Talk:Political economy/archive

Old talk removed from Talk:Political economy - Enchanter 16:57 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)

well, your bizarre American conception that political economy does not exist is noted, your professors have evidently done their brainwashing job well.

it assumed less knowledge of economics, and perhaps assumed people had already read capitalism - it's better now. More specific comments help.24

EXCUSE ME? What did I ever write that suggested that I do not believe that "political economy does not exist?" Who said that Americans do not think political economy exists? As a matter of fact, I refered to several US academic disciplines that teach couses in or refering to Political Economy.

yes, but according to the above, you are using PE only in the neoclassical sense, and contrasting it to the vague Marxist sense which you don't seem to fully understand (see means of production which does a good job relating it to classical factors of production). And *I* say that Americans do not think political economy exists, as their two major parties share one and both appoint Alan Greenspan to head the Fed.

Given that you are such an inattentive reader, in that you could read a phrase like this "If you take a course (at least in the US) called "political economy" in a political science department, and a course called "political economy" in an anthropology department," and somehow conclude from the fact that Americans teach and study Political Eocnomy that that Americans do not believe that political economy exists, I really urge you to avoid ad hominem remarks about brainwashing.

apologies, correctinng, Americans do not believe that any political economy beyond their own neoclassical obsession, and it's Marxist "enemy", exist. Is that clearer? I submit your new intro showed that quite clearly.

Believe me, just because someone does not understand what you are saying, or does not agree with you, does not mean that they have been brainwashed!

fair enough, you have corrected me on the issue of the "right" and "left" anthropologists, and we probably can come to a consensus on all the above. It was probably conflict with truly brainwashed people earlier which had me going...

Finally, given the way people use encyclopedias, I think every article should stand on its own, and not make assumptions that people will read them in a given order (e.g. capitalism first, PE second, etc.) SR

agreed.

I am not expert enough on PE to even attempt to change it, but I do hope there are some political scientists and economists out there who will take time to fix it up, please. SR

I see little or nothing in your new introduction, welcome as it is, to contradict or change one word of the rest. You may find the language unclear because it deliberately does not take sides in the classical, neoclassical, Marxist or green debate. However, your new introduction is heavily biased towards the neoclassical terms (which tend to deny that political economy exists at all, and claim that economics itself is radically autonomous - pure nonsense). So, I consider your introduction to be helpful in balancing, as the rest of the article details what classical, Marxist, and green views tend to agree on. To characterize it as " poorly written, unclear, perhaps biased, uninformative, maybe misleading" is simply an ideological statement on your part. It may well be some of those things. But where, exactly, is it poorly written, where unclear, where biased, where uninformative, and where misleading?

Okay one example: I removed the phrase "beyond the commons" from this line -- "the term refers to the intersection of or relationship between politics and economics..." Most towns, at least in the US, do not or no longer have commons; most livestock grazing is now on family farms or industrial feed-lots; few if anyone in the US ever studies "the relationship betweein politics and economics" in commons.

I hate to say it, but this is exactly what I mean. A "commons" is not a feed lot, and that is part of the brainwashing. A "commons" can be the air, the water, genes, etc.. And there are many entities, and active political reform movements, that handle this. You are using the term "commons" in a completely US-centric sense. It does not refer to village grazing grounds, it refers to anything shared and collectively managed by political process.

As a matter of fact, I do not even know what a study of the relationship between politics and economics within "the commons" (in other words, the other category implied by this definition of PE) would be called.

it would be called Natural Capitalism if you stick to neoclassical PE, and it would be something else built by green economists if you go beyond.

I am also about to delete the term "more contentious than politics." This simply does not make sense as a subheading in an encyclopedia article,

there is no "simply" - subheadings that raise questions help to structure articles that answer them.

which should be divided either into different views and uses of PE (e.g. PE for political scientists, PE for marxists), or different aspects of PE (e.g. the problem of labor, or international tariffs, etc).

I think you did a good job of relating classical and neoclassical, and I did a good job of relating neoclassical and Marxist, and an OK job of explaining why peole don't like any of the three and want them to become a new theory. I agree completely that "the problem of labor", "international tariffs" are critical, but in order to make sense of these, a non-expert reader needs to understand them in the terms reported in the news. And, since the field of neoclassical economics rarely discusses them, they are going to hear mostly the objections of the UN and the anti-globalization movement.

