Gift economy
Part of a series on |
Economic, applied, and development anthropology |
---|
Social and cultural anthropology |
Part of a series on |
Anti-consumerism |
---|
A gift economy or gift culture is a system of exchange where
The nature of gift economies is the subject of a foundational debate in anthropology. Anthropological research into gift economies began with Bronisław Malinowski's description of the Kula ring[3] in the Trobriand Islands during World War I.[4] The Kula trade appeared to be gift-like since Trobrianders would travel great distances over dangerous seas to give what were considered valuable objects without any guarantee of a return. Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and presentation to distinguish between the different forms of exchange.[5][6]
According to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, it is the unsettled relationship between market and non-market exchange that attracts the most attention. Some authors argue that gift economies build community,[7] while markets harm community relationships.[8]
Gift exchange is distinguished from other forms of exchange by a number of principles, such as the form of property rights governing the articles exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct "sphere of exchange" that can be characterized as an "economic system"; and the character of the social relationship that the gift exchange establishes. Gift ideology in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of non-market societies. Gift economies also differ from related phenomena, such as
Principles of gift exchange
According to anthropologist Jonathan Parry, discussion on the nature of gifts, and of a separate sphere of gift exchange that would constitute an economic system, has been plagued by the
Property and alienability
Gift-giving is a form of transfer of property rights over particular objects. The nature of those property rights varies from society to society, from culture to culture. They are not universal. The nature of gift-giving is thus altered by the type of property regime in place.[12]
Property is not a thing, but a relationship amongst people about things.
In the example used above, copyright is one of those bundled rights that regulate the use and disposition of a book. Gift-giving in many societies is complicated because private property owned by an individual may be quite limited in scope (see § The commons below).[12] Productive resources, such as land, may be held by members of a corporate group (such as a lineage), but only some members of that group may have use rights. When many people hold rights over the same objects, gifting has very different implications than the gifting of private property; only some of the rights in that object may be transferred, leaving that object still tied to its corporate owners. As such, these types of objects are inalienable possessions, simultaneously kept while given.[6]
Gift versus prestation
Malinowski's study of the
In contrast, Mauss emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectives. These gifts were a total prestation, a service provided out of obligation, like community service.[22] They were not alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like crown jewels, embodied the reputation, history and identity of a "corporate kin group", such as a line of kings. Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His answer was an enigmatic concept, the spirit of the gift. Parry believes that much of the confusion (and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation. Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to maintain the relationship between givers; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of any future gifts.
Both Malinowski and Mauss agreed that in non-market societies, where there was no clear institutionalized economic exchange system, gift/prestation exchange served economic, kinship, religious and political functions that could not be clearly distinguished from each other, and which mutually influenced the nature of the practice.[21]
Inalienable possessions
The concept of total prestations was further developed by Annette Weiner, who revisited Malinowski's fieldsite in the Trobriand Islands. Her critique was twofold. First, Trobriand Island society is matrilineal, and women hold much economic and political power, but their exchanges were ignored by Malinowski. Secondly, she developed Mauss' argument about reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift" in terms of "inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping while giving".[6] Weiner contrasted moveable goods, which can be exchanged, with immoveable goods that serve to draw the gifts back (in the Trobriand case, male Kula gifts with women's landed property). The goods given on the islands are so linked to particular groups that even when given away, they are not truly alienated. Such goods depend on the existence of particular kinds of kinship groups in society.
