印第安纳作业代写:博兰尼

2017-03-29 12:48

博兰尼，经济领域所定义的经济学学科是基于混为一谈的两种不同的意思：“实体”和“形式”。“形式意义上的经济来源于逻辑性的手段-目的关系[…]指的是一个明确的情况下的选择”（博兰尼，1968：122），而在实体定义“这里的经济体现在的机构，使个体的选择产生相互依存的运动，构成了经济过程”（博兰尼，1968：125）。总之，正统经济学是基于正式的自由个人观念，制定合理的经济决策，从而创造持久的关系，而实质性的经济学观点所有经济体，无论作为礼品经济或基于市场交易，是嵌入在社会关系。托马斯对此表示同意：“[ ]交换始终是，在第一种情况下，一个政治过程，一个广泛表达的关系”（托马斯，1991：7）交换关系总是有区别的权力（托马斯，1991：22），由种族、阶级、性别和年龄。托马斯不会有我们抛弃区分礼物与商品完全（托马斯，1991：29），也许会更好，他们视为一个连续的点，每一个“理想”式的相对端但实际案例躺在两者之间居多；还必须承认两者的共存（托马斯，1991：33）。是否引进钱摧毁了土著的社会关系，通过引入价值的等值，作为物质存在，AV声称，是当代商品交易所创造的关系可能并不明显，但Maria Mies提醒我们，尽管如此，全球分工联系第三世界生产者第一世界的消费者在一个不对称的权力关系使谎言的市场交易应该无私。
印第安纳作业代写:博兰尼
For Polanyi, the economic sphere - as defined by the discipline of economics - is based on a conflation of two distinct meanings: the ‘substantive’ and ‘formal’. ‘The formal meaning of economic derives from the logical character of the means-ends relationship […] it refers to a definite situation of choice’ (Polanyi, 1968: 122), whereas in the substantive definition ‘the economy here is embodied in institutions that cause individual choices to give rise to interdependent movements that constitute the economic process’ (Polanyi, 1968: 125). In short, formal economics is based on the notion of formally free individuals, making rational economic decisions and which create no lasting ties, whereas substantive economics views all economies, whether regarded as gift economies or those based on the market transaction, as embedded in social relations. Thomas concurs: ‘[e]xchange is always, in the first instance, a political process, one in which wider relationships are expressed’ (Thomas, 1991: 7) for exchange relationships are always differentiated by power (Thomas, 1991: 22), by race, class, gender and age.Thomas would not have us abandon the distinction between gift and commodity entirely (Thomas, 1991: 29), perhaps it would be better to view them as points along a continuum, with each ‘ideal’ type at the opposing ends but the majority of actual cases lying somewhere in between; further it is necessary that we recognise the coexistence of both types (Thomas, 1991: 33). Whether or not the introduction of money destroyed indigenous social relations, by introducing the ‘equivalencies of value’, as the substant av ists claimed, the ties that are created by contemporary commodity exchange may be less evident, but Maria Mies reminds us that nonetheless the global division of labour links third world producers to first world consumers in an asymmetrical power relationship that makes a lie of the supposed disinterestedness of market transactions.

• 上一篇：印第安纳代写Essay:现实主义原则
• 下一篇：印第安纳代写Essay:跨国公司