Andrés Marroquín Gramajo Economic Anthropology : Past and Future Introduction Sometimes the best way to imagine a future is to look at the past . And when one looks at the past of the research in economic anthropology , the future of the field looks bright indeed . The history of the this research reveals that the types of themes this field has studied during the past 60 years have expanded . Some other themes are permanent and have defined economic anthropology , so to speak . Economic anthropology has gained its identity from its studies of hunter-gather societies , and the following transitions to subsistence production , cash economies , and the market . In the past ten years , the field witnessed also the incursion of new methods , such as field experiments . This suggests that the themes that were central to the discipline 60 years ago will be studied furthermore in the near future ; but also new , unpredictable topics , using unexpected methods , will emerge as well . In this paper I describe and analyze the past of the research in economic anthropology Andrés Marroquín Gramajo is Professor of Economics , Universidad Francisco Marroquín ( Guatemala ). This paper was presented at the 2009 Meeting of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences ( IUAES ) in Kunming , China , and will be published in the first number of the on-line magazine Popular Anthropology . Comments and suggestions by Julio Cole are greatly appreciated . Laissez-Faire , No . 32 ( Marzo 2010 ): 23-34 in order to find patterns of research topics through time and to speculate about future themes : Internet communities , the phenomenon of religion and religious diversity , the cultural aspects of financial markets , and the social implications of gender differences will receive more attention in the next decade . Before exploring the past and conjecturing about the future of the research in economic anthropology it is necessary to clarify what “ economic anthropology ” is . Economic Anthropology : A Definition The first challenge that comes up when one wants to look at the history of economic anthropology is to find a useful definition of the field . Dalton considers that the research in economic anthropology is characterized by : ( a ) individual fieldwork , ( b ) a focus on small economy ( community ), and ( c ) a consideration of history . According to Dalton , economic anthropology comprises different sets of topics , such as the structure and performance of traditional pre-colonial , preindustrial , colonial , and postcolonial tribal and peasant economies . For example , in the case of pre-colonial societies , economic anthropology is interested in the nature of tribal and peasant economies before serious European incursion changed them ; for instance , the nature of

__________________________________________________________________ primitive monetary valuables and their role as devices of social control in the prestige sector of tribal communities without central government ( Dalton , 1965 : 197 ). 1 Economic anthropology can also be defined by the set of topics that scholars who call themselves “ economic anthropologists ” write about ; for example , the members of the Society of Economic Anthropology ( SEA ). In the inaugural meeting of the Society of Economic Anthropology in 1982 participants discussed the following topics , among others : ( 1 ) history of pre-Hispanic México ; ( 2 ) evolution of pre-Hispanic Oaxaca market systems ; ( 2 ) Marx ’ s contribution to economic anthropology ; ( 3 ) the thought of Karl Polanyi – formalist vs . substantivist debate ; ( 4 ) problems of decision making analysis and complexity in game theory and linear programming models ; ( 5 ) uneven development ; ( 6 ) the core assumptions of development economics that usually do not take into account political roles and presume a narrow definition of rationality ; and ( 7 ) adding social and cultural elements to costbenefit analysis ( Plattner , 1982 ). Karl Polanyi has been an influential figure in the field . Although he was mainly an economic historian , his analyses of preindustrial economies , and of the changes that fostered the industrial revolution itself , have left their mark on economic anthropology . Probably one of his most important insights is that the economy is embedded in society . This implies that social relations ( community , reciprocity , and fairness ) predate the market . Polanyi ’ s idea follows Aristotle in the sense that human beings are first homo sociologicus and then acquire characteris- 1 Concepts like “ primitive ” and “ tribal ” are quite controversial . In the text I restrict myself to the way Dalton uses those words . tics of homo economicus . One consequence of this idea is that the market economy ( understood as the price system , in this case ) cannot penetrate all the spheres of social life . There are realms of social interaction that naturally remain outside the price mechanism ( think of family relations , for instance ). In fact , Polanyi suggests that the penetration of the market and the economy in noneconomic spheres ( consider , for example , a market for marriage , or an open competition for suicide services ) will face the opposing response of social forces . Imagine a pendulum that moves left and right . The pendulum represents the degree of market penetration in society . It does not reach the extreme right , but neither does it reach the far left . Such is the nature of the market imbedded in society . Social forces will react so that the market mechanism stays away from the very core of social relations ( see Carlson , 2006 , for a balanced view of Polanyi ’ s contributions ). Stephen Gudeman , a contemporary prestigious economic anthropologist , talks about the Anthropology of Economy ( 2001 ) where he contrasts the neoclassical economy and the economy as domains of value . On the one hand , the neoclassical economy refers to the production and consumption cycle which involves firms , households , and markets . The economy as domains of value , on the other hand , adds ideology , identity , and sacred values to the neoclassical economy cycle . Although these criteria to define Economic Anthropology are useful , I should recognize that this is a dynamic field , and probably it started “ growing up ” as an academic discipline since Malinowski ’ s times in the early 1900s . For the purpose of clarity I define __________________________________________________________________ Laissez-Faire 30