French anthropologist Maurice Godelier
Reciprocity and the spirit of the gift
Chris Gregory argued that reciprocity is a dyadic exchange relationship that we characterize, imprecisely, as gift-giving. Gregory argued that one gives gifts to friends and potential enemies in order to establish a relationship, by placing them in debt. He also claimed that in order for such a relationship to persist, there must be a time lag between the gift and counter-gift; one or the other partner must always be in debt. Marshall Sahlins gave birthday gifts as an example. They are separated in time so that one partner feels the obligation to make a return gift. To forget the return gift may be enough to end the relationship. Gregory stated that without a relationship of debt, there is no reciprocity, and that this is what distinguishes a gift economy from a true gift, given with no expectation of return (something Sahlins generalised reciprocity; see below).[25]
Marshall Sahlins, an American cultural anthropologist, identified three main types of reciprocity in his book Stone Age Economics (1972). Gift or generalized reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services without keeping track of their exact value, but often with the expectation that their value will balance out over time. Balanced or Symmetrical reciprocity occurs when someone gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return at a specified amount, time, and place. Market or negative reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services where each party intends to profit from the exchange, often at the expense of the other. Gift economies, or generalized reciprocity, occurred within closely knit kin groups, and the more distant the exchange partner, the more balanced or negative the exchange became.[26]
Charity, debt, and the "poison of the gift"
Jonathan Parry argued that ideologies of the "pure gift" are most likely to arise only in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from the non-market "prestations" discussed above.[10] Parry also underscored, using the example of charitable giving of alms in India (Dāna), that the "pure gift" of alms given with no expectation of return could be "poisonous". That is, the gift of alms embodying the sins of the giver, when given to ritually pure priests, saddled these priests with impurities of which they could not cleanse themselves. "Pure gifts", given without a return, can place recipients in debt, and hence in dependent status: the poison of the gift.[27] David Graeber points out that no reciprocity is expected between unequals: if you make a gift of a dollar to a beggar, he will not give it back the next time you meet. More than likely, he will ask for more, to the detriment of his status.[28] Many who are forced by circumstances to accept charity feel stigmatized. In the Moka exchange system of Papua New Guinea, where gift givers become political "big men", those who are in their debt and unable to repay with "interest" are referred to as "rubbish men".
The French writer Georges Bataille, in La part Maudite, uses Mauss's argument in order to construct a theory of economy: the structure of gift is the presupposition for all possible economy. Bataille is particularly interested in the potlatch as described by Mauss, and claims that its agonistic character obliges the receiver to confirm their own subjection. Thus gifting embodies the Hegelian dipole of master and slave within the act.
Spheres of exchange and "economic systems"
Part of a series on |
Economic systems |
---|
Major types
|
|
The relationship of new market exchange systems to indigenous non-market exchange remained a perplexing question for anthropologists. Paul Bohannan argued that the Tiv of Nigeria had three spheres of exchange, and that only certain kinds of goods could be exchanged in each sphere; each sphere had its own form of special-purpose money. However, the market and universal money allowed goods to be traded between spheres and thus damaged established social relationships.[29] Jonathan Parry and Maurice Bloch argued in "Money and the Morality of Exchange" (1989), that the "transactional order" through which long-term social reproduction of the family occurs has to be preserved as separate from short-term market relations.[30] It is the long-term social reproduction of the family that is sacralized by religious rituals such baptisms, weddings and funerals, and characterized by gifting.
In such situations where gift-giving and market exchange were intersecting for the first time, some anthropologists contrasted them as polar opposites. This opposition was classically expressed by Chris Gregory in his book "Gifts and Commodities" (1982). Gregory argued that:
Commodity exchange is an exchange of alienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal independence that establishes a quantitative relationship between the objects exchanged ... Gift exchange is an exchange of inalienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal dependence that establishes a qualitative relationship between the transactors (emphasis added).[31]
Gregory contrasts gift and commodity exchange according to five criteria:[32]
Commodity exchange | Gift exchange |
---|---|
immediate exchange | delayed exchange |
alienable goods | inalienable goods |
actors independent | actors dependent |
quantitative relationship | qualitative relationship |
between objects | between people |
But other anthropologists refused to see these different "exchange spheres" as such polar opposites. Marilyn Strathern, writing on a similar area in Papua New Guinea, dismissed the utility of the contrasting setup in "The Gender of the Gift" (1988).[33]
