Unfortunately, Graeber is not well-versed in economic theory so him “questioning established economic assumptions” often resembles fighting windmills or not even that.
If you know any actual contributions to economics or the history of economics that were consequences of his stimulation, I would be glad to hear about them.
My feeling when I read Debt was that he was smart enough to understand conventional economic theory. My brother studied economics and he was the one who actually recommended me the book.
Graeber's background in economic anthropology offers a fresh lens through which to view economic history, highlighting the social and cultural dimensions that traditional economic theories sometimes overlook. His work has encouraged interdisciplinary dialogue, prompting economists and historians alike to incorporate broader socio-cultural understandings into their analyses. While his approach differs from conventional economic theorizing, it complements it by adding depth to our understanding of economic phenomena.
There's a rather unusual strain of Marxism (not communism!) in anthropology. As I understand it, Marx argued that the conditions of the material economy would ultimately dictate what social structures appeared. Ideology was "downstream" of economic production, and less important.
Now consider archaeology (which is part of the anthropology department in the US). A high-profile dig may involve many specialist researchers: people who study seeds, people who study pollen, people who study abrasion in stone tools. If the evidence is sufficiently preserved, then a team like this can lean quite a bit about food production and trade patterns. Meanwhile, nobody can tell you much about ideology. Maybe you've got some burials, or some stone statues that might be religious. But you've got zero written records, and anything you say about religion or ideology is likely to be completely made up.
So in an anthropology department, "Marxist" may mean, "deeply interested in the means of production, which we have lots of concrete material evidence about, but much less interested in making unsubstantiated guesses about religion."
Or at least that's how my anthropology professors explained it.
Graeber wasn’t t a Marxist or a communist. (he actual refutes Marx ‘s theory of material conditions by pointing out several Native American tribes from the Pacific Northwest who had the same material conditions but organized their societies in radically different ways.)
It is uncharitable to Marx to simplify his whole work down to a "theory of material conditions". It would be hard to find a modern Western anthropologist or a sociologist who wouldn't be indebted (pun intended) to Marx.
There is a famous phrase attributed to Milton Friedman, "We are all Keynesians now". Even if many economists may not share his view, his mode of thinking has been deeply integrated into modern economics. The similar thing can be said about Marx in relation to the kind of anthropology and sociology Graeber was doing.
Bikeshedding this conversation about culture, anthropology, economics, and philosophy into armchair analysis of scholars' opinions certainly shows how shallow it is to try and dismiss a massive book by a world class academic as "anecdata" because you don't agree with some of its conclusions.
I don't understand why you are trying to accuse me of bikeshedding. Seems like you are just trying to dismiss me because I don't agree with you? I've asked numerous times for actual contributions to economics or the history of economic thought based on the book in question. But it seems that people enjoy pontificating about Marxism or "offering a fresh lens" more than a grounded discussion.
Sounds like bike shedding to the rest of us. Anthropology has a lot to say about economic history, particularly when it comes to debunking some of the foundational myths like Smith's 'barter theory.' Graeber's take is legit anthropological critique, not armchair econ. His lack of an Econ PhD doesn't negate the value of his work in the least; after all, a lot of what passes for economic 'common sense' is actually historical narrative, which is exactly where anthropology excels. Cross-pollination between disciplines is how we get past stale paradigms.
As per 'direct contributions,' to what? This is vacuous. If you're looking for direct policy changes, new economic theories, or shifts in economic practice explicitly derived from that book, the evidence might be less concrete given the book's recent publication and its cross-disciplinary nature.
if contributions are broadly understood as influencing the discourse, prompting reevaluation of economic history, or enriching economic thought with anthropological insights, then Graeber's work has clearly made an impact. The book has been widely discussed and cited in various academic and non-academic circles, suggesting that it has stimulated thought and conversation, although not be immediately quantifiable in economic terms.
It's worth noting that the impact of theoretical work often becomes more apparent over time as it permeates through discussion, critique, and successive scholarship.
I'd also like to point out that economic anthropology is an academic field in it own right, for which Graber is considered a significant contributor. Graeber's work, in particular, has been pivotal in encouraging economists, historians, archeologist, etc, to think more critically about the origins and functions of debt, money, and economic systems. Economies are complex, culturally rich phenomena, not just market transactions (something Econ models often miss.)
> Anthropology has a lot to say about economic history, particularly when it comes to debunking some of the foundational myths like Smith's 'barter theory.'
It is not a foundational myth. It is certainly a topic of interest for some economists, but it is not something that you would get asked during your qualifying exams. Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models are far more foundational.
