Showing papers on "Embeddedness published in 1966"
TL;DR: A clear-cut dichotomy has emerged between scholars who maintain that formal economic theory is applicable to the analysis of "primitive" and "peasant" economies and those who believe that it is limited in application to the market-oriented, price-governed economic systems of industrial economies.
Abstract: the impact on the field of the writings of Karl Polanyi and his followers, a clear-cut dichotomy has emerged between scholars who maintain that "formal" economic theory is applicable to the analysis of "primitive" and "peasant" economies and those who believe that it is limited in application to the market-oriented, price-governed economic systems of industrial economies2 Prior to the publication of Trade and Market in the Early Empires (Polanyi, et al, 1957), economic anthropology (to the extent that it dealt with behavioral theory as opposed to being exclusively concerned with material goods and/or subsistence technology) represented a single field of inquiry, with the majority of its practitioners believing that formal economic theory could contribute to anthropology However, after the publication of this substantivist magnum opus, the field underwent a bifurcation into two discrete spheres of discourse Although several attempts have been made by various scholars to provoke a meaningful dialogue with the substantivists, their critiques have failed to elicit any such exchange of views" Thus the field is presently characterized by a "split-level" dialogue in which the proponents on the two dominant views of economics-in-anthropology are talking past one another and are operating within separate spheres of discourse Many anthropologists are still apparently unfamiliar with the scope and content of the critiques of substantivist economics, while substantivist views continue to find expression in the literature without manifesting any noticeable
152 citations