Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:26:55.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional analysis and the gift: an introduction to the symposium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

Stefan Kesting ,
Ioana Negru  and
Paolo Silvestri
Stefan Kesting
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Ioana Negru*
Affiliation:
Management, Marketing and Business Administration, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania
Paolo Silvestri
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Turin, Torino, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How can gift and gift-giving studies be relevant to the study of institutions and vice versa? This is the question we broadly address in the introduction to this symposium while drawing on the contributing articles and sketching out a possible future research in a perspective of integration between these two fields of study. Is the gift an institution? What types of methodological approaches would be most suitable in view of such integration? We define the gift as transfers underpinned by institutions, including customs and norms. We contend that the institutional thought can employ empirical and qualitative research methods used by anthropology and that there are important and fruitful lines of tension between gift-giving and institutions – from the relationship between freedom and obligation to the role of third sector between state and market – worthy of further research in the future.

Keywords

Anthropologygift-givinggiftsinstitutional economicsinstitutions
Type
Symposium on Institutional Analysis and the Gift
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 665 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ellickson, R. (1986), ‘Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute Resolution Among Neighbors in Shasta County’, Stanford Law Review, 38(3): 623–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullrich, C. G. (2002), ‘Reciprocity, Justice and Statuary Health Insurance in Germany’, Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, K. (2007), ‘Marcel Mauss: In Pursuit of the Whole. A Review Essay’, Comparative Study in Society and History, 49(2): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2014), ‘The Evolution of Morality and the End of Economic Man’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(1): 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adloff, F. and Mau, S. (2006), ‘Giving Social Ties, Reciprocity in Modern Society’, European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 47(1): 93–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amendola, A., Garofalo, M. R. and Nese, A. (2011), ‘Is the Third Sector an Emerging Economic Institution? Social Preferences Versus Poverty traps’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5): 850–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anspach, M. R. (2002), A Charge de Revanche, Seuil: Figures Élémentaires de la Réciprocité, Paris.Google Scholar
Aoki, M. (2001), Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoki, M. (2007), ‘Endogenizing Institutions and Institutional Change’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3(1): 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bataille, G. (1988 [1967]), The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy, Volume. I: Consumption, (translated by Robert Hurley), Cambridge, USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, L. (1992), ‘Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry’, Journal of Legal Studies, 21(1): 115–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulding, K. E. (1973), The Economy of Love and Fear: A Preface to Grants Economics, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2000), ‘Reciprocity, Self-Interest, and the Welfare State’, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 26(1): 33–53.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. (1975). ‘The Samaritan's Dilemma’, in Phelps, E. S. (ed.), Altruism, Morality and Economic Theory, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 71–85.Google Scholar
Caillé, A. (1998), Il Terzo Paradigma. Antropologia Filosofica del Dono, Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
Caillé, A. (2000), ‘Gift and Association’, in Vandevelde, A. (ed.), Gifts and Interests, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 47–55.Google Scholar
Camic, C. and Hodgson, G. M. (eds.) (2011), Essential Writings of Thorstein Veblen, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cedrini, M. A., Ambrosino, A., Marchionatti, R. and Caillé, A. (2019), ‘Mauss's the Gift, or the Necessity of an Institutional Perspective in Economics’, Journal of Institutional Economics: 1–15, published online. doi: 10.1017/S1744137419000687.Google Scholar
Cheal, D. (2015), The Gift Economy, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christoforou, A. (2010), ‘Social Capital and Human Development: An Empirical Investigation Across European Countries’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 6(2): 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dequech, D. (2006), ‘Institutions and Norms in Institutional Economics and Sociology’, Journal of Economic Issues, 40(2): 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Soto, H. (1990), The Other Path – The Invisible Revolution in the Third World, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dillon, W. S. (1968), Gifts and Nations: The Obligation to Give, Receive and Repay, The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Djankov, S., LaPorta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A. (2003), ‘Courts: The Lex Mundi Project’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2): 453–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, P. (2008), ‘The Emergent Third Sector in Europe: Actors, Relations and Social Capital’, in Rossi, G., Boccacin, L. and Anheier, H. K. (eds), The Social Generative Action of the Third Sector. Comparing International Experiences, Milano: Vita e Pensiero, pp. 13–47.Google Scholar
Elder-Vass, D. (2019), ‘Defining the Gift’, Journal of Institutional Economics: 1–11, published online. doi: 10.1017/S174413741900033X.Google Scholar
Engelke, M. (2017), Think Like an Anthropologist, London: Pelican Books an imprint of Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
Evers, A. and Laville, J. L. (eds.) (2004), The Third Sector in Europe, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (1998), ‘Reciprocity and Economics: The Economic Implication of Homo Reciprocans’, European Economic Review, 42(3-5): 845–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2000), ‘Fairness and Retaliation. The Economics of Reciprocity’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3): 159–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U. and Gächter, S. (2002), ‘Strong Reciprocity, Human Cooperation and the Enforcement of Social Norms’, Human Nature, 13(1): 1–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firth, R. (1967), Themes in Economic Anthropology, London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. C., Andersson, K., Ostrom, E. and Shivakumar, S. (2005), The Samaritan's Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbout, J. T. and Caillé, A. (1998), The World of the Gift, Montreal: McGill Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (2002), ‘Structures of Mutual Obligation’, Journal of Social Policy, 31(4): 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. P. and Herzberg, R. Q. (2019), ‘Gifts as Governance: Church Welfare and the Samaritan's Dilemma’, Journal of Institutional Economics: 1–12, published online. doi: 10.1017/S174413741900047X.Google Scholar
