Right now I’m reading “Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities”, by Lucien Karpik. Actually I’m reading the translation by Nora Scott.
(Side note: It’s very dry and I have yet to determine if Karpik is too mired in academia to be a good writer, or if Scott is just a really bad writer and, as a result a poor choice of translator for this book).
Anyway, in laying out the premise for his argument, Karpik cites various works and thoughts dealing with inalienable goods, which got me thinking (usually a good sign with a book, but getting there is so painful!): Do our thoughts about basic economics need to reviewed, possibly revised, in today’s “new economy" where, to paraphrase Marx, anything and everything can be bought and sold... and on eBay, yet!??
Under our current definition, inalienable goods are items that can neither be bought nor sold ... or would seriously lose their intrinsic value if subject of a commercial transaction. Think about – could you really sell the Statue of Liberty, Eiffel Tower or Sudbury Big Nickle?
Also, inalienable goods may have symbolic and economic power that cannot be transferred. This group of objects can also include items used to authenticate corporate and governmental rituals (think “black rod” and the opening of the British House of Commons and the Canadian Senate, etc.)
The purest example can be found in an anthropological study. Annette Weiner made headlines (okay academic headlines, in any event) with her work with the Trobriand Islanders.* One of her observations is that when an islander gives a gift, there is a special significance that is transferred with the gift that reflects the bond between the giver and the recipient. In the purest sense, this type of gift is a true Inalienable good. We cannot give our friendship and relationships with others to a third party.
Nor can we give or sell our own health and longevity to other people. Although we cannot transfer our entire physique to someone else, we can give them body parts. Body parts used to be considered inalienable goods (and probably still should), but look at the markets (not all black) that exist for viable hearts, kidneys, livers and other organs.
Which is only one of many changes that has me wondering about the possible need to re-evaluate how we view inalienable goods.
In some economies, inalienable goods have been treated for some time now the same as any other kind of products or service (with some rather interesting marketing gambits as part of this new perspective). It stands to reason, therefore, that these items should be subject to the same economics laws/ truths as any item used in an exchange... and that they should have similar abilities to impact their local economies.
This line of thinking had my fingers bugging Google for information (kind of ironic given my last two posts). In the course of my searching, I came across an interesting article on the topic that not only discusses this very concept, but talks about greater material consumption leading to less inner fulfillment (though that’s hardly a new concept, I realize). The article can be found at: http://bit.ly/g9jlAW.
I hope you enjoy the article – and I’d love to hear you thoughts on the matter as I further ponder the question!
*P.S. These islands are located off the east coast of Papua, New Guinea and are actually officially called the Kiriwina Islands.
No comments:
Post a Comment