What does "more contentious than politics" mean? More by what measure?

it means people rioting by the hundreds of thousands to roll back globalization under neoclassical "corporate" terms. I don't see that level of anger even about the Middle East, in developed nations.

And why would anyone NOT think that PE is contentious. And do you mean that political economy studies some contentious process, or that people have contending views of what the phrase PE means? It is an unclear and useless phrase, and I do not say that becuase of any political or theoretical bias I have, but because I read a lot of articles in English and this is lousy prose.

fine, agreed, politics is about contention, so nothing is more contentious;

Another example: "in this sense it is preferred by some other radical groups with widely differing groups such as..." First of all, the clause is ungrammatical. "by some other...groups with widely differing groups" just does not make sense. It is simply not an intelligible English sentence.

it was a mistake.. the second 'groups' should be 'views'. Feel free, anywhere and everywhere, to assume there is no magic in such mistakes, and write them to say it the way you would, trying to preserve the real content (if you understand it) or just cutting it out (if its incomprehensible due to the mistake).

I am willing to assume you are trying to say something important and interesting, but I really have no idea what it is. Also, "prefered" expresses something relative. For this sentence to be clear, it should state "prefered over (or to) what?"

I think it was clear that the group just mentioned preferred it? If not, feel free to change.

These are just a few examples of why this article as it stands is a failure.

few articles here are a total success. But, I agree, it needs work, and it would help if you could outline the way anthropologists of your acquaintance use PE, etc. If I understand you right then you are referring to the way that anthropologists derive concepts of fairness from actual human behavior? In which case Hanson is relevant. I was referring more to the way that no higher primate commodifies relations within some group, i.e. we don't ask your children to pay for us raising them, i.e. we trust members of some larger ethnic or tribal group without asking for formal contracts, charging for labor, etc.. This is the good old left and right wing of economics, hm? It would be very valuable to illustrate both sides using anthropologists, as that is a neutral scientific basis for the claims that each PE (classical, neoclassical, Marxist, green) likes to make.

I do not doubt that you have some important things to say, but please do not hide unintelligible writing behind the cloak of neutrality. SR

I never would, and I agree it needs work, and I appreciate your feedback. If you can characterize more clearly what the sections with the removed subheadings should be called, or suggest at the end a list of questions to be answered/asked in simple ways (see capitalism where this approach was a success - at least has prevented lots of competing hacks to fit the theories of too many people in), I'll be happy to work around it, and preserve any new text you add.

---

What follows are my responses to 24s responses to my responses above. It is getting complicated, so I thought a break and a new section would make it easier to read.

My main concern is still with the quality of the writing. Let me give some more examples, including some responses to 24s responses above.

• The section heading, "safety, fairness, closure" I would expect this sectiojn to include a definition of these three terms, includind a discussion of the different ways they are used or studied. The section does nothing of the sort, making the heading seem arbitrary.

they are vague terms that lack clear definition precisely because it is up to a given theory of political economy itself to attach meaning to them. Look at Smith for the simplest example: clearly a defense and justice system and currency provide some kinds of closure, surely a defense and infrastructure and education and stable currency provide some kind of safety, surely a court and education and currency also provide some kind of fairness. But, if I get into *how* they do, or even how they are studied (from whose perspective, etc.) I am really justifying a political economy. So if you can work that characterization of Smith into an explanation, do. I think quoting any specific definitions of those terms starts to characterize a theory.

again, you seem to miss my point. IF (and I accept that I may be misunderstanding you) you are saying that it would be too complicated or distracting, or would lead to polemics, to define these terms in one clear way, THEN DO NOT USE THEM AS A SECTION HEADING! Don't bring up things that have some meaning to you that you do not want to share with others!

• I removed the word "commons" and 24 responded: "You are using the term "commons" in a completely US-centric sense. It does not refer to village grazing grounds, it refers to anything shared and collectively managed by political process." 24, I am sorry but you miss my point.

ok...

My point is that the word "commons" needs to be defined an explained, otherwise the article is unclear. Please do not respond to my point defensively by attacking US usage. There may be many American who use the term exactly as you do. Indeed, I think your usage makes sense. But it is a technical term and my point is that an article needs to explain these things,

you are right, I apologize here, there's no point responding defensively in particular in this case, since this is the whole point of political economy - finding out what is a commons, how to manage a commons, how the opportunity to, or outcome of, using it affects its other users.

well, I wish you wrote exactly this the first time you put in the word "commons!" That would be what I think of as clear writing!