Graeber, D. (2011), Debt – The First 5,000 Years, New York: Melville House Publishing.Google Scholar
Hann, C. (2000), Social Anthropology, London and Chicago: Teach Yourself Books.Google Scholar
Hann, C. and Hart, K. (2011), Economic Anthropology, Cambridge UK and Malden, USA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (1988), Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern Institutional Economics, Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2004), The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2006), ‘What Are Institutions?’, Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2013), From Pleasure Machines to Moral Communities: An Evolutionary Economics without Homo Economicus, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hudik, M. and Fang, E. S. (2019), ‘Money or In-Kind Gift? Evidence from Red Packets in China’, Journal of Institutional Economics: 1–16, published online. doi: 10.1017/S1744137419000717.Google Scholar
Landa, T. J. (1995), Trust, Ethnicity and Identity: Beyond the New Institutional Economics of Ethnic Trading Networks, Contract Law and Gift-Exchange, Michigan: Michigan University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. (2002 [1922]), Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchionatti, R. and Cedrini, M. (2017), Economics as Social Science – Economics Imperialism and the Challenge of Interdisciplinarity, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mau, S. (2004), ‘Welfare Regimes and the Norms of Social Exchange’, Current Sociology, 52(1): 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauss, M. (2002), The Gift, Translated From the French Edition of 1925, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D. N. (2015), ‘Max U vs. Humanomics: A Critique of Neo-Institutionalism’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, P. (2001), ‘Refusing the Gift’, in Mises, S., Amariglio, C. J. and Ruccio, D. F. (eds.), Postmodernism, Economics and Knowledge, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 431–458.Google Scholar
Monzon, J. L. and Chaves, R. (2008), ‘The European Social Economy: Concept and Dimensions of the Third Sector’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 79(3–4): 549–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negru, I. (2009), ‘The Plural Economy of Gifts and Markets’, in Garnett, R. F. Jr., Olsen, E. and Starr, M. (eds.), Economic Pluralism, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 194–204.Google Scholar
North, D. C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. C. (2005), Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons – The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010), ‘Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems’, American Economic Review, 100(3): 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perroux, F. (1961), Zwang, Tausch, Geschenk – Zur Kritik der Händlergesellschaft, Stuttgart: Curt E. Schwab (French original: Économie et Société – Contrainte, Échange, Don, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). There is no English translation of this book.Google Scholar
Pestoff, V. (2008), A Democratic Architecture for the Welfare State, London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation – The Political and Economic Origins of our Time, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1968a [1947]), ‘Our Obsolete Market Mentality’, in Dalton, G. (ed.), (1968) Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies – Essays of Karl Polanyi, New York: Anchor Books, pp. 59–77.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1968b [1947]), ‘The Economy as Instituted Process’, in Dalton, G. (ed.), Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies – Essays of Karl Polanyi, New York: Anchor Books, pp. 139–174.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. (1972), Stone Age Economics, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. and Anheier, H. K. (1996), The Emerging Nonprofit Sector: An Overview (Vol. 1), Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidtchen, D. (2002), ‘To Help or Not to Help: The Samaritan's Dilemma Revisited’, in Brennan, G., Kliemt, H. and Tollison, R. (eds), Method and Morals in Constitutional Economics: Essays in Honor of James M. Buchanan, New York: Springer, pp.470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2001), Rationality in Action, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1982), ‘Rights and Agency’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 11(1): 3–39.Google Scholar
Silber, I. (1998), ‘Modern Philanthropy: Reassessing the Viability of a Maussian Perspective’, in Wendy, J. and Nicholas, A. (eds.), Marcel Mauss: A Centenary Tribute, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 134–150.Google Scholar
Silvestri, P. (2019), ‘The All Too Human Welfare State. Freedom Between Gift and Corruption’, Teoria e Critica della Regolazione Sociale, 19(2): 123–145. doi: 10.7413/19705476007Google Scholar
Skarbek, E. (2016), ‘Aid, Ethics, and the Samaritan's Dilemma: Strategic Courage in Constitutional Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(2): 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skarbek, D. (2020), ‘Qualitative Research Methods for Institutional Analysis’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 1–14. 10.1017/S174413741900078XGoogle Scholar
Taylor, K. and Goodman, N. P. (2019), ‘The Stakeholder-Empowering Philanthropy of Edward Filene’, Journal of Institutional Economics: 1–15, published online. doi: 10.1017/S1744137419000675.Google Scholar
Testart, A. (1998), ‘Uncertainties of the “Obligation to Reciprocate”: A Critique of Mauss’, in James, W. and Allen, N. J. (eds.), Marcel Mauss: A Centenary Tribute, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 97–110.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1970), The Gift Relationship. From Human Blood to Social Policy, London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2003), Handbook on Non-profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, Studies in Methods Series F., No. 91, New York 2003.Google Scholar
Valentinov, V., Hielscher, S. and Pies, I. (2015), ‘Nonprofit Organizations, Institutional Economics, and Systems Thinking’, Economic Systems, 39(3): 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, S. (2013), ‘How (Not) to Measure Institutions’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, A. (2000), ‘Rethinking Welfare Rights: Reciprocity Norms, Reactive Attitudes, and the Political Economy of Welfare Reform’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 63(1-2): 257–298Google Scholar
Zaloom, C. (2006), Out of the Pits – Traders and Technology From Chicago to London, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar