Gift economy

The concept of gift economy (or " culture of giving " ) refers to a sociological theory, which is assigned to the structural functionalism. The gift economy is therefore a social system may be divulged in which goods and services without directly identifiable consideration, but actually usually delayed reciprocity. It thus differs from barter and often is based on the principle of universal solidarity. Originally the term was used for a prevalent phenomenon in prehistoric and tribal societies in which social or intangible consideration such as karma, prestige or loyalty, and other forms of thanks were expected. Anthropologists and other scientists have succeeded in demonstrating the mutual exchange of gifts in contemporary cultures.

3.1 unit of morality and economics
3.2 system of total power

4.1 exchange of gifts and perfect price discrimination
4.2 Gift exchange and trade
4.3 criticism

5.1 gift economy from rationalist and utilitarian view
5.2 out of gift economy normativistic genetic and collectivist view
5.3 Limits of the gift economy

7.1 gift economy in archaic societies 7.1.1 Kula exchange
7.1.2 Potlatch

Term origin

For the first time the term " gift economy " in Marcel Mauss ' Essai sur le don (1923 /24) is mentioned in connection with the investigation of exchange and distribution of gifts among the Indian tribes of the Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian and Kwakiutl in North America. Mauss while the systemic importance of the gift exchange studied ethnology and established criteria by which gift exchange fundamentally differs from commodity exchange. In gift economies, although consideration is quite expected, but it is usually not of a material nature and especially not formalized in the same way. His best-known example is the potlatch, a periodically recurring festival, individual Indian tribes, in which the exchange of gifts for the competition to mushroom to generosity and waste. Mauss assumes that there is a social anthropological basic pattern is the exchange of gifts and the gift that both a relationship- pin element, and one possibility is to manifest the social distance. Similar conclusions also comes Bronisław Malinowski, who examined the phenomenon of Kula exchange, which he had discovered at the end Trobrianders horticulture.

Distinction between

The gift is addressed differently in the scientific community. Some scientists consider the gift as pure self-interest, others consider the gift of the exchange theoretical perspective, while others associate the gift with economic calculus, which remains taboo. Sometimes the gift is also interpreted as the intersection between self-interest and altruism and understood in the most extreme case as a gift without Reziprozitätserwartung and thus represented as an ideal.

Goods and gift exchange

Both the goods and the exchange of gifts each include a transfer for which a return is expected. As mentioned in the beginning, that consideration can take place also delayed and be linked to events. In the exchange of gifts both the value of the consideration and the temporal performance is left to the gifts received ends. As an example of this delayed return, the invitation to dinner is cited among acquaintances. However, the consideration may also be indirect, ie the gifts receiving end must provide nothing in return, but the gifts giver receives the award recognition in the community. One example is the ( partially former ) unconditional hospitality of the Mediterranean, Arabic, Persian, and Indian peoples is considered.

The gift carries the signal of respect and deference to another person. Trading in contrast usually provides no external confirmation. The gift can be inexpensive, material or symbolic. It is, however, associated with costs, so initially negative consequences of an action in the face of a specific plan and decision-making field. But the gift is recognition, and recognition is a scarce resource. The scarcity of recognition is due to the limited availability of time and mental energy.

A strict separation between gift and commodity, as proposed by Marcel Mauss, is based primarily on prevailing in his time teaching and the underestimation of the dual nature of the gift and the gift exchange. For example, Maurice Godelier sees the gift as a combination of both, gift and merchandise. The gift consists of the non-monetary gift measurable and quantifiable monetary asset. In this case, when replacing the exchange object or the receiving end receives gifts in addition to the function of the exchange object a special status and a special identity.

Older economics viewing

To the topic of gift exchange was held an intense scientific debate in the late 19th, early 20th century. This was marked by differing views of the various areas of science. The one side was represented by the economists, but again had quite different views among themselves, and the other side by the sociologists and philosophers.

Unity of morality and economics

Positions designated as that of Bronislaw Malinowski, the gifts as a meaningless form of exchange of goods and reported on forms of society that would, unlike the prevailing economic system in Europe offer an alternative way of life, also served as Marcel Mauss ' designs as a starting point for the critique of the principles of rationalism and mercantilism. Mauss criticized in particular that terms such as individual and profit experience a growing importance and this shame not only of society, but even ultimately the individuals themselves. Mauss's views coincide in this area with those of his uncle and teacher Émile Durkheim, the founder of empirical sociological science, criticized the progressive separation of morality and economics and the idea of individualism rejected. With the criticism of individualism Durkheim joins the representatives of the Historical School of economists, which included, for example, Gustav von Schmoller and in which Durkheim had studied. The core idea of the Historical School was the idea of strict ethical economic view, that is a connectedness or unity of morality and economics. For Schmoller also Karl Books joined as a critic of the existing economic structure, which was more and more focused solely on the regulated exchange. Schmoller and books suggested as an alternative before the transfer of goods and services in the gratuitous sense. That then should develop the commitment implicit moral for the other person to make well services for gifts received or to award goods.

