James M. Acheson, “New Directions in Economic Anthropology? A Comment on Kunkel,” American Anthropologist 78, no. 2 (Jun. 1976), 331-335.
Notes
- 331 – “Underlying my work on Cuanajo is the axiom that economics and economic anthropology is the study of decision making under constraints.”
- “For Kunkel, the critical unit to understand is the individual and the decisions he makes. Kunkel asserts that the individual makes decisions on the basis of ‘anticipated outcomes,’ which are affected by myriad social, cultural, economic, and psychological factors. When the ‘anticipated outcome’ of establishing new businesses or of expanding established businesses is high, then people will take these options; when they are low, individuals will continue their traditional activities. (These concepts do not form the theoretical backbone of Kunkel’s major work on social and economic change).”
- 332 – “Kunkel is not merely trying to bridge the gap between Foster and me by saying that Foster is describing the conditions that will inhibit socioeconomic change in peasant communities, while I am describing the conditions under which they will change. He is also saying that in communities where there are many social and cultural factors sanctioning innovators or entrepreneurs, etc., the emphasis must be on the kinds of factors Foster is talking about. These are the factors really influencing ‘anticipated outcomes.’ Economic factors will be of paramount importance when the social and cultural structures are loose enough so that new economic activities are possible. In these cases the factors I have spoken of will be of primary importance.”
- “In my own defense, I must add that I really do not think there are many areas of the world where ethos or cognitive orientation alone (e.g., limited good) will inhibit responsiveness to opportunities if they actually exist.”
- “In stressing the individuals’ making decisions in terms of ‘anticipated outcomes,’ Kunkel is not so much suggesting something completely new as he is bringing out the axioms that underlie a great deal of work in economics and economic anthropology.”
- 332-333 – “Most economists and economic anthropologists assume that men will choose the options which give them the highest anticipated benefits relative to costs. However, economics and economic anthropologists have focused on the conditions and factors external to the individual which can be manipulated or changed to make him alter his decisions. Kunkel is calling attention to the psychological aspects of the process. For Kunkel, the critical question concerns the individual, his perceptions, and what goes on in his head. It is not that he ignores such matters as costs, interest rates, etc., but rather that he assumes that the individuals will take these factors into account, along with many more subjective factors, in arriving at ‘anticipated outcomes.’”
- 333 – “. . . [T]here are sound reasons for treating them [economic and sociocultural variables] separately — namely, that economic variables have very different characteristics from social variables. Economic variables are sets of performances which can only be described quantitatively. Such things as prices and costs can change very rapidly. Sociocultural variables are far more stable sets of symbols and expectations which can ordinarily be quantified only indirectly, and usually with some difficulty. When econometricians are modeling economic and social variables together, it is no accident that the social variables are usually expressed as constants in the equation.”
- What does it mean that econometricians craft equations with sociocultural factors as constants, derived from their presumed stability?
- 334 – “Economists often write as if the only things that really matter in motivating people are material rewards. They know this is not true, and they pay lip service to ‘money illusion,’ etc., but more often than not they act as if man is nothing as much as bribeable. This is a naive view of human motivation (although it must be admitted that by narrowing the scope of interest, economists have been able to develop a very good set of tools for describing decisions regarding production). Moreover, peasants take a great deal into account besides income in making decisions. The literature is filled with examples where income or material goods are ‘traded off’ for prestige or power, or to fulfill social obligations. However, there are major methodological problems in analyzing such trade offs and their relationship to ‘opportunities.’”
- This awareness that people are motivated by more than material incentives is important. More telling, though, is the acknowledgement that ignoring non-material human motives helps develop economic heuristics to understand decision-making vis-a-vis innovation