Rather than emphasize how particular kinds of objects are either gifts or commodities to be traded in restricted spheres of exchange, Arjun Appadurai and others began to look at how objects flowed between these spheres of exchange (i.e. how objects can be converted into gifts and then back into commodities). They refocussed attention away from the character of the human relationships formed through exchange, and placed it on "the social life of things" instead. They examined the strategies by which an object could be "singularized" (made unique, special, one-of-a-kind) and so withdrawn from the market. A marriage ceremony that transforms a purchased ring into an irreplaceable family heirloom is one example; the heirloom, in turn, makes a perfect gift. Singularization is the reverse of the seemingly irresistible process of commodification. They thus show how all economies are a constant flow of material objects that enter and leave specific exchange spheres. A similar approach is taken by Nicholas Thomas, who examines the same range of cultures and the anthropologists who write on them, and redirects attention to the "entangled objects" and their roles as both gifts and commodities.[34]
Proscriptions
Many societies have strong prohibitions against turning gifts into trade or capital goods. Anthropologist Wendy James writes that among the Uduk people of northeast Africa there is a strong custom that any gift that crosses subclan boundaries must be consumed rather than invested.[35]: 4 For example, an animal given as a gift must be eaten, not bred. However, as in the example of the Trobriand armbands and necklaces, this "perishing" may not consist of consumption as such, but of the gift moving on. In other societies, it is a matter of giving some other gift, either directly in return or to another party. To keep the gift and not give another in exchange is reprehensible. "In folk tales," Lewis Hyde remarks, "the person who tries to hold onto a gift usually dies."[35]: 5
Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied the small Pirahã tribe of hunter-gatherers in Brazil,[36] reported that, while they are aware of food preservation using drying, salting, and so forth, they reserve their use for items bartered outside the tribe. Within the group, when someone has a successful hunt they immediately share the abundance by inviting others to enjoy a feast. Asked about this practice, one hunter laughed and replied, "I store meat in the belly of my brother."[37][38]
Carol Stack's All Our Kin describes both the positive and negative sides of a network of obligation and gratitude effectively constituting a gift economy. Her narrative of The Flats, a poor Chicago neighborhood, tells in passing the story of two sisters who each came into a small inheritance. One sister hoarded the inheritance and prospered materially for some time, but was alienated from the community. Her marriage broke up, and she integrated herself back into the community largely by giving gifts. The other sister fulfilled the community's expectations, but within six weeks had nothing material to show for the inheritance but a coat and a pair of shoes.[35]: 75–76
Case studies: prestations
Marcel Mauss was careful to distinguish "gift economies" (reciprocity) in market societies from the "total prestations" given in non-market societies. A prestation is a service provided out of obligation, like "community service".[22] These "prestations" bring together domains across political, religious, legal, moral and economic definitions, such that the exchange can be seen to be embedded in non-economic social institutions. These prestations are often competitive, as in the potlatch, Kula exchange, and Moka exchange.[39]
Moka exchange in Papua New Guinea: competitive exchange
The Moka is a highly ritualized system of exchange in the Mount Hagen area of Papua New Guinea, that has become emblematic of the anthropological concepts of a "gift economy" and of a "big man" political system. Moka are reciprocal gifts that raise the social status of the giver if the gift is larger than one that the giver received. Moka refers specifically to the increment in the size of the gift.[40] The gifts are of a limited range of goods, primarily pigs and scarce pearl shells from the coast. To return the same value as one has received in a moka is simply to repay a debt, strict reciprocity. Moka is the extra. To some, this represents interest on an investment. However, one is not bound to provide moka, only to repay the debt. One adds moka to the gift to increase one's prestige, and to place the receiver in debt. It is this constant renewal of the debt relationship which keeps the relationship alive; a debt fully paid off ends further interaction. Giving more than one receives establishes a reputation as a Big man, whereas the simple repayment of debt, or failure to fully repay, pushes one's reputation towards the other end of the scale, "rubbish man".[41] Gift exchange thus has a political effect; granting prestige or status to one, and a sense of debt in the other. A political system can be built out of these kinds of status relationships. Sahlins characterizes the difference between status and rank by highlighting that Big man is not a role; it is a status that is shared by many. The Big man is "not a prince of men", but a "prince among men". The "big man" system is based on the ability to persuade, rather than command.[42]
Toraja funerals: the politics of meat distribution
The
Toraja funeral rites are important social events, usually attended by hundreds of people and lasting several days. The funerals are like "big men" competitions where all the descendants of a tongkonan compete through gifts of sacrificial cattle. Participants have invested cattle with others over the years, and draw on those extended networks to make the largest gift. The winner of the competition becomes the new owner of the tongkonan and its rice lands. They display all the cattle horns from their winning sacrifice on a pole in front of the tongkonan.[44]
The Toraja funeral differs from the "big man" system in that the winner of the "gift" exchange gains control of the Tongkonan's property. It creates a clear social hierarchy between the noble owners of the tongkonan and its land, and the commoners who are forced to rent their fields from him. Since the owners of the tongkonan gain rent, they are better able to compete in the funeral gift exchanges, and their social rank is more stable than the "big man" system.[44]
Charity and alms giving
