Economy and Society
Fine tuning the Zelizer view [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 09-09-2003Viviana Zelizer Economy and Society. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 383 - 389.
Fine and Lapavitsas accept my critique of neoclassical economics as well as my empirical findings, but too hastily reject the arguments underlyng both of them. Despite their complaints to the contrary, my work provides viable definitions of money and markets, offers a theoretically motivated research program, demonstrates the heterogeneity of money and markets, deals with standard economic processes, and addresses general theoretical issues. Within recent economic sociology, both 'context' and 'alternative' approaches improve on the stark choice between neoclassical economics and conventional Marxist political economy posed by Fine and Lapavitsas.
Insuring morality [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Tom Baker Economy and Society. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 4. P. 559 - 577.
This article describes and compares two forms of moral regulation employed in connection with insurance institutions. The first governs through moralized personal attributes or pressures like 'temptation' and 'character'. The second governs through moralized institutional or system attributes and processes described in terms of 'efficiency'. The article traces these forms of moral regulation from the mid-nineteenth century to the present, arguing that both continue to inform popular and specialized discourses of risk.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Ben Fine, Costas Lapavitsas Economy and Society. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 357 - 382.
This article addresses the issue of how the market and the non-market are to be understood especially by concentrating on the theory of money. For mainstream economics, the market is simply an institution facilitating exchange, money being the key instrument for alleviating the inefficiencies of barter. In contrast, recent work in other social sciences, such as that by Zelizer, distinguishes among markets, and various roles of money, depending on cultural and social content. While being sympathetic to such an approach, we claim that the commodity is a better analytical starting point than the market. Based on Marx's work, we then show what commodities have in common and establish a common essence for money as generalized purchasing power. This is a peculiarly bland essence that allows money to undertake the variety of social roles identified by Zelizer.