=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1743/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Measuring more than just Exchange: Are Multiplex Networks the Key to Understanding Informal Economic Relationships?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1743/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-1743
|authors=John Harvey
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/simbig/Harvey16
}}
==Measuring more than just Exchange: Are Multiplex Networks the Key to Understanding Informal Economic Relationships?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1743/paper8.pdf
Measuring more than just exchange:
Are multiplex networks the key to understanding
informal economic relationships?
John Harvey
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham, U.K.
john.harvey@ntu.ac.uk
and b) a huge opportunity for researchers – particularly
Abstract those that are capable of creating novel tools to capture
and analyse new forms of data.
This paper asks whether graph theory can help The following paper draws on previous research into
with measurement of informal economies, par- how the informal economy is increasingly being medi-
ticularly for interactions between people that are ated through digital communication (Harvey et al,
not based on money, such as giving and sharing. 2014a, 2014b). The widespread availability of social
This is followed by a discussion of factors that networks has meant that data on people, goods and
influence the possibility of measurement, such transactions can be modelled explicitly, where previ-
as property rights, types of goods, and collective ously it was impossible (See for instance the compre-
forms of action. A specific epistemology is of- hensive EU commission review on organisations in the
fered that can be used to inform longitudinal ‘sharing economy’ - Codagnone et al., 2016). This
forms of economic measurement in preference suggests that data captured through social network
to traditional exchange-based methods. The pa- analysis can provide novel opportunities, for econo-
per concludes with a call for network scientists mists and anthropologists alike, to influence policy.
to collaborate with economists and anthropolo- Despite often being concerned with different subject
gists to help create new interdisciplinary forms matter, economists and anthropologists (and economic
of measurement that recognise the messy and anthropologists for that matter!) frequently study how
multiplex networks of our material social life. people exchange resources in order that they can sub-
sequently describe the aggregate or macro state of the
1 Introduction economy. This emphasis on exchange, and more spe-
cifically the exchange of alienated property, has be-
Measuring the activity in an economy is difficult. This come the basis of modern economics. For example,
is true for economists measuring the modern nation gross domestic product (henceforth GDP) is used for
state but it is also true for anthropologists involved with comparing economies, and despite emphasising
smaller communities. The traditional form of measure- productivity it nonetheless is a measure of goods that
ment takes money as the empirical object and ignores are saleable. Thus such an account misses any form of
interactions between people that are harder to record, productivity that is not described in terms of money.
such as gift giving and sharing, where receipts are typ- This is a huge methodological issue that is chronically
ically absent. These activities are often referred to as under-researched. The following pages outline what
part of the ‘informal’ side of the economy i.e. those ac- such empirical measurement obscures, before outlining
tivities that people value outside of financial transac- a preliminary sketch of an alternative approach. The
tions, but which are not regulated, monitored or evalu- paper ends by calling for specialists of social network
ated by the state. The informal economy has received analysis to help invigorate this debate by constructing
a wealth of academic attention over the past few dec- alternative measures of economic activity that capture
ades largely due to the influence of anthropologists the depth and breadth that exchange-centred ap-
such as Geertz (1963) and Hart (1973). proaches miss.
Estimates vary on the significance of the informal 2 Economic base and the possibility of
economy, from those that trivialise it to others that sug- exchange
gest if it were to be measured financially it would ex-
ceed the value of the formal economy (Gibson-Gra- Economic anthropology is a field of study that con-
ham, 1996). Regardless of estimates, large parts of