Anthropologist David Graeber argued that the great world religious traditions of charity and gift giving emerged almost simultaneously during the Axial Age (800 to 200 BCE), when coinage was invented and market economies were established on a continental basis. Graeber argues that these charity traditions emerged as a reaction against the nexus formed by coinage, slavery, military violence and the market (a "military-coinage" complex). The new world religions, including Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, and Islam all sought to preserve "human economies" where money served to cement social relationships rather than purchase things (including people).[45]
Charity and alms-giving are religiously sanctioned voluntary gifts given without expectation of return. However, case studies show that such gifting is not necessarily altruistic.[46]
Merit making in Buddhist Thailand
Charity: Dana in India
Dāna is a form of religious charity given in Hindu India. The gift is said to embody the sins of the giver (the "poison of the gift"), whom it frees of evil by transmitting it to the recipient. The merit of the gift depends on finding a worthy recipient such as a Brahmin priest. Priests are supposed to be able to digest the sin through ritual action and transmit the gift with increment to someone of greater worth. It is imperative that this be a true gift, with no reciprocity, or the evil will return. The gift is not intended to create any relationship between donor and recipient, and there should never be a return gift. Dana thus transgresses the so-called universal "norm of reciprocity".[10]
The Children of Peace in Canada
The Children of Peace (1812–1889) were a utopian Quaker sect. Today, they are primarily remembered for the Sharon Temple, a national historic site and an architectural symbol of their vision of a society based on the values of peace, equality and social justice. They built this ornate temple to raise money for the poor, and built the province of Ontario's first shelter for the homeless. They took a lead role in organizing the province's first co-operative, the Farmers' Storehouse, and opened the province's first credit union. The group soon found that the charity they tried to distribute from their Temple fund endangered the poor. Accepting charity was a sign of indebtedness, and the debtor could be jailed without trial at the time; this was the "poison of the gift". They thus transformed their charity fund into a credit union that loaned small sums like today's micro-credit institutions. This is an example of singularization, as money was transformed into charity in the Temple ceremony, then shifted to an alternative exchange sphere as a loan. Interest on the loan was then singularized, and transformed back into charity.[49]
Gifting as non-commodified exchange in market societies
Non-commodified spheres of exchange exist in relation to the market economy. They are created through the processes of singularization as specific objects are de-commodified for a variety of reasons and enter an alternative exchange sphere. It may be in opposition to the market and to its perceived greed. It may also be used by corporations as a means of creating a sense of endebtedness and loyalty in customers. Modern marketing techniques often aim at infusing commodity exchange with features of gift exchange, thus blurring the presumably sharp distinction between gifts and commodities.[50]
Organ transplant networks, sperm and blood banks
Market economies tend to "reduce everything – including human beings, their labor, and their reproductive capacity – to the status of commodities".
Unlike body organs, blood and semen have been successfully and legally commodified in the United States. Blood and semen can thus be commodified, but once consumed are "the gift of life". Although both can be either donated or sold, are perceived as the "gift of life" yet are stored in "banks", and can be collected only under strict government regulated procedures, recipients very clearly prefer altruistically donated semen and blood. The blood and semen samples with the highest market value are those that have been altruistically donated. The recipients view semen as storing the potential characteristics of their unborn child in its DNA, and value altruism over greed.[55] Similarly, gifted blood is the archetype of a pure gift relationship because the donor is only motivated by a desire to help others.[56][57]
Copyleft vs copyright: the gift of "free" speech
Engineers, scientists and software developers have created
Points and loyalty programs
Many retail organizations have "gift" programs meant to encourage customer loyalty to their establishments. Bird-David and Darr refer to these as hybrid "mass-gifts" which are neither gift nor commodity. They are called mass-gifts because they are given away in large numbers "free with purchase" in a mass-consumption environment. They give as an example two bars of soap in which one is given free with purchase: which is the commodity and which the gift? The mass-gift both affirms the distinct difference between gift and commodity while confusing it at the same time. As with gifting, mass-gifts are used to create a social relationship. Some customers embrace the relationship and gift whereas others reject the gift relationship and interpret the "gift" as a 50% off sale.[58]
Free shops
"
Burning Man
Burning Man is a week-long annual art and community event held in the Black Rock Desert in northern Nevada, in the United States. The event is described as an experiment in community, radical self-expression, and radical self-reliance. The event forbids commerce (except for ice, coffee, and tickets to the event itself)[63] and encourages gifting.[64] Gifting is one of the 10 guiding principles,[65] as participants to Burning Man (both the desert festival and the year-round global community) are encouraged to rely on a gift economy. The practice of gifting at Burning Man is also documented by the 2002 documentary film Gifting It: A Burning Embrace of Gift Economy,[66] as well as by Making Contact's radio show "How We Survive: The Currency of Giving [encore]".[64]
Cannabis market in the District of Columbia and U.S. states
According to the Associated Press, "Gift-giving has long been a part of marijuana culture" and has accompanied legalization in U.S. states in the 2010s.
