Economic anthropology

The economic anthropology (also called economic anthropology ) is the part of the field of anthropology that deals with the economic power of people and companies with goods and services. They tried to explain the economic behavior of people using economic and anthropological methods.

Subjects discussed include the economic basis of social stratification, the degree of division of labor in society, refinement of property, goods production and distribution, evaluation of tangible and intangible assets and the impact on society and the economic system.

In general, the relationships between social structures are considered in the economic, political and social spheres. According to some theories, the economic system fundamentally from the cultural context dependent ( embeddedness ), which is still the case, especially in non-industrialized societies.

Theoretical approaches to economic anthropology

The economic anthropology consists of three main paradigms: formalism, Substantivismus and culturalism.

Formalism

The formalist model is that model in economic anthropology, which has the closest connection to the neoclassical theory. It defines economics as the study of utility maximization under conditions of scarcity. Since formalist economic anthropology attempts to explore subjects outside their traditional environment by means of neoclassical theory, it is consistent with the new institutional economics in conjunction. This makes the following key assumptions:

• Individuals pursue utility maximization by choosing between alternative means and always choose the one alternative that maximizes their utility. They usually have limitations due to incomplete information or transaction costs.
• Individuals decide rationally. Use all available information, to weigh the costs and benefits of all options and to estimate the opportunity cost incurred compared to other utility maximization strategies. Here, individuals are able to perform the necessary calculations - whether through conscious foresight, instinct or tradition.
• Resources are always scarce, while the needs of all individuals are unlimited.

Some formalists use game theory as a model of rational behavior under certain cultural or interpersonal constraints. Formalists such as Raymond Firth and Harold K. Schneider argue that the neoclassical economic model could be applied to any company if the necessary adjustments would be made. So you talk to the principles outlined above to universal validity. So all individuals always make choices between alternative means to achieve its goals, the goals are defined cultural goals. They relate not only to the benefit or financial benefit, but to everything that is valued by the individual - whether leisure, solidarity or prestige.

The role of anthropologists under these premises, it would then be to investigate each culture with respect to their culturally appropriate means to achieve culturally recognized and valued goals. Assuming economically rational behavior individual decisions are guided by individual preferences, while the culture and preferences of others are perceived as restrictive environment. Such analyzes should reveal the culture-specific principles that are subject to rational decision-making process. ( Laughlin, 1973, for example, Firth, 1961) In this context, the economic theory of anthropologists primarily on companies was without price -regulating markets applied.

Substantivismus

From the perspective of substantivistischen position, which was first developed by Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation, the term economy has two meanings: the formal meaning refers to economics as the logic of rational actions and decisions as a rational choice between alternative uses of scarce resources. The second, substantivistische importance, in contrast, assumes neither rational decision nor scarcity of resources. It refers to the study of how people survive in their social and natural environment. The survival strategy of a company is regarded as a process of adaptation to their environment, maximizing the benefits may or may not include. Economy in substantivistischen sense, refers to the way in which a society satisfies its needs.

Polanyi's term " great transformation " refers to the distinction between modern, market - oriented societies and non-Western, non-capitalist pre-industrial societies. Polanyi argues that only the substantivistische importance of business is appropriate for the analysis of non- capitalist societies. Without a system of price based markets, the formalistic economic analysis is not applicable. Individual decisions are based less on maximizing economic profits, but much more on social relations, cultural values ​​, moral considerations, politics or religion. In most rural and tribal societies subsistence farming is operated, ie that is produced for the producers themselves - as opposed to market-oriented production, which mainly aims at a target profit maximization. These two types of production differed so widely that no single theory can explain both.

According to Polanyi overlap in modern capitalist societies the concepts of formalism and Substantivismus because people organize their lives on the basis of rational decisions. In noncapitalist companies, however, this is not the case, since they are not aligned on the market, but for redistribution and reciprocity. Reciprocity is defined as the mutual exchange of goods or services as part of long-term relationships. Redistribution implies the existence of a strong political center such as kinship -based leadership that Subsistenzgüter obtained after culture-specific principles and then redistributed. In non- market-oriented societies are reciprocity and redistribution usually on together. Conversely, the exchange in the market as the dominant mode of integration is considered in modern industrial societies, while reciprocity is in family and household relationships and further redistribution is partially performed by the state or by non-profit organizations. However, each distribution concept requires its own set of analytical concepts.

Another key concept in Substantivismus is that of the ' embeddedness ' ( embedding ). Economy is not considered in this context as a separate and definable area of ​​effect, but is embedded in economic and non-economic institutions. Exchange takes place within society, not in a social vacuum. For example, religion and government can be just as important to the economy and economic institutions themselves Socio-cultural obligations, norms and values ​​play an important role in the survival strategies of the people. Consequently, any analysis of the economy is flawed from the outset as analytically distinguishable and isolated from their socio - cultural and political context unit. A substantivistische analysis of the economy, however, focused on the study of various social institutions on which is based the survival of the people. The market is only one of many institutions that determine the essence of economic transactions. Polanyi's central argument is that institutions are the primary organizers of economic processes.

The concept of ' embeddedness ' ( embedding ) was very influential in economic anthropology. Thus, for example, found Granovetter in his study of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia out of business, that economic actions of individuals are embedded in networks of strong personal relationships. The cultivation of personal contacts between dealers and customers takes on a equal or superior value than the economic transactions itself economic exchange processes do not take place between strangers, but rather between individuals who are in a long-term relationship. Granovetter describes how the neo- liberal perspective on economic activities, the economy of society and culture separates and thus neglected the social component of the economy.

Culturalism

The position is substantivistische For some anthropologists in their criticism of the universal application of Western economic models on societies around the world not far enough. Stephen Gudeman, for example, claims that the central survival strategies are culturally constructed. Therefore, the analysis of models of survival and related economic concepts such as exchange, money or profit must be completed by the application locally oriented social science perspectives. Instead of formulating universal models that are based on a Western understanding of the economy and on Western economic terminology, and their arbitrary application to all companies anthropologists should try the ' local model ' to understand. In his work on livelihood strategies Gudeman tried to portray the "people's own economic construction" ( the structure of the economy from the perspective of the population) ( 1986:1 ). Here, he examines not only the cultural construction of values ​​with the perspective on the products you want to buy one, or to the value of leisure, but mainly the local concepts of economy and its various aspects, such as the understanding of exchange, property or profit (profit). His description of a peasant community in Panama shows that the population does not therefore stand in an exchange relationship with each other because each profit wanted to do, but because they saw the exchange as an "exchange of equivalents ", where the exchange value of an item through the effort of production was determined. Only dealers from outside made ​​profit in its exchange relation to the community.

Gudeman has not only the formalist idea of the universal ' economic man ' back; He also criticizes the substantivistische position that they apply their universal economic model to all pre-industrial societies, and so makes the same mistake as the formalists. While he admits that Substantivismus emphasizes the role of social institutions in economic processes rightly, Gudeman sees each derived model that lays claim to universal validity, tautological as ethnocentric and substantial. From his perspective, all these perspectives to model human relationships as a mechanistic processes, by taking the logic of the natural sciences, which is based on the material world, and transfer them to the human world. Instead, anthropologists should try to understand and interpret local models, which certainly very different from their Western counterparts to. For example, the people of the Iban used exclusively meter for rice harvest. Although the use of sickles would speed up the harvest enormous, is their concern that the spirit of the rice could flee, greater than their desire to rationalize the harvesting process.

Gudeman brings the postmodern cultural relativism to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, the culturalism but can also be seen as an extension of substantivistischen perspective, with an emphasis on strengthening the cultural constructivism, a more detailed description of local perspectives and economic concepts and a greater focus on socio - cultural dynamics. (see Hann, 2000). Culturalists also tend to be less taxonomically and more kulturrelativistisch in their descriptions, as they critically reflect on the power relations between the researcher and the research subjects. While Substantivisten usually select institutions as unit of analysis, tend culturalists to the detailed description of certain local communities. Both perspectives, however, is common is that they reject the formalist assumption that all human behavior in terms of rational decision making and utility maximization can be explained.