System of total power

Marcel Mauss defines the exchange of gifts as " système des prestations total " ( system of total power). This principle of the system the total power based on the fact that an exchange of goods and services does not proceed in a strictly economic sense, but willingly takes the form of gifts and presents. Mauss stresses in particular that it is in this system is not just about giving ( " thunder " ) and accepting ( " recevoir " ) is a gift, but precisely the reply ( " rendre " ) as the third element of particular importance is.

By recent economic consideration

With the resurgence of scientific discussion about the exchange of gifts in the 60s to 90s of the 20th century, was isolated from economic history and economic theory, the system of gift economy picked up again.

Behavior Economically, the exchange of gifts includes two elements: first, the profit and benefit for the gift recipient, and secondly, the satisfaction and benefits from the allocation for the gift giver. The efficiency of the gift exchange results from the combination of these elements.
Considered microeconomic corresponds to the exchange of gifts perfect price discrimination under monopoly conditions ( Fig. 1). This analogy is shown in the following section.

Exchange of gifts and perfect price discrimination

In perfect price discrimination under monopoly conditions (gifts receiver ) the provider ( the gifts giver ) receives from each customer the reservation price ( the individual appreciation ). So he does not receive the market price, but the individual price on the demand curve. In other words, the individual appreciation of a gift recipient gifts at exactly what price he would be more than willing to pay.

This also means that any profit arises when the monopolist (gifts giver ) and there is no consumer surplus. In the market economy, the occurrence of perfect price discrimination under monopoly conditions is rare. Because to achieve these price discrimination, two conditions must be met: The monopolist must know the reservation price of each individual buyer and arbitrage must be prevented, that is, the resale and trade between the buyers must be excluded. The second condition is given in the exchange of gifts in that each provider is a monopolist. This means that the recognition he forgives is individual and can be given by anyone else; Accordingly, it can not be traded or sold. The first condition, knowing the reservation price is a little more difficult to meet; but it is believed that the award recognition approaches by individual experience and observations to the needs of the recipient. With falling reciprocity is the previous recipient gifts, gifts obtainable now, turn to the monopolist. This means that now arises any profit with this. Through this repetitive reciprocity, it is possible that the two opponents alternately get the producer surplus in the exchange of gifts and an efficient equilibrium arises. However, there remains uncertainty about whether the gift is reciprocated and how long the process of response persists.

Gift exchange and trade

Avner Offer has investigated the interaction and the limits of gift exchange and trade on the basis of heuristic adjacent figure (Fig. 2). The abscissa (horizontal axis) measures the quantitative supply of a certain good (or all goods ) within a market-based exchange (trade ) or within a gift exchange. The ordinate (vertical axis) indicates the link price (price equivalent). The figure contains two points of intersection of supply and demand, according to the market exchange and the exchange of gifts. In the exchange of gifts as opposed to market-based exchange both supply - and demand functions are inelastic, which means that the supply or the demand reacts disproportionately to price changes.

The section on the abscissa between up includes the goods or services that can only deliver the gift exchange (eg, romantic love). The vertical line is the market limit and the market demand curve. Between and there is an overlap, the market supply curve and the demand curve of the gift exchange. This results from the fact that some goods or services are offered with or without recognition. The section would therefore represent an authentic economy with exchange of gifts and free market exchange and the line crosses the boundary between gift exchange and the market economy. Above the limit of the demand curve of the gift exchange runs downwards in the direction of the market equilibrium price. This part of the demand is outside of the gift exchange but to illustrate that the exploitation of recognition concerning the process of selling can be a so-called " pseudo- recognition " profitable for price discrimination. An example of this recognition in connection with the process of selling the business would be food. Here the transfer of a gift is (the food ) rather than in the hope of reciprocity, here the conclusion of the contract.

The market-based marginal cost curve is more elastic ( flatter) than the gift exchange supply curve. If productivity increases, then moves them to the production and border. This usually corresponds to the historical transformation of the pre-industrial society to that which is more market-oriented.

Criticism

Critique of neoclassical analysis and classification of economic activity within a gift economy is predominantly expressed by anthropologists. The application of neoclassical models to archaic systems of economy and exchange usually requires an unreasonable and distorting objectification of intangible relationships.

Sociological view

Marcel Mauss ' Essai sur le don work is the starting point of the sociological analysis of the exchange of gifts and the gift economy. As a sociologist and anthropologist, influenced by his teacher and uncle Émile Durkheim, who already spoke on the topic of gift- exchange, managed Mauss to characterize a general notion of gift exchange and to establish the economic, legal, moral and socio-genetic science. Mainly his theories are but especially marked sociologically and culturally. From the above- mentioned criticism of individualism, in particular representatives of the historical school, different sociological theories regarding the social system of a gift economy and the motivation and reciprocity of gift exchange developed.

Gift economy from a rationalist and utilitarian view

The rationality assumption is that the individual acting rationally, given the alternatives chooses the alternative in which the value of the action success and the probability of occurrence of the action success is greatest. From the rationalist principle of action was inferred that the gift exchange and trade in such a manner to be completed, as it corresponds to the individual benefits to each party. Since man is in utilitarianism utility maximizers, he has a natural aversion to loss situations. Temporary losses, however, may be accepted if they lead to building a profitable beneficial cooperation.

Gift economy from normativistic genetic and collectivist view

Although Pierre Bourdieu is no explicit automatism ( gift and response of the pick in return ) ahead, as well as the uncertainty of the response was taken into account, but assumes that a majority of the gifts are reciprocated in a gift economy. The reciprocal nature according to his ideas on two principles: The time delay before a return gift is given, and the differences between the return gift to the first dose. If these principles are observed, arises a system which in return can not appear as consideration for a transfer. That is, the gift will not be returned. The gifts giver and the gifts receiving end - on the basis of the time delay and without negotiations - give their gifts of generosity. According to Bourdieu, however, this was far from the reality, and gift-giving always bein think the consideration of possible strategic advantages. According to Bourdieu in the process of social gift-giving reciprocity is deliberately obscured. He claims that the actors of the gift economy, a deliberate collective misjudgment and obfuscation of the real facts: The terms of an exchange, the implicit dependence of giving and taking. Against Bourdieu's theory are the scientific studies on blood donations. Blood is regarded as the gift in its pure form, as the blood -giving the recipient does not know and only receives a symbolic compensation. Blood is therefore in modern society the classic example of altruistic behavior towards anonymous others.

The American sociologist Alvin W. Gouldner regarded reciprocity as a moral standard, which consists of two minimum requirements: "We should help those who have helped one, and one should not offend those who have a helped. " Gouldner assumes that if these moral norm is internalized by actors in the gift economic system, this standard is risk, which is connected to the first-time award of a gift, is reduced by the creation of trust and rise to an obligation. Gouldner takes this further and distinguishes the design level and the action level. Thus, the process of giving to the motif level of charity out can occur on the plane of action, but have the unintended effect of reciprocal response.

Limits of the gift economy

Through the exchange of gifts is an obligation may arise, in other words, a debt to be incurred. The giver receives through the gift of an emotional and material benefit or advantage over the receiver. Through unique but especially repeatedly distributing gifts bonds are formed in different ways: in terms of a contractual obligation ( financial) and in terms of human bonds ( emotional). This can go so far that exchange of gifts leads the weaker party in a permanent hierarchical oppression.

A strong gift economy, or an economy that is based primarily on reciprocity can displace the market and trade. As an example of anthropologists are social structures in which a regime of general reciprocity prevails as the Cosa Nostra in Italy, the Russian Mafia and the Triads in China, seen.

Anthropological viewing

In anthropology, also makes a distinction between the two types of exchange: the free market exchange and the exchange of gifts. The origin of the so-called anthropological "gift versus commodity " debate goes back to Marcel Mauss. Mauss questioned the view of the proponents of the free market economy is that the human being is driven by the pursuit of profit and that all human interactions and their motives can therefore be analyzed from an economic point of view.

The idea that the exchange of gifts is an economic system that is opposite to the free market exchange, was particularly promoted by Christopher Gregory and Marilyn Strathern. Gregory sees the exchange of gifts as a personal relationship at the micro company level, while the commodity exchange for trading and the impersonal relationships is a member. Gregory allocation and distinguishing criteria refer here to a large extent on the work of Karl Marx.

Introduced by Gregory sharp distinction between gift and commodity was repeatedly questioned and criticized in recent years by anthropologists. The view to divide the system into two structures and thus to distinguish between the socially anchored and culturally developed gift economy on the one hand and the impersonal, rational market economy on the other hand, is based on western ethnocentric assumptions that artificial formalization of the concept of " pure gift " of the industrialized Western society and the romanticizing of the gift exchange of archaic societies.

Also cited by critics that Gregory and Stratherns strict separation trivializes the exchange of gifts, but gifts are thereby connected to the industrialized societies with very considerable economic functions. For example, Christmas gifts were in the United States one of the most important economic engines for retailers. In addition, are to be found in Western societies many examples which have characteristics of the gift economy, such as the exchange of knowledge in the scientific community and the free sharing of files and information on the Internet.

The anthropological consensus seems to be a compromise between the gift and the commodity. Thus, the exchange of gifts and the exchange of goods are not two completely different and mutually exclusive forms of society, but only two idealized types of exchange. In reality, any economic system is a mixture of both. The two types of exchange are intertwined and often find both components in exchange situations.

Historical development of the gift economy

In principle, both the historical and determine also the present observation that there existed neither in the past, the ideal of an economic system that is based solely on the gift economic system based on the pure gift, without expectation of reciprocity even in the presence exists. Nevertheless pull anthropologists repeatedly parallels to bestowing economic systems.

Gift economy in archaic societies

The gift economic systems probably the most quoted and studied by science are the Kula exchange and potlatch. These two phenomena have in common, as opposed to simply handing in the sense of offering or sacrifice, a social system that they represent, in part, an economic system within an economic system.

Kula exchange

In the Kula exchange of the Trobriand Islanders, in which are valuable shells over hundreds of kilometers passed from person to person in a large ring, the relationship between each pair of trading partners is dyadic. This means that each exchange process usually consists of two opposing positions is composed, and consequently there is a balanced balancing of the value in each transfer. The value of a Kulas results from the context of production ( labor ), the scarcity of the raw material and the particular history of the handover process. The handoff process occurs primarily in the annually recurring visits of the trading partners of neighboring islands. The gifts are exchanged in Kula, on the one hand necklaces ( soulava ) and bracelets ( mwali ), but neither consist of particularly rare materials, still have a great skill. Malinowski sees three important social functions in Kulatausch. First, it serves to establish friendly relations, to peaceful relations and the long distance communication with trading partners to get between the inhabitants of the different islands. Second, with the Kula during annual Expeditions also trade connected and it can use objects to be exchanged. Third, Malinowski sees in Kula a consolidation and justification of social status, which is characterized by the possession of the most valuable shellfish.

Potlatch

Marcel Mauss saw not only the benefits of the gift economy but also highlighted clearly that the gift economic system possesses a destructive character and could lead to ruinous competition. As an example of excessive reciprocity he led the potlatch. In the potlatch, in which the exchange of gifts in the competition for generosity and waste ausufere, however, he led the destructive character not only to the reciprocity back, rather it is the interplay of religious, economic, military, political and ethical factors.

Mauss sees two basic requirements as necessary to the functioning of the gift economy in the potlatch. First, a sufficient presence of natural resources for sustaining life, such as fish and game, and secondly, a compact and hierarchical structure of society. The large surplus of food production of the tribes that held the potlatch, enabled the establishment of the upper class, which had not be incorporated into the daily practice of food supply. The holding of a feast Schenk enabled the establishment within the hierarchy and the acquisition of a higher status, which manifested itself on titles. When the tribes of Kwakiutl there were, for example, 651 titles that expressed a certain rank in the social hierarchy. However Potlatch were not mutually aligned and no one kept a record of who has been a potlatch and how often. This was also due to the fact that it took place relatively rare, and occasions such as the death of a chief, could not be foreseen.

Contemporary gift economy

As already mentioned, the exchange of gifts and the exchange of goods are not two completely different and mutually exclusive systems, but only two idealized types of exchange. In reality, any economic system is a mixture of both. Compare Anthropological studies phenomena of our time with the gift economic system and come to the conclusion that even in today's time transfers that are not based on direct reciprocity, take place, for example in the form of organ and blood donation, charity, file sharing and bequests. But they are mostly found today in lieu of gift exchange in the context of reciprocity.

For his analysis of the inner workings of the open source movement Gerd Sebald draws an analogy to the gift economy of archaic societies according to the pattern of Marcel Mauss ' research approach. He suggests the hacker culture to take as a gift exchange culture: The most enjoys watching the one of greatest gifts of the community.

The forerunner of today's gratis shops emerged in the late 1960s in the wake of the protest movements of the sixties in the USA. The starting point was a critique of money and the ideal of a vain economy that transcends even the mechanism of reciprocity of the gift economy due to their counter -claims. So founded the anarchist movement of the Diggers, a guerrilla theater group, along with many other outdoor activities like Free Medical Center, Free Stores in San Francisco and one in New York. In Australia there was the early 1970s, such a Free Store in Melbourne, which also emerged from the anarchist movement and its critique of capitalism. 2010 saw them all over the northern hemisphere and in Germany in every major city.

261317