Related concepts
Part of a series on |
Anarchist communism |
---|
Mutual aid
Many anarchists, particularly
As an intellectual abstraction, mutual aid was developed and advanced by
Moral economy
English historian
The commons
Some may confuse common property regimes with gift exchange systems. The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately.[80] The resources held in common can include everything from natural resources and common land to software.[81] The commons contains public property and private property, over which people have certain traditional rights. When commonly held property is transformed into private property this process is called "enclosure" or "privatization". A person who has a right in, or over, common land jointly with another or others is called a commoner.[82]
There are a number of important aspects that can be used to describe true commons. The first is that the commons cannot be
New intellectual commons: free content
Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work,
- To use the content and benefit from using it,
- To study the content and apply what is learned,
- To make and distribute copies of the content,
- To change and improve the content and distribute these derivative works.[85][86]
Although different definitions are used, free content is legally similar if not identical to
Although a work which is in the public domain because its copyright has expired is considered free, it can become non-free again if the copyright law changes.[88]
Information is particularly suited to gift economies, as information is a
In fact, there is often an advantage to using the same software or data formats as others, so even from a selfish perspective, it can be advantageous to give away one's information.Filesharing
Markus Giesler, in his ethnography Consumer Gift System, described music downloading as a system of social solidarity based on gift transactions.[91] As Internet access spread, file sharing became extremely popular among users who could contribute and receive files on line. This form of gift economy was a model for online services such as Napster, which focused on music sharing and was later sued for copyright infringement. Nonetheless, online file sharing persists in various forms such as BitTorrent and direct download link. A number of communications and intellectual property experts such as Henry Jenkins and Lawrence Lessig have described file-sharing as a form of gift exchange which provides many benefits to artists and consumers alike. They have argued that file sharing fosters community among distributors and allows for a more equitable distribution of media.
Free and open-source software
In his essay "
Members of the Linux community often speak of their community as a gift economy.[95] The IT research firm IDC valued the Linux kernel at US$18 billion in 2007 and projected its value at US$40 billion in 2010.[96] The Debian distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system offers over 37,000 free open-source software packages via their AMD64 repositories alone.[97]
Collaborative works
Collaborative works are works created by an open community. For example, Wikipedia – a free online encyclopedia – features millions of articles developed collaboratively, and almost none of its many authors and editors receive any direct material reward.[98][99]
See also
- Anarchist economics
- Basic income
- Brownie points
- Calculation in kind
- Digital currency
- Eidi (gift)
- Egoboo
- Food swap
- Free education
- Giving circles
- Gratitude trap
- History of money
- Homestay – CouchSurfing
- Knowledge market
- Natural economy
- Pay it forward
- Post-scarcity economy
- Primitive communism
- Red envelope
- Round of drinks
- Solidarity economy
- World currency
- Sharing economy
Notes
- ISBN 0415006414. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
- ^ R. Kranton: Reciprocal exchange: a self-sustaining system, American Economic Review, V. 86 (1996), Issue 4 (September), pp. 830–851
- ^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Keesing, Roger; Strathern, Andrew (1988). Cultural Anthropology. A Contemporary Perspective. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace and Company. p. 165.
- ^ a b c Mauss, Marcel (1970). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & West.
- ^ a b c d e Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-while-Giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- ^ Bollier, David. "The Stubborn Vitality of the Gift Economy." Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. First Printing ed. New York: Routledge, 2002. 38–39[ISBN missing].
- ^ J. Parry, M. Bloch (1989). "Introduction" in Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 8–12.
- S2CID 152071807.
- ^ S2CID 152071807.
- ^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. pp. 6–9.
- ^ a b c Hann, C.M. (1998). Property Relations: Renewing the Anthropological Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 4.
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- ^ Chris Hann, Keith Hart (2011). Economic Anthropology: History, Ethnography, Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 158.
- ^ Strangelove, Michael (2005). The Empire of Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-Capitalist Movement. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 92–96.
- ^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1984) [1922]. Argonauts of the Western Pacific : an account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press.
- ^ S2CID 152071807.
