Suchergebnisse

Renewed anthropological attention to money and finance is welcome. However, recent attention to the ghosts in the financial machine neglects the infrastructures of payment that make finance possible. Following professionals and policymakers into the clearance and settlement of payments – the means of value transfer – affords insight into an industry hotly contested by new entrants and by a few critics who find in its business model a defiance of market logic. The tolls and fees of private payment infrastructures pose challenges to critical analyses of capitalism as well as to the public interest in payment, even as they are essential to the forms and functions of value transfer. Everyday exchanges are tolled, large-scale transfers are not: the article suggests that payment is a pressing political concern, as well as an analytical one.

What does it mean to 'do' economic anthropology, now, in the wake of the financial crisis and the re-energizing of public discussion over the nature of debt, credit, speculation, and inequality? Two recent books offer signal insights. This essay suggests they also point towards a specific kind of lingering that may be politically and analytically useful: an occupation of a uniquely anthropological kind. © Royal Anthropological Institute 2012.

What does it mean to 'do' economic anthropology, now, in the wake of the financial crisis and the re-energizing of public discussion over the nature of debt, credit, speculation, and inequality? Two recent books offer signal insights. This essay suggests they also point towards a specific kind of lingering that may be politically and analytically useful: an occupation of a uniquely anthropological kind. © Royal Anthropological Institute 2012.

In the wake of an international crackdown against preferential tax regimes, Caribbean tax havens and other jurisdictions have adopted "due diligence" procedures to manage financial and reputational risk. Due diligence relies on qualitative forms of evaluation and defers grounded and definitive knowledge claims through continuous peer review. In doing so, it mirrors certain forms of ethnographic practice at a number of levels of scale. This article tracks the shifts in financial regulation from crime to harm and from certainty to scrutiny and reflects on their implications for ethnography-as a limited and open-ended process of evaluation warranted by qualitative forms of judgment. It seeks to complicate our picture of contemporary capitalisms by drawing attention to the nonquantifiable and the ethical that lie "inside" them. Where conventional forms of ethnographic critique might look to expose the political or economic interests behind actions, symbols, or social relationships, this article has a more modest goal: to try to understand the similarity of form between due diligence and anthropology. © 2005 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.

In the wake of an international crackdown against preferential tax regimes, Caribbean tax havens and other jurisdictions have adopted "due diligence" procedures to manage financial and reputational risk. Due diligence relies on qualitative forms of evaluation and defers grounded and definitive knowledge claims through continuous peer review. In doing so, it mirrors certain forms of ethnographic practice at a number of levels of scale. This article tracks the shifts in financial regulation from crime to harm and from certainty to scrutiny and reflects on their implications for ethnography-as a limited and open-ended process of evaluation warranted by qualitative forms of judgment. It seeks to complicate our picture of contemporary capitalisms by drawing attention to the nonquantifiable and the ethical that lie "inside" them. Where conventional forms of ethnographic critique might look to expose the political or economic interests behind actions, symbols, or social relationships, this article has a more modest goal: to try to understand the similarity of form between due diligence and anthropology. © 2005 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.

This comment reflects on the legal (specifically, proprietary) tropes of linguistics, and the linguistic tropes of legal anthropology. It suggests analogies between discussions around "language rights" in contemporary political struggles, and discussions around the delineation of objects and subjects in anthropological theory. Such analogies may help side-step the relativism-universalism impasse that has beset the critique of rights and the critique of the objectification of language.

This comment reflects on the legal (specifically, proprietary) tropes of linguistics, and the linguistic tropes of legal anthropology. It suggests analogies between discussions around "language rights" in contemporary political struggles, and discussions around the delineation of objects and subjects in anthropological theory. Such analogies may help side-step the relativism-universalism impasse that has beset the critique of rights and the critique of the objectification of language.

ABSTRACT: Bill Maurer, Dean of the School of Social Sciences, Professor of Anthropology and Law, and Director of the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion, all at the University of California, Irvine, has recently joined the Journal of Cultural Economy editorial team. Here, we reproduce an interview with him by Lauren Tooker from September 2014.

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York. All rights reserved. The invitation to review anthropological studies of money offers an opportunity not only to revisit the history of anthropologists' investigations into money's objects, meanings, and uses but also to reflect on the intersections of such work with recent psychological research. In this review essay, we survey the primary findings of the anthropology of money and the central challenges anthropological work has posed to assumptions about money's power to abstract, commensurate, dissolve social ties, and erase difference. We summarize anthropologists' historical concern with cultural difference and recent work on money's materialities, meanings, and complex uses. We emphasize the pragmatics of money-from earmarking practices and the use of multiple moneys to the politics of liquidity and fungibility. In the final section of the paper, we find inspiration in recent psychological studies of money to indicate new trajectories for inquiry. Specifically, we point to three potentially fruitful areas for research: money use as a tool and infrastructure; the politics of revealing and concealing money; and money's origins and futures as a memory device. We end with a brief reflection on ongoing monetary experiments and innovations.

The invitation to review anthropological studies of money offers an opportunity not only to revisit the history of anthropologists' investigations into money's objects, meanings, and uses but also to reflect on the intersections of such work with recent psychological research. In this review essay, we survey the primary findings of the anthropology of money and the central challenges anthropological work has posed to assumptions about money's power to abstract, commensurate, dissolve social ties, and erase difference. We summarize anthropologists' historical concern with cultural difference and recent work on money's materialities, meanings, and complex uses. We emphasize the pragmatics of money-from earmarking practices and the use of multiple moneys to the politics of liquidity and fungibility. In the final section of the paper, we find inspiration in recent psychological studies of money to indicate new trajectories for inquiry. Specifically, we point to three potentially fruitful areas for research: money use as a tool and infrastructure; the politics of revealing and concealing money; and money's origins and futures as a memory device. We end with a brief reflection on ongoing monetary experiments and innovations.

Encountered by mobile money professionals - industry and philanthropic actors seeking to bring mobile phone-enabled financial products to poor people in the 'developing world' - the authors move together with new collaborators to inquire into a problem they had been grappling with for some time. This is the problem of agency; specifically, the agency of 'mobile money agents', the people 'on the ground' or 'in the field' who form a crucial function in permitting others to put cash into an electronic money transfer system and pull cash out of it. These 'human ATMs' or 'bridges to cash' become the object of analytical scrutiny for mobile money experts and anthropologists. This article takes that analytical scrutiny - and not mobile money agents themselves - as its object. It seeks to understand how 'agency' inflects debates over money, its meaning and its pragmatics, and its transformation in new communicative infrastructures, and how it might inform anthropology and political struggles over money and payment. © Royal Anthropological Institute 2013.

Encountered by mobile money professionals - industry and philanthropic actors seeking to bring mobile phone-enabled financial products to poor people in the 'developing world' - the authors move together with new collaborators to inquire into a problem they had been grappling with for some time. This is the problem of agency; specifically, the agency of 'mobile money agents', the people 'on the ground' or 'in the field' who form a crucial function in permitting others to put cash into an electronic money transfer system and pull cash out of it. These 'human ATMs' or 'bridges to cash' become the object of analytical scrutiny for mobile money experts and anthropologists. This article takes that analytical scrutiny - and not mobile money agents themselves - as its object. It seeks to understand how 'agency' inflects debates over money, its meaning and its pragmatics, and its transformation in new communicative infrastructures, and how it might inform anthropology and political struggles over money and payment. © Royal Anthropological Institute 2013.

The payments industry – the business of transferring value through public and corporate infrastructures – is undergoing rapid transformation. New business models and regulatory environments disrupt more traditional fee-based strategies, and new entrants seek to displace legacy players by leveraging new mobile platforms and new sources of data. In this increasingly diversified industry landscape, start-ups and established players are attempting to embed payment in 'social' experience through novel technologies of accounting for trust. This imagination of the social, however, is being materialized in gated platforms for payment, accounting, and exchange. This paper explores the ambiguous politics of such experiments, specifically those, like Bitcoin or the on-demand sharing economy, that delineate an economic imaginary of 'just us' – a closed and closely guarded community of peers operating under the illusion that there are no mediating institutions undergirding that community. This provokes questions about the intersection of payment and publics. Payment innovators' attenuated understanding of the social may, we suggest, evacuate the nitty-gritty of politics.