Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 4 - Factishing a Market

  • from Part I - Market Designs and Market Misfires
  • Edited by Susi Geiger, University College Dublin, Katy Mason, Lancaster University, Neil Pollock, University of Edinburgh, Philip Roscoe, University of St Andrews, Scotland, Annmarie Ryan, University of Limerick, Stefan Schwarzkopf, Copenhagen Business School, Pascale Trompette, Université de Grenoble
  • Book:
    Market Studies
    Published online:
    22 November 2024
    Print publication:
    21 November 2024, pp 66-80

  • Summary

    This chapter contributes to understanding market design by examining the construction, mobilization, and contestation of facts and fetishes within an ongoing design process, introducing the notion of ‘factishing’ a market. The premise is that facts and fetishes are manufactured and interconnected, shaped by different market actors, and serve different purposes. This combination empowers multiple market actors to make market design work in practice and catalyses market innovation. This conceptualization draws on the empirical case of the Brazilian cancer pill, phosphoethanolamine. This substance was originally intended to ‘cure cancer’ and became the centre of a protracted conflict involving patients, researchers, a public university, physicians, courts, the regulatory agency, and legislators, intensely covered by national media outlets, culminating in the pill’s emergence in the market as a dietary supplement.