__________________________________________________________________ Economic Anthropology as the intersection of anthropology and economics . Graphically it would look like the intersection between two sets ( economics and anthropology ) in a Venn diagram . This definition includes using the tools of economics to analyze topics traditionally studied in anthropology , and using the tools of anthropology to study traditional economic variables ( see this matrix in Table 1 ). This means that economists who have studied culture ( Fernandez , 2007 ), identity ( Akerlof and Kranton , 2002a ; 2002b ), and values ( Porter 2000 ), 2 for example , are also considered as economic anthropologists for the purpose of analysis . In some instances I included in the analysis “ economic archeology ” as part of economic anthropology since both fields ( economic archeology and economic anthropology ) are closely linked when it comes to studying the economics of ancient civilization through the study samples of material culture . There are many other scientific analyses which are harder to classify in the matrix in table 1 , but which I think belong to economic anthropology . They come mainly from economic history ( such as Botticini and Eckstein , 2005 ). Some classics are Karl Polanyi ’ s , Max Weber ’ s , and Banfield ’ s historical works ( see for example Polanyi , 1969 ; Weber , 1958 ; and Banfield , 1958 ). Another example from economic history is David Landes ’ s historical work in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations ( see also Landes , 2000 ), where he concludes that “ culture 2 Obviously Raquel Fernandez , Geroge Akerlof , and Rachel Kranton have done major work in areas that do not include issues of culture . My claim however is that the part of their work in which they do include culture can be reasonably included into the field of economic anthropology . makes almost all the difference ” when it comes to explaining historical patterns of prosperity across the world . In this same category is Douglass North ’ s Institutions , Institutional Change and Economic Performance . Fukuyama ’ s Trust and Robert Putnam ’ s Making Democracy Work could also be classified as works on economic anthropology . Landes and North are economic historians , Fukuyama is a political scientist , and Putman is a sociologist . All of them study institutions or civic values that characterize different societies , and some of these values have a direct or indirect impact on economic development and growth . Landes and North combine history , economics , and culture to explain variations in prosperity around the world . Clearly their approach is multidisciplinary . Indeed , interdisciplinary research is an intrinsic characteristic of economic anthropology . There are other pieces by North that I would not include into the realm of economic anthropology ( although they are base on anthropological evidence in some instances ), such as his research on the transition from nomad societies into agricultural societies , and the transition from agricultural to industrial societies ( North and Thomas , 1977 ; 1970 ). In these cases he studies social and economic transformations using a utility maximization approach representative of neo-classical economics . Elinor Ostrom , the winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize , has also used different approaches to study how culture and institutions can promote the sustainable use of common pool resources . Ostrom is one of the most eclectic social scientists in terms of her methods . She is driven by the questions and not by the method , this makes her work fascinating although very hard to classify in the matrix below . In addition , there is work done by __________________________________________________________________ Laissez-Faire 31

__________________________________________________________________ Table 1 . What is economic anthropology ? An intersection between concepts and methods . Conceptually Method of Analysis Economics ( game theory , econometrics , experiments , or mathematical modeling ) Anthropology ( ethnographic ) Economics ( the main purpose is to study the economy ) Purely economics ( e . g . the interest premium puzzle , elasticity of the demand for money . See for example the work of Barro and Jin ( 2009 )). Economic anthropology ( e . g . Ronald Coase ( 1937 ), Geertz ( 1978 ), Jean Ensminger ( 1996 ), Chamlee-Wright ( 1997 ), Marroquin ( 2007 , 2008 , 2010 )). Anthropology ( the main purpose is to study culture and identity ) Economic Anthropology ( e . g . crosscultural experiments to study altruism and reciprocity , neoclassical economic models to study time allocation in huntergather societies , game theory to study evolution of institutions . See for example Bates ( 1983 ), Grief ( 1994 ), Conley and Udry ( 2008 ), Smith ( 1975 ), Fernandez ( 2007 ), Chen and Li ( 2009 ), Bowles ( 1998 ), Bisin and Verdier ( 2000 ; 2001 ). Purely anthropology ( e . g . certain rites of passage studied through participant observation ( Levi- Strauss ( 1955 , 1966 , 1983 ), Geertz ( 2000 )). __________________________________________________________________ Laissez-Faire 32