It is certainly a fourth contended word, though, make that fifth, as what is in the "economy" is also contended (some would say women caring for children *is*, some would say it *isnt*, some would say air and air pollution are, some would say not).

_not just drop jargon around. By the way, there are many economists and political economists who study the intersection of politics and economics within the commons (as you define the rerm) who do not call what they are studying "natural capitalism." I think your account is biased.

the article may be unclear. *SOME* of the commons are natural, and within those *SOME* grow or replenish or provide service. I would say that water or air do not, but that climate as a whole, or an ecoregion as a whole, does. If we look only at those, the standard term as now used at the UN is "natural capital". No bias there - natural capital in the UN sense is not jargon it is official System of National Accounts terminology now. If we expand to global air or water supplies we get into more contended questions, e.g. Kyoto protocol would treat atmosphere as a commons, climate stability as a right. Now there is a particular theory of Hawkens, Lovins, Lovins, called Natural Capitalism, which is of course only one intersection fo politics and economics and one theory about it - one that happens to apply neoclassical economics to natural capital. If you think the article implies that anything to do with any commons is a subfield called natural capitalism (even without the capitals) then that's incorrect and not what I meant to imply. Some still believe that nature is all "natural resources" or "land" as in the classical micro-economic sense, or that somehow all of it can be privately owned (which it clearly can't, except insofar as ecoregion borders exactly intersect property borders so that one management regime can be applied) without making it "resources" not "commons". I'm not trying to shortchange these views, but if they are minority views (as anything that tries to do political economy without any theory of natural capital or energy itself is today) then I need to give each of them space, and it's quite hard to do without explaining all the above. But, if it must be done, it must be done. How much do you think is needed?

I am not sure but I certainly find most of what you just wrote useful.

_There are many different kinds of people who study public goods, and in many different ways. Some of these people call themselves political economists. Some of them mean different things by "political economy." Some of them call themselves something else. A good article will lay all this out clearly.

alternate names? Define "study of public goods"? Certainly political economy is an abused term, but we don't have to handle all the abuse here. There's a very clear track from Smith and Ricardo and Mill, to Marx, to the neoclassicals and their heavy use of math to define fairness out of context of fundamental safety and closure, to the attempt of the green economists to derive it from science and fix up the grief. Since the latter haven't got their own political economy yet, and have only altered terms of reference a little (see "natural capital" and "human capital"), and there are others dealing with problems in the old terms, I think it's fair to lay out the different combinations of focus and ideas. Right now this is a messy field. In 20 years, according to another economics author here, "MLP-Volt", "economics will be a branch of general systems theory" and by then presumably a theory of public goods must be either agreed globally, or agreed to disagree globally, so one or other of these factors will have dominated.

• Here is the section on marx: "However, a simultaneous track, extremely influential in sociology and political science, studied class-relations and the relationship between capitalism and colonialism. Karl Marx strongly emphasized the role that military fiat plays in stabilizing [credit money]? or commodity money - imposing closure on transactions to favor a social class of power-holders. As the key concern of economics is enabling trade that helps an individual to survive without being alone against the forces of nature, this political economy has come to focus clearly on the role of government. But in recent years it has focused on civil society, ecology, families and other concerns. Marxists argue that capitalism in various forms is inherently destabilizing due to ecological or social damage - notably [Joseph Alois Schumpeter]? who argued in 1962 that it was "the most efficient" but also "doomed" because of its alienation of people from work."

er, yeah, that kind of cramps 140 years into one paragraph, doesn't it? not.

This whole section AT BEST needs to be expanded, in order to be both clearer and more accurate. I am not sure that Marx emphasizes military fiat any more than a host of other social critics, nor do I think that military fiat was the most important issue for Marx, so it is strange to see Marx introduced this way.

