. At the same time, the poor often depend on a market economy that is volatile. Working on coffee plantations  and the collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are the two major livelihood options available for the Adivasi indigenous community in Kodagu, India. The article identifies the institutional factors at global, regional, or local levels that influence the livelihood capabilities of Adivasis. While the creation of a National Park negatively influenced almost all aspects of the Adivasis' livelihood, labor demand on coffee farms, and NTFP collection rights outside the Park provided them with some alternative resources.  But deregulation of the Indian coffee market made them more vulnerable to the market economy. The social relations between Adivasis and nearby farming communities have helped them to cope with risks to their livelihoods during crises and emergencies.Key words: Livelihoods, Coffee, NTFP, Adivasis, LAMPS, Kodagu


Author(s):  
Alexey Zeldner ◽  
Vladimir Osipov ◽  
Tatiana Skryl

This chapter systematizes the main components of the socio-market model of the economy. Its basis is formed by market economy and public-private partnership as the mechanism stimulating the attraction of private investments. Using the opportunities of the market economy and PPP mechanism creates a real opportunity for the formation of a new model of socio-market economy. This model does not imply the weakening the role of the state and infringement of democracy as such, but rather strengthening of institutions and PPP mechanisms with the aim to attract private investments and improve social relations at the same time. This chapter is thus aimed at revealing the main elements of this socioeconomic model along with the theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of its main components: the market economy and the PPP mechanisms.


2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (253) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
José Wiliam Corrêa de Araújo

A modernidade atrelou o ser humano ao dogma da racionalidade instrumental e aos mecanismos da economia de mercado. Conseqüentemente, hoje somos ameaçados pelo modo de pensar quantitativo, produtivista e impessoal a serviço do projeto de dominação da natureza e da sociedade. Vivemos hoje uma realidade de mundo que se caracteriza por uma ética apenas do provisório e da imediatez, que considera o comportamento utilitarista do ser humano como o móvel de toda atividade econômica. Nossa época está pedindo uma nova consciência do lugar do ser humano no mundo. As relações sociais hoje a nível mundial são de grande destrutividade da natureza e de grande exclusão social. Ante os desafios ambientais torna-se urgente resgatar novas experiências paradigmáticas que revelem a dignidade de toda criatura. É preciso uma nova compreensão do próprio ser humano, um modo diferente de construir o discurso ético, com uma visão de mundo que reconheça o valor inerente da vida não-humana.Abstract: Modernity has harnessed human beings to the dogma of instrumental rationality and to the mechanisms of the market economy. Consequently, we are now threatened by a quantitative and impersonal way of thinking geared only to production and in the service of a project to control nature and society. We experience a world reality that has as its main characteristic an ethics that seeks only provisional and immediate aims and that considers human beings’utilitarian behaviour as the prime motive of all economic activity. Our times are demanding a new awareness of the human being’s place in the world. International social relations promote nature’s destruction and great social exclusion. In the face of environmental challenges we must develop new paradigms that will bring to the fore the dignity of all creatures. And we need a new understanding of the human being him/herself, a different way of building the ethical discourse with a worldview that recognizes the inherent value of the non-human life.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giancarlo Frosio

In this work, I discuss the tension between gift and market economy throughout the history of creativity. For millennia, the production of creative artifacts has lain at the intersection between gift and market economy. From the time of Pindar and Simonides—and until the Romanticism will commence a process leading to the complete commodification of creative artifacts—market exchange models run parallel to gift exchange. From Roman amicitia to the medieval and Renaissance belief that scientia donum dei est, unde vendi non potest, creativity has been repeatedly construed as a gift. Again, at the time of the British and French “battle of the booksellers,” the rhetoric of the gift still resounded powerfully from the nebula of the past to shape the constitutional moment of copyright law. The return of gift exchange models has a credible source in the history of creativity.Today, after a long unchallenged dominance of the market, gift economy is regaining momentum in the digital society. The anthropological and sociological studies of gift exchange, such as Marcel Mauss’s The Gift, served to explain the phenomenon of open source software and hacker communities. Later, communities of social trust—such as Wikipedia, YouTube, and fan-fiction communities—spread virally online through gift exchange models. In peer and user-generated production, community recognition supersedes economic incentives. User-based creativity thrives on the idea of “playful enjoyment,” rather than economic incentives.Anthropologists placed societies on an economic evolutionary scale from gift to commodity exchange; in a continuum from the clan to capitalist system of organization. I suggest that this continuum should now extend to the “crowd society,” which features new modes of social interaction in digital online communities. The networked, open, and mass-collaborative character of the crowd society enhances the proliferativeness of the gift exchange model that lies in what anthropologists and social scientists described as a debt-economy.The exploration of the creative mechanics of online communities put under scrutiny the validity of utilitarian theories of copyright and traditional market economy models. From Émile Durkheim and Mauss to Alain Caillé, anti-utilitarian thought designed a new political economy that defines humans as a “cooperative species,” rather than Homo economicus. In this context, I look into commons theory, through the lens of Elinor Ostrom’s work, and its application to modern commons-based peer production with special emphasis on Yochai Benkler and Jerome Reichman’s work. In conclusion, I evoke Jean Baudrillard’s essential question: “Will we return, one day, beyond the market economy, to prodigality?” I consider whether the digital revolution that promoted the emergence of the networked information economy is that “revolution of the social organization and of social relations” that might bring about, according to Jean Baudrillard, “real affluence” through a return to “collective prodigality,” rather than our “productivistic societies, which [...] are dominated by scarcity, by the obsession with scarcity characteristic of the market economy.” I argue that a possibility for the reinstatement of Baudrillard’s “collective prodigality” might have materialized in the “crowd society” thanks to technological advancement and the emergence of a consumer gift system or “user patronage,” promoting an unrestrained, diffused, and networked discourse between creators and the public through digital crowd-funding.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 247-250
Author(s):  
Krume Nikoloski ◽  
Vlatko Paceskoski

Industrial relations as a system in economic and social relations transfer those principles that are practiced in a market economy and political democracy. Political democracy, market economy and industrial relations are inseparable. None of these three systems can achieve its real goals if the other two systems fail to achieve theirs. Simply, but also complex, there can be no political democracy and a market economy if there is no efficient and functional system of industrial relations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document