Post by Sapphire Capital on Aug 20, 2008 10:55:19 GMT 4
A New Double Movement? Anthropological Perspectives on Property in the Age of Neoliberalism
Chris Hann
Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology
Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 287-318, 2007
Abstract:
This review article shows that, both empirically and theoretically, socio-cultural anthropologists have much to contribute to interdisciplinary debates concerning property. The longest section presents results from recent investigations of decollectivization in the rural sectors of former socialist states. The generally disappointing outcomes of privatization can always be explained away in terms of 'institutional' shortcomings, but the real challenge is to devise more flexible property rules to deal with diverse goods and local environments. The rest of the paper notes some of the most salient anthropological contributions in a range of other fields, including intellectual property and 'culture'. While some scholars reject the concept of property in non-Western contexts, recent work in legal anthropology has laid out a rigorous definition that facilitates comparative analysis and exposes the limitations of the currently dominant economistic approaches. 'Propertization' is continuously establishing new 'fictitious commodities', but it is argued here that some critics of neoliberalism exaggerate the nightmare of its property logic and overlook the countertendencies. In this respect the emerging debates over property recall earlier discussions over the emergence two centuries ago of an allegedly 'disembedded' market economy.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1161804
Chris Hann
Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology
Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 287-318, 2007
Abstract:
This review article shows that, both empirically and theoretically, socio-cultural anthropologists have much to contribute to interdisciplinary debates concerning property. The longest section presents results from recent investigations of decollectivization in the rural sectors of former socialist states. The generally disappointing outcomes of privatization can always be explained away in terms of 'institutional' shortcomings, but the real challenge is to devise more flexible property rules to deal with diverse goods and local environments. The rest of the paper notes some of the most salient anthropological contributions in a range of other fields, including intellectual property and 'culture'. While some scholars reject the concept of property in non-Western contexts, recent work in legal anthropology has laid out a rigorous definition that facilitates comparative analysis and exposes the limitations of the currently dominant economistic approaches. 'Propertization' is continuously establishing new 'fictitious commodities', but it is argued here that some critics of neoliberalism exaggerate the nightmare of its property logic and overlook the countertendencies. In this respect the emerging debates over property recall earlier discussions over the emergence two centuries ago of an allegedly 'disembedded' market economy.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1161804