probably most important since many people on here question whether military fiat has much influence on economics...?!?? I know, it's inane. But Marx clearly stated in Das Kapital that without control of the military fiat of the nation, the ruling class can't rule, period - it's not a psychological or social trust power, in his model. So it's not what he talks about the most, it's what he assumes. He certainly wishes the soldiers and workers to seize power by military means and take control of capital in his politics - his 1848-1872 model that is. In 1872 after the Paris Commune he became much more of a syndicalist, arguing more for alternate institutions (e.g. workers cooperative hospitals, their own banks, etc.) to avoid reliance on the bourgeois or ruling classes at all. He didn't say not to fight them though, and in his view capitalism gets less efficient and less stable as it matures, and so military fiat of the state is required to keep everyone in line. This is the opposite of Smith who generally assumed that the state had the support of the people and was genuinely concerned with their welfare, and different from neoclassicals who see the state as a kind of market maker or at most manager of the commons, seeking only stable trade. Very interesting. The greens are split - those that believe the money supply as we know it is ok apply neoclassical theory as environmental economics. Those that think the money supply is beyond fixing are the green economists proper, who argue ecology and currency are at structural odds - some of these "are Marxists", others "are classical", others refuse both of the traditions. But I think Marx stands furthest apart in seeing military fiat as wholly coercive, and representative democracy as entirely a sham, i.e. "all fiat is arbitrary". So I introduced him that way.

your distinction between marx and Smith at first glance seems reasonable, but I still question it. The fundamental issue is not whether capitalism has the support of the people or is imposed on them. The fundamental issue is that "the support of the people" is not a natural and transparent thing. Yes, Marx is clear that capitalist regimes are ultimately backed up by force. But Weber said the same thing! But Marx also called attention to what he called "false consciousness," and one of the main effects of false consciousness (or whatever you use as its proxy) is that the state does not have to rely on the direct use of, or even the threat of the use of, force most of the time. Most of the time people believe that capitalism is in their own interests. Capitalism relies on this to function far more than the military, because tanks on every street corner forcing people to buy and sell their labor and other commodities would ultimately cost too much.

Marx's argument was not that people do not support capitalism (i.e. the opposite of Smith), his argument was that whether people support capitalism or not, it is not in their own best interest. The whole reason he wrote books (and formed the first International) was to help people see what their own interests really were, so they would no longer support what they had been supporting. Gramsci analyzed the same thing by focusing on hegemony (rather than false consciousness).

I do not think any of this is apporpriate in this article, but it is why I do think it is at best a vast oversimplification if not simply wrong to say that Marx's main argument was that capitalism strongly emphasized the reliance of capitalism on military fiat. I DO agree that Marx saw economic relations as fundamentally political, but that is not the same thing!

I would expect a good discussion on Marx to explain why he entitled one book "A Critique of Political Economy" (what did he mean by political economy and what is his critique) and to explain why nevertheless many people call him and his work political economy (do they mean that Marx has more in common with Smith and Ricardo than Marxists would like to think? or do they mean a fundamentally different kind of political economy)?

Marx meant by political economy exactly what Ricardo meant by it, and he had much agreement with Smith and Mill on the goals of government. He just didn't believe those goals were compatible with the profit motive long term at all. His critique was focused on arbitrary exercise of power of state, efficiency, long term stability, and most importantly the alienation of the worker from their work. Ricardo and Marx agree on how important labor is - but to Ricardo more efficient labor is the same meaning to the worker and to the owner, to Marx they are opposites. Marx anticipated some modern "flow psychologists" like Cziszentmihalyi - but this too is complex. I don't know ANY Marxist that doesn't admit that Smith and Ricardo were basically right about the functions of a polity - Marx himself did - he just argued that *EVERYTHING* was ultimately defense, justice, infrastructure or education - that society or currency could only be stable by eliminating capitalism itself. He argued very strongly for the "crisis view" of capitalism itself.

The exercise of the power of the state is not arbitrary; it supports the capitalist class. I think you are right in many aspects but not giving enough credit to certain crucial differences concerning Marx's elaboration of the labor theory of value and his treating the commodification of labor as somewhat different than the commodification of other goods. For Smith, the exchange of bread and meat was paradigmatic and for him the division of labor is the essence of capitalism 9the pin factory); for Marx, it is (as you say) the alienation of labor -- related, but not quite the same and this shift in attention is crucial.

_In any event, there are two major errors here. First, for Marx the major function of the economy is not to enable trade; Marx privileges production over exchange.

yes, but, the production is still traded even if only between "efficient" state enterprises. This is not trade in the price-setting sense, but it is trade in the physical sense, i.e. barter with prices set centrally. Since many empires historically fixed the prices of many commodities, but still engaged in trade in non-essentials or with other cultures, I think my characterization is not wrong. But on the other hand, the emphasis of production over exchange, but more importantly of *USE* over exchange, should be made more clear, you are right. My one long paragraph is just not enough.

More importantly, Marx is most interested in capitalism, a set of productive (and reproductive) relationships the main purpose of which is to extract surplus value from labor and to facilitate its accumulation in the form of capital.