- ^ a b Hann, Chris, Hart, Keith (2011). Economic Anthropology: History, Ethnography, Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 50.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- S2CID 128968473.
- ^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. pp. 189–194.
- ISBN 0202010996.
- S2CID 152071807.
- ^ Graeber, David (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The false coin of our own dreams. New York: Palgrave. p. 225.
- S2CID 154892567.
- ^ Parry, Jonathan; Maurice Bloch (1989). Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 28–30.
- ^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. pp. 100–101.
- ^ "Gifts and Commodities | Chapter III: Gifts and commodities: Circulation". haubooks.org. Retrieved 2016-12-21.
- ^ Strathern, Marilyn (1988). The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 143–147.
- ^ Thomas, Nicholas (1991). Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- ^ a b c Lewis Hyde: The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property, pg. 18
- S2CID 2223235.
- ^ Curren, Erik (2012). "Charles Eisenstein wants to devalue your money to save the economy". Transition Voice. Retrieved 9 February 2013.
- ISBN 978-0977622207. Archived from the originalon 2013-02-07. Retrieved 9 February 2013.
- ^ Graeber, David (2001). "Marcel Mauss Revisited". Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value. Basingstoke: Palgrave. p. 153.
- ^ Gregory, C.A. (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. p. 53.
- ^ Gregory, C.A. (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. pp. 53–54.
- S2CID 145254059.
- ^ "Tana Toraja official website" (in Indonesian). Archived from the original on May 29, 2006. Retrieved 2006-10-04.
- ^ S2CID 128968473.
- ISBN 978-1933633862.
- .
- .
- .
- ^ Schrauwers, Albert (2009). 'Union is Strength': W.L. Mackenzie, The Children of Peace and the Emergence of Joint Stock Democracy in Upper Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 97–124.
- ^ Rus, Andrej (2008)."'Gift vs. commoditiy' debate revisited". Anthropological Notebooks 14 (1): 81–102.
- ^ "Organs For Sale: China's Growing Trade and Ultimate Violation of Prisoners' Rights". June 27, 2001. Retrieved February 12, 2019.
- S2CID 23897844.
- ^ S2CID 23897844.
- PMID 15977341.
- S2CID 145687310.
- ^ Titmuss, Richard (1997). The Gift Relationship: From human blood to social policy. New York: The New Press.
- ^ Silvestri P., “The All too Human Welfare State. Freedom Between Gift and Corruption”, Teoria e critica della regolazione sociale, 2/2019, pp. 123–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7413/19705476007
- S2CID 143729708.
- ISBN 978-1566399760. Retrieved 28 December 2011.
- ISBN 978-0190291846.
- ^ "Overview: who were (are) the Diggers?". The Digger Archives. Retrieved 2007-06-17.
- ^ Gail Dolgin; Vicente Franco (2007). American Experience: The Summer of Love. PBS. Archived from the original on 2017-03-25. Retrieved 2007-04-23.
- ^ "What is Burning Man? FAQ – Preparation" Retrieved 10/5/11
- ^ a b "How We Survive: The Currency of Giving (Encore)" Making Contact, produced by National Radio Project. December 21, 2010.
- ^ "The 10 Principles of Burning Man". Burning Man. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
- ^ Gifting It: A Burning Embrace of Gift Economy, retrieved 2019-05-02
- ^ a b Joy to the weed! Marijuana legalization comes bearing gifts, Associated Press, December 21, 2017 – via The Seattle Times
- ^ Barro, Josh (20 March 2015). "Can Washington's Gift Economy in Marijuana Work?". The New York Times.
- ^ "The Rolling State to Legal Pot: Washington, D.C." Rolling Stone. 2018-04-25. Retrieved 2018-06-19.
- ^ Ab Hanna (September 29, 2017), "Will Vermont Be the Next State to Legalize Marijuana?", High Times,
The current Vermont bill does not allow for the retail sale of cannabis. So if it goes forward with a legal market, it would be similar to that of District of Columbia.
- ^ Tuttle, Brad (June 29, 2015). "Oregon Is Celebrating Marijuana Legalization With Free Weed". Time. Archived from the original on January 21, 2022. Retrieved July 2, 2015.
- ^ Joshua Miller (December 14, 2016), "It's official: Marijuana is legal in Massachusetts", Boston Globe,
Giving away up to an ounce of the drug without remuneration or public advertisement is OK. "Gifting" pot and then receiving payment later, or reciprocal "gifts" of pot and items of value: illegal.
