==================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
Michael Perelman wrote: 
 
>I never questioned that markets existed. Nor did Polanyi. The question 
>would be the degree to which market forces exerted control over 
>ordinary people. 
 
I know that we do not argue about the existence of markets in ancient 
times. My point was that (a) I do not think that determining the 'degree 
to which market forces exerted control over people' is a question of 
'counting markets' (David Feldman additionally has argued that also the 
ratio of cash transactions to non-cash transactions is not a measurement 
of the importance of the market) and (b) that I do believe that market 
forces were a dominant factor in ancient times. Regarding (a) Firstly, I 
mentioned the empirical problem of market definition. Secondly, towards 
the argument that one can rent wombs or buy human organs nowadays one 
could say that there were several markets in ancient times that do not 
exist anymore: you could not buy human organs but human beings on slave 
markets; most of the ancient soldiers were rented; there was a market for 
prisoners of war etc. Markets are just one of many systems of allocation 
and in every society there are at the same time different 
allocation-systems at work.   
 
What I doubt is the assumption that there is a linear process of growing 
market-importance, advancing from 'pre-capitalist' to 'capitalist 
society'. Polanyi's (Transformation 1944, 63-64) concept of a socially 
'embedded' economy is (for some questions) important but I agree with 
Paul Courtney that this also is true for modern economies. Markets have 
many dimensions, the 'text book' market is an analytical tool to answer 
specific questions, not a historical factum. Ana Maria Bianchi's 
interesting remark that a trained sociologist tends to see 
discontinuities where economists see continuous lines might have to do 
with the specific questions those two groups usually deal.   
 
Regarding (b): My main argument still is that I find the fact that in 
almost every civilization legal history begins with regulation of market 
results is a strong argument for the importance of market forces in 
ancient times. It also is interesting to see that already Aristotle 
(Politics 1258b1ff.) regarded the growing importance of 'market economy' 
as a new phenomenon. Interesting is also Jack Goldstone's comment that 
what Polanyi really was focusing on was only the role of markets for 
labor. Michael Gibbons remark about the novelty of Adam Smith's insight 
about market efficiency is an interesting and debatable question but a 
total different story.  
 
It just seems to me that because of the authority of Polanyi and Finley 
the role that markets played in ancient times is heavily underestimated 
by many modern scholars (similar to the effect that  Schumpeter's 
authority regarding the 'Great Gap-Thesis' had for a long time). A lot of 
textual evidence in ancient sources and most of the works of modern 
historians point into a different direction. Regarding Polanyi's concept 
Edward Cohen writes (Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective, 
Princeton: Princeton UP, 1992, p.4): "<italic>Fourth-century Athens was 
very different. The Athenians functioned through a market process in 
which unrelated individuals ... sought monetary profit through commercial 
exchange</italic>". Marvin Powell - regarding a much earlier time - comes 
to the conclusion (Sumerian Merchants and the Problem of Profit, in: Iraq 
39, 1977 p.42): "<italic>This is not to suggest that market economy 
dominated third or second millennium Mesopotamian economic processes, but 
there is sufficient reason to believe that it was a significant factor in 
the total economic picture.</italic>" Morris Silver (Prophets and 
Markets: The Political Economy of Ancient Israel, 1983, p.255) regarding 
the Polanyi-theses ends his book with the remark: "S<italic>urely, the 
time has come to put aside once and for all the view that references in 
the Near Eastern sources to prices, buying, selling, and the like are 
only the legal fictions of exotic administrative economies monopolized by 
temple or palace. Moreover, it is incorrect to characterize ancient Near 
Eastern societies as economically unprogressive ..... The antimarket 
mentality, however, seems to be impervious to evidence, and I have 
therefore resigned myself to being accused of an anachronistic approach 
as well as an uncritical acceptance of the entrepreneurial role in 
economic growth as stated in terms of contemporary economic 
theory.</italic>"  
 
Polanyi's and Finley's work was a reaction towards the 'modernistic' 
interpretations of the ancient economy of scholars like Rostovtzeff (like 
their work was mainly a reaction to Buecher's "Die Entstehung der 
Volkswirtschaft"). But I think that it is now time to swing the pendulum 
back again.  
 
************************************** 
 
Thomas Moser 
Center for Research of Economic Activity (KOF) 
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH) 
e-mail: [log in to unmask] 
homepage: http://www.kof.ethz.ch/tm.htm 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]