I agree completely that Marx makes exactly those assumptions, e.g. "surplus value" and differentiates labor's role (as I made clear already in means of production), and his phrase "capital is dead labor" must probably be here. But, this statement is not technically correct in the modern multi-phased use of the term "capital" (to mean e.g. natural and social means of production), it applied only to the infrastructural form of capital - in Marx's analysis the instructional capital was in the workers. so I thought it might be confusing. But you are absolutely right that the productive (and reproductive) relationships matter. Marx is much more organic than Smith, and emphasizes the role of social class, obviously , in reproducing social and instructional capital (which he would say are not capital but more labor - and he would also likely dislike the blanket term "human capital" used by the neoclassical macro-economists). But of course those newer broader terms actually make Marx correct by definition - clearly social and instructional capital are accumulated and to some degree confiscated since not everyone has equal power to protect it (flag, brand, label arguments, biopiracy arguments, etc.). Not that you can't apply the neoclassical political economy straight from game theory and rational choice - you can, and that gets you the idea of intellectual capital. Whew. So any pair of classical, neoclassical, Marxist, green theories of capital can be said to be fully described by the extended analysis of factors of production. Although, if you're a strict neo, you'll agree with Lev that "brand capital" exists and is not just social plus some instructional.24

I think it is vague at best to say that marxists argue that capitalism is inherantly destabilizing due to social damage (an odd way of phrasing it too).

not to sociologists who discuss it primarily in these terms. Nor to Schumpeter who argued that capitalism was efficient, as Smith said, and was a mainstream economist, but who also agreed with Marx that industrial labor was alienating and depleted (what is now called) social capital - and that it was doomed because its advantages were abstract and provable only to experts, while every individual could experience to some degree its overall frustration and alienation. Also, Schumpeter was a neoclassical not a Marxist.24

I would rather say marx argued that capitalism is inherantly unstable. On reason it is unstable is because it constantly revolutionizes the means of production, something that modernists and postmodernists think is a good thing. But marx was not just concerned with instability, he was concerned with exploitation and oppression. This is the real social damage of capitalism, and it is not caused by instability but rather by that which is most stable in capitalist relations, viz. the appropriation of surplus value through the labor market.

he argued the "permanent crisis" in the market, and the stable exploitation of labor. I agree, your explanation is entirely valid. I misrepresent Marx, tie him too much to neo/classical terms, if I say he is only about stability of markets...24

However, this exploitation, Marx hoped, would lead to one BIG instability (the permanent revolution), which Marx did not consider a bad thing (social damage) but a good thing, something healing and restorative. Also, the article is disingenuous to lunp "socail damage" with "ecological damage." I

true... later Marxists kind of defined nature as a "lumpen proletariat" but it's not clear that Marx would have accepted this. It should be differentiated as a later idea, not Marx's own. Although definitely in line with his "healing, restorative, revolution". What's more healing or restorative than gardening?24

do not think Marx was especially concerned about this, and although some admirers of Marx may be, many Marxists are not, even today. One can certainly claim that capitalism does econlogical damage, but to incorporate this as part of a section on marxian PE is is misleading.

yes, it's too cramped, I agree, the 1848-1872 Marx, the 1872-and-after Marx (when he said "I am not a Marxist"), the Marxists (many schools), Schumpeter (Marx's sociology applied to neoclassical economics), and the various theories equating "natural resources" and "human resources" using Marx's analysis, should all be covered. Somewhere. Not in this top level article.24

Okay, I just wish that the article were clearer about these distinction (or at least some of them) and why they matter (if indeed they do matter).

I have two other specific comments. One has to do with the use of the term "civilization." Do many political economists use the term today? My sense was theat they do not. I know S. Huntington does. In any event, I do not understand the use of the term here, it seems both out of place and antiquated. "Civilization" is -- in the political theory literature and also I think commonly -- used to express an ideological position that involves a distinction between users of the term and "primitives." A host of people, from Derrida to Torgovnik -- have critized this word and I do not see why it is even needed in a discussion of PE.

