Economy and Society
Выпуск N3 за 2000 год
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.
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.