> a lot of what passes for economic 'common sense' is actually historical narrative, which is exactly where anthropology excels
Everything is a text, therefore a literary studies professor is an expert on everything. Everything is a result of human action, therefore an economist is an expert on everything. Everything is a result of social interaction, therefore a sociologist is an expert on everything.
That’s a dangerous attitude that’s unfortunately common among such fields as sociology, psychology, literary studies and economics. It overstates the expertise of people in the field and mystifies the field itself.
Being an anthropologist doesn’t make you an expert on QM and GR just because the history of physics is a history of narratives.
> Cross-pollination between disciplines is how we get past stale paradigms.
There are lots of people who already do that out there. Economics is ripe with such examples, both past and recent. But being hostile and acting as if you know more than people who study the subject for a living leads nowhere.
> I'd also like to point out that economic anthropology is an academic field in it own right, for which Graber is considered a significant contributor.
And so is economics, for which Graeber is not considered a significant contributor. And that’s okay. The gift economy of Madagascar and the technicalities of the federal reserve system are very different topics. And it is possible to know a lot about one of them without knowing much about the other.
I have simply responded to your comment that seemed to me to be full of errors and misunderstandings. I even tried to not be antagonistic, yet you seem to be hostile and view it in the framing of goals and goalposts.
Right, but are there _actual_ contributions to economics or the history of economics that were consequences of his “stimulation”?
Also, saying that he single-handedly prompted “economists and historians alike to incorporate broader socio-cultural understandings into their analyses” is a huge denigration of institutional economics, behavioural economics, Austrian economics, social economics, etc.
It's a relatively recent addition to the discorse, having been published just over a decade ago.
It's definitely apart of the heterodox tradition in economics (without diminishing what's already there), which often takes longer to be integrated into the mainstream.
David Graeber was an anthropology professor at the London School of Economics, with a focus on Economic Anthropology. He was also an anarchist and activist. His most significant contribution to the field of economics is his critique of two important ontologies of orthodox economic common sense.
First, Graeber challenged Adam Smith's idea that the history of economics evolved from barter to money to credit. According to Graeber, this sequence is actually reversed: credit systems existed first in pre-money societies, where neighbors kept track of mutual aid. Barter only became prevalent when money was introduced and sometimes unavailable.
Second, he critiqued the socialist theory of primordial debt, which suggests that humans are born with an infinite debt to the cosmos. This theory often uses religious language to support its claims and argues that the government inherits this cosmic debt, leading to total control over money and markets. Graeber distinguishes between religious or moral debt and economic debt, arguing that they operate on different logics.
None of that has much to do with modern economics. Just like criticising alchemy doesn’t make you a contributor to chemistry.
Buy MWG’s Microeconomic Theory and study it. What does it have to do with Adam Smith’s theories on barter or someone’s (whose?) theory on primordial debt?
False equivalence. The history of economics to economics is not analogous to alchemy and chemistry. You're creating a straw man.
As per the myth every student of economics learns, that money grows out of barter. The idea is that monetary exchange solves the problem of the double coincidence of wants. Money makes trade much easier, so the story goes, and thus becomes a remarkable example of both human ingenuity and economic progress, isn't true. There's no evidence to support it. (support that money comes from barter, etc.)
Pick up any Economics textbook and look up the definition of "Traditional Economy," here, I'll do that for you.
"A traditional economic system is based on customs, history, and time-honored beliefs. A traditional economy is an economic system in which traditions, customs, and beliefs help shape the goods and services the economy produces, as well as the rules and manners of their distribution. Countries that use this type of economic system are often rural and farm-based. Also known as a subsistence economy, a traditional economy is defined by bartering"
We know that's not true. We know there's no evidence to support it.
So what does modern economic theory have to say about Traditional Economies? Not much apparently.
And that's the point!
Adding to this, I'm familiar with MWG's Microeconomic Theory, and while it's an excellent resource for understanding the mathematical models used in economics, (and by economics, I means systems where there's a market, money, all actors have perfect access to information, and there's property rights, etc), it doesn't offer much insight into the historical or anthropological questions that Graeber raises.
Both approaches have their value, but they serve different purposes and answer different questions. Learning or applying MWG in no way subtracts from Graeber's insights.
You can't apply or generally model a "traditional economy" using by applying MWG.
> False equivalence. The history of economics to economics is not analogous to alchemy and chemistry. You're creating a straw man.
Smith, Mill and Ricardo are to economics what alchemy is to chemistry.
> As per the myth every student of economics learns, that money grows out of barter.
I wasn’t taught that. I was taught game theory, the Arrow-Debreu model and statistics.
> Pick up any Economics textbook and look up the definition of "Traditional Economy," here, I'll do that for you.
I don’t remember my textbooks saying much about traditional economies.
