2006Socio-Economic ReviewRequires access

A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism

Chris Hann

Open publisher page 87 citations

Abstract

This review article shows that, both empirically and theoretically, socio-cultural anthropologists have much to contribute to interdisciplinary debates concerning property. The longest section presents results from recent investigations of decollectivization in the rural sectors of former socialist states. The generally disappointing outcomes of privatization can always be explained away in terms of ‘institutional’ shortcomings, but the real challenge is to devise more flexible property rules to deal with diverse goods and local environments. The rest of the paper notes some of the most salient anthropological contributions in a range of other fields, including intellectual property and ‘culture’. While some scholars reject the concept of property in non-Western contexts, recent work in legal anthropology has laid out a rigorous definition that facilitates comparative analysis and exposes the limitations of the currently dominant economistic approaches. ‘Propertization’ is continuously establishing new ‘fictitious commodities’, but it is argued here that some critics of neoliberalism exaggerate the nightmare of its property logic and overlook the countertendencies. In this respect the emerging debates over property recall earlier discussions over the emergence two centuries ago of an allegedly ‘disembedded’ market economy.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This review article shows that, both empirically and theoretically, socio-cultural anthropologists have much to contribute to interdisciplinary debates concerning property. The longest section presents results from recent investigations of decollectivization in the rural sectors of former socialist states. The generally disappointing outcomes of privatization can always be explained away in terms of ‘institutional’ shortcomings, but the real challenge is to devise more flexible property rules to deal with diverse goods and local environments. The rest of the paper notes some of the most salient anthropological contributions in a range of other fields, including intellectual property and ‘culture’. While some scholars reject the concept of property in non-Western contexts, recent work in legal anthropology has laid out a rigorous definition that facilitates comparative analysis and exposes the limitations of the currently dominant economistic approaches. ‘Propertization’ is continuously establishing new ‘fictitious commodities’, but it is argued here that some critics of neoliberalism exaggerate the nightmare of its property logic and overlook the countertendencies. In this respect the emerging debates over property recall earlier discussions over the emergence two centuries ago of an allegedly ‘disembedded’ market economy.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 87 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This review article shows that, both empirically and theoretically, socio-cultural anthropologists have much to contribute to interdisciplinary debates concerning property. The longest section presents results from recent investigations of decollectivization in the rural sectors of former socialist states. The generally disappointing outcomes of privatization can always be explained away in terms of ‘institutional’ shortcomings, but the real challenge is to devise more flexible property rules to deal with diverse goods and local environments. The rest of the paper notes some of the most salient anthropological contributions in a range of other fields, including intellectual property and ‘culture’. While some scholars reject the concept of property in non-Western contexts, recent work in legal anthropology has laid out a rigorous definition that facilitates comparative analysis and exposes the limitations of the currently dominant economistic approaches. ‘Propertization’ is continuously establishing new ‘fictitious commodities’, but it is argued here that some critics of neoliberalism exaggerate the nightmare of its property logic and overlook the countertendencies. In this respect the emerging debates over property recall earlier discussions over the emergence two centuries ago of an allegedly ‘disembedded’ market economy.

Key concepts: Neoliberalism (international relations), Property (philosophy), Sociology, Capitalism, Political economy, Salient, Law and economics, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism — Research Paper | ScholarLens