I agree. See evolution of societies - a non-economic view of this subject, and I think also one where we avoided the word civilization. I like the word used as a verb, the way anarchists use it, i.e. they refer to this "civilization" as the process of alienating of one's being from body, e.g. body philosophers views that the (human, primate, mammal, living, moving, observing, reacting) body is simply marginalized by civilization... But I think Huntington is right to imply that religions and culture bring their own assumptions to economics, and his "civilization", or Whitehead's, are rigorous and specific enough to use. Whitehead spoke about civilization and algebra as equivalent influeences - certainly that's relevant to political economy, which commodifies, quantifies, contracts, disputes - all using algebra...24

_Second, most anthropologists use "political economy" as a gloss for "Marxian," perhaps because there was a time when self-identifying as Marxist could get one in trouble. It's been a while since I looked at this literatue, but I am thinking of Chevalier and Roseberry and Gavin Smith, perhaps also Gerry Sider and Michael Taussig (although I do not think they identify themselves as "political economists" and might resent being so identified, others I think often do Identify them this way). Also mayby early Ann Stoller, of course Eric Wolf and David Nugent. All of these people have in common a concern with political and economic inequalities.

hmm - that is very very interesting, and I agree, I was thinking of this school vaguely and assumed they were who you meant when you said "anthropology", and thought they agreed with Helen Fisher or Jane Goodall on origin of economic behavior - e.g. female apes swapping sex for food, but then you mentioned "opposing the eco approach" and I suddenly thought you meant the rigorous libertarians (e.g. Robin Hanson, who applies it to things like betting markets on future scientific events, studies fairness as fitness, etc). I consider his views anthropological but he is not an anthropologist.

But most of them are also characterized by applying the notion of "mode of production" to the study of culture, or studying cultures in the context of world systems theory or dependency theory. Robin Hanson is not an anthropologist, he is an economist.

agreed, I didn't deal with "mode of production", although I was careful to differentiate means of production from factors of production.

At some point I might try to paste some of what I wrote here into the article. If anyone else wants to, go ahead. To be honest, I do not think I have much more time to devote to this. I still think the article is a mess, pporly written and unclear.

it's hard to get it right after only a couple of passes. As the above evidences this is an active area of debate, many theorists study it using many different terminologies, and some are not even aware of what terms have become standard at the global level, e.g. "natural capital", or in macro e.g. "human capital". Nor is everyone up on the debates, e.g. commodity markets, anti-globalization movement, intellectual capital. I agree, of all the economics articles, this one is least clear. But that seems clearly to me because the topic has no single agree def'n - even "safety, fairness, closure" comes from a specific theory, Oliver Harding's I think, or Hubley's, or Huntington. Someone starting with H, that's all I remember.

_I genuinely appreciate the way 24 has responded to my comments, for the most part with understanding and encouragement. Let me conclude with a minor note -- I appreciate your invitation to me to edit what you have written, especially in the case of typos. But the thing is, I really do not undersatand what you are trying to say or why, so it is very hard for me to know how to improve your prose. Sorry, SR

well, we have exchanged some very very specific views in the above here - I have written several articles and my view is perhaps over-represented here - I find you refreshing and well-informed. I had no trouble integrating your original passage, so if you wish to do as you did before, and try to lay out the above in a new article, putting it in a new introduction as before so that people can read either article, I may find a genius to integrate them.?24

suggestion - why don't we start from the LAST few paragraphs, where the issue of globalization versus localization is (weakly) covered? There at least we may be able to lay out fundamental questions as was done in capitalism.24

24, again I appreciate the way you have responded to my comments. Please feel free to revise the article incorporating things I have written, if you see fit.

although I have disagreed in substance over the article's account of Marx and anthropology (Goodal is an anthropologist, but studying a different species, even a different Genus; these animals are not our past, they are our contemporaries adapted to a different niche. Her work may help people reconstruct human evolution, but it would be folly to make direct inferences. The reconstruction of human evolution is very complex and no current model should be accepted as right, except in the broadest contours. In any event, I meant cultural anthropologists who study living human beings, and it is only, to my knowledge, these anthropologists who use the term Political Economy. I do not know of any primatologist who uses the term, although I may be wrong. I didn't find the term in the table of contents or index of Mcgrew, de Waal, or Jolly. I admit that their work begs comparison, but to I believe that to do so would really be to use an analogy. And analogies are notoriously shaky grounds for an argument). Nevertheless, my main criticism of the article as it stands is NOT substance, but clarity. I hope that the examples I have provided give you ideas about how you can communicate what you intend to communicate, but in a way that people, at least people like me, can actually understand and follow. I honestly do not feel I have anything more to contribute to this(so you need not respond to me and if you do, do not feel insulted if I do not respond further -- i assure you I will read what you write with interest, but I don't think I will say more). Good luck, SR