Criticism of the approaches

There are numerous critics of the formalist position. Its central assumptions about human behavior were strongly questioned. In particular, it has been argued that models of rational decision making and utility maximization can not be applied to all cultures. But also in terms of contemporary Western societies, the economic reductionism in explaining human behavior has been criticized. Prattis emphasized that the premise of utility maximization is tautological; whatever a person does, whether work or leisure activity is, as a utility maximization declared ( cf. Prattis, 1989). For example, a person may set their own time, their own finances or your health on the line to help others. According to formalists, the person would do this because it attaches a high value of helping others and by the sacrifice of their own objectives as their benefits maximized ( for example, satisfaction after the assistance, recognition by others, etc.). But this is merely an assumption - the motivation of the person may coincide with this statement or not. A similar argument Gudeman, be that Western economic anthropologists always " find out " that will be the people they study, "rational" behavior because of them applied model leads them. Consequently, the formalism considered any behavior that does not appear maximizing utility, as irrational. The acting individual like this "non- maximizing actions " but appear quite rational and logical, because the motivation may be derived for his actions from a completely different range of meanings.

Finally, emphasize the Substantivisten that both economic institutions as well as individual economic actions are embedded in the socio - cultural space and therefore can not be analyzed in isolation. Social relationships play an essential role in the survival strategies of the people; Therefore, a narrow focus on individual behavior can only be flawed to the exclusion of socio - cultural background of the person.

But criticism was also practiced on Substantivismus. Prattis (1982 ), according to the strict distinction between primitive and modern economies is problematic. Restrictions on transaction types are much more situational than justified in the system ( he assumed, therefore, that the Substantivismus the analysis of individual actions neglected while he focuses on the study of social structures). Non- maximizing adaptation strategies occur in all societies, not only in "primitive". A similar argument Plattner (1989 ) that some generalizations about different societies still be possible and that across Western and non-Western economies are not entirely different. In the age of globalization might like hardly still be present "pure" pre-industrial societies. Conditions of scarcity of resources now exist all over the world and for the anthropological field research, it is important to point out that even in peasant societies rational behavior and economic decisions are complex (see Plattner, 1989:15 ). Also, individuals in, for example, communist societies still rationally maximize their utility, for example, by maintaining relationships with bureaucrats who control the distribution of resources, or by the use of small pieces of land in her garden to supplement the official food rations.

While exchange dominates the market in the West, redistribution can also play in the more sozialisitischen or welfare states in the West a big role - as for example in France, Germany or Sweden. The state and non-profit or religious organization to collect donations and then distribute them to needy groups (or use the money to provide free or at a low price benefits).

Also culturalism can be criticized from different perspectives. Marxists would argue that culturalists in their analysis of external (ie material ) restrictions on individuals who influence their decisions, too weak would be with her thoughts of the social construction of reality and too idealistic. If, as Gudeman argues, local models can not be objectively assessed, or can be set duck against a universal standard, they can not be deconstructed by the ideologies of those in power also, which serve to neutralize the resistance through hegemony. This is further complicated by the fact that most cultures are integrated into the global capitalist system in the age of globalization and are influenced by Western ways of thinking and acting. Local and global discourses intermingle and blur the boundaries between the two. Even if people keep aspects of their worldviews, universal models to study the dynamics of their integration can be used in the rest of the world.

The German economist Gunnar Heinsohn and Otto Steiger argue that market exchange is not universal and begin their analysis with Karl Polanyi's distinction between systems that are based on reciprocity, redistribution and market. Nevertheless, both criticize both the Substantivisiten and the formalists for the lack of a satisfactory explanation for market rationality and their historical origins. They developed a novel explanation for the origins of property, contracts, loans, money and markets, which they call the "Property theory of interest, money and markets " .. They apply their model to the development economics, in which an understanding of dynamic markets is essential as the central task of development economics is the development of markets in places where there has previously been no supervision to.