- ^ Hilary Bricken (December 23, 2017), "What are California's cannabis laws?", Green State (blog)
- ISBN 0875580246. Project Gutenberg e-text, Project LibriVox audiobook
- ^ [Augustin Souchy, "A Journey Through Aragon," in Sam Dolgoff (ed.), The Anarchist Collectives, ch. 10]
- ISBN 0889204365.
- ISBN 978-1565840034.
- ISBN 978-1565840034.
- ^ Scott, James C. (1976). The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- ^ Bollier, David (2002). "Reclaiming the commons". Boston Review. Archived from the original on 2010-06-13.
- ^ Berry, David (21 February 2005). "The commons". Free Software Magazine. Archived from the original on 15 December 2009.
- ^ Anon. "Commoner". Farlex Inc. Retrieved 20 April 2012.
- ISBN 978-1576753613.
- ^ "Definition of Free Cultural Works". freedomdefined.org. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
- ^ "Definition of Free Cultural Works". Retrieved 8 December 2011.
- ^ Stallman, Richard (November 13, 2008). "Free Software and Free Manuals". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved March 22, 2009.
- ^ Stallman, Richard. "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software". Free Software Foundation.
- ^ Anderson, Nate (July 16, 2008). "EU caves to aging rockers, wants 45-year copyright extension". Ars Technica. Retrieved August 8, 2008.
- ^ Mackaay, Ejan (1990). "Economic Incentives in Markets for Information and Innovation". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 13 (909): 867–910.
- ^ Heylighen, Francis (2007). "Why is Open Access Development so Successful?". In B. Lutterbeck; M. Barwolff; R. A. Gehring (eds.). Open Source Jahrbuch. Lehmanns Media.
- ^ Markus Giesler, Consumer Gift Systems
- ^ "Homesteading the Noosphere". catb.org. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
- ^ Suehle, Ruth. "An anthropologist's view of an open source community". opensource.com. Archived from the original on 15 March 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
- ^ "Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study". International Institute of Infonomics, University of Maastricht and Berlecon Research GmbH. 2002. Archived from the original on 21 August 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
- ^ Matzan, Jem (5 June 2004). "The gift economy and free software". Archived from the original on 12 July 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2012.
- ^ "IDC Linux Ecosystem Worth $40 Billion by 2010". Archived from the original on 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
- ^ "Chapter 2. Debian package management". www.debian.org. Retrieved 2019-05-09.
- ^ D. Anthony, S. W. Smith, and T. Williamson, "Explaining quality in internet collective goods: zealots and good samaritans in the case of Wikipedia", THanover : Dartmouth College, Technical Report, November 2005.
- ^ Anthony, Denise; Smith, Sean W.; Williamson, Tim (April 2007), "The Quality of Open Source Production: Zealots and Good Samaritans in the Case of Wikipedia" (PDF), Technical Report TR2007-606, Dartmouth College, archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-06-06, retrieved 2011-05-29
Further reading
The concept of a gift economy has played a large role in works of fiction about alternative societies, especially in works of science fiction. Examples include:
- News from Nowhere (1890) by William Morris is a utopian novel about a society which operates on a gift economy.
- Gandhianpacifist society that operates as a gift economy.
- The Dispossessed (1974) by Ursula K. Le Guin is a novel about a gift economy society that had exiled themselves from their (capitalist) home planet.
- The Mars trilogy, a series of books written by Kim Stanley Robinson in the 1990s, suggests that new human societies that develop away from Earth could migrate toward a gift economy.
- The movie Pay It Forward (2000) centers on a schoolboy who, for a school project, comes up with the idea of doing a good deed for another and then asking the recipient to "pay it forward". Although the phrase "gift economy" is never explicitly mentioned, the scheme would, in effect, create one.
- whuffie) economic system.
- Wizard's Holiday (2003) by Diane Duane describes two young wizards visiting a utopian-like planet whose economy is based on gift-giving and mutual support.
- Voyage from Yesteryear (1982) by James P. Hogan describes a society of the embryo colonists of Alpha Centauri who have a post-scarcity gift economy.
- Cradle of Saturn (1999) and its sequel The Anguished Dawn (2003) by James P. Hogan describe a colonization effort on Saturn's largest satellite. Both describe the challenges involved in adopting a new economic paradigm.
- Science fiction author Bruce Sterling wrote a story, Maneki-neko, in which the cat-paw gesture is the sign of a secret AI-based gift economy.