> "A traditional economic system is based on customs, history, and time-honored beliefs. A traditional economy is an economic system in which traditions, customs, and beliefs help shape the goods and services the economy produces, as well as the rules and manners of their distribution. Countries that use this type of economic system are often rural and farm-based. Also known as a subsistence economy, a traditional economy is defined by bartering"
I don’t know which textbook it is from. It also doesn’t go much into detail what it means.
> We know that's not true. We know there's no evidence to support it.
We know that metallic money were the norm during that times. That probably was the intuition and evidence behind the barter idea.
> So what does modern economic theory have to say about Traditional Economies?
> Not much apparently.
> And that's the point!
The point you were making initially is that modern economic theory makes false claims about barter. In fact, it doesn’t concern itself with it much outside of niche subfields. That makes Graeber simply wrong.
> it doesn't offer much insight into the historical or anthropological questions that Graeber raises.
Yes. And it doesn’t claim to. So what is the problem? How can it be wrong about things it doesn’t assert or imply?
> Learning or applying MWG in no way subtracts from Graeber's insights.
Yeah, but learning about modern economics from Graeber would make you confused and mistaken. He should have had the courtesy not to speak about things he didn’t know.
> I don’t remember my textbooks saying much about traditional economies.
thats the point.
> Yeah, but learning about modern economics from Graeber would make you confused and mistaken. He should have had the courtesy not to speak about things he didn’t know. (What is he speaking about that he doesn't know? also, did you even read the book? I'm getting the sense you didn't.)
He's not talking about modern economics, he's talking about the history of debt. This isn't hard to understand.
I wish it were the point. I would jump on that bandwagon for a ride with him. But the point is “contribution to questioning established economic assumptions”.
So we get weird statements like “the Myth of Barter cannot go away because it is central to the entire discourse of economics” that people parrot on the Internet after reading Graeber despite the fact that the pre-historical barter or its absence is inconsequential for modern theory.
From my limited number of anthropology courses, I can assure you that the suspicion between the anthropology and economics departments is often mutual.
You know the joke about how physics is the study of spherical cows of uniform density in a frictionless vacuum? That's because intro level physics makes lots of simplifying assumptions. And if a physicist tried to use those assumptions to lecture a dairy farmer, the farmer might assume the physicist was a fool.
Anthropology tends to assume that too many economists study "spherical humans of uniform density in a frictionless market," basically. One of my anthropology professors actually covered these disputes, including specific cases where U Chicago economics professors attempted to advise governments around the world, and wound up totally misunderstanding particular situations.
Now, anthropology has its blind spots, too. Cultural anthropology has been a bit too willing to believe research describing exotic social structures. Archaeology is fairly sound on the nuts and bolts of pre-historical goods and food sources, but it is sometimes blind to how ideology shapes culture. (Which is a safely conservative stance to take when working with pre-historical cultures, to be fair.)
The factors Graeber describes aren't totally surprising. Lots of real world economies run on complicated webs of personal relationships and favors—just look at investors, for example. Or look at the pre-modern property rights described in Seeing Like a State. Land ownership and harvesting rights in a medieval village could be ridiculously complex. Or the customary payments and "gifts" that people made. For another modern example, consider office politics in a large corporation.
I think Graeber's basic case is plausible: complex debts and obligations seem to underly many band-level and village-level societies, especially when central state power is weak. These arrangements can seem bizarre: I remember a video of an interview with a pig farmer, probably about 60 years old, who was organizing a gift of hundreds of pigs to a neighboring village. This was apparently some kind of competitive gesture designed to elevate the status of the giver. And the farmer was really into this. He was complaining that kids these days were shockingly lazy, and that they had no appetite for hard work, and that they had no hope of putting together a proper gift of pigs. And how can you get anywhere in life if you can't embarrass a neighboring village by giving them more pigs than they gave you? It was a status display, similar to throwing conspicuously expensive parties to outdo your social circle.
The anthropology literature contains a ton of odd behavior around debts, obligations, and complex traditional rights. In a pre-modern community of 60 to 5,000 people, only a fraction of the economy seems to involve currencies or direct barter. Currency is a fantastic simplifying technology. And as Graeber points out, complex traditional webs of debt can be pretty brutal towards people who don't fit in.
I think this whole discussion is related to epistemological attitudes. Anthropology and History tends to lean more heavily into the irreducible complexities of society and to analyze and describe them in detail while usually avoiding to deduce grand theories. Economics on the other hand is very used to a more reductionist, mechanistic view inherited from the political success of early 21st century physics in changing the outcome of wars. Economists saw a chance to be taken seriously in policy making by pretending they were doing social engineering.
If you know any actual contributions to economics or the history of economics that were consequences of his stimulation, I would be glad to hear about them.