Skip Navigation



Socio-Economic Review Advance Access published online on February 20, 2007

Socio-Economic Review, doi:10.1093/ser/mwl027
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
5/2/287    most recent
mwl027v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hann, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press and the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

A New Double Movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism

Chris Hann

Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle/Saale, Germany

Correspondence: hann{at}eth.mpg.de

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 Words: culture • economic change • neo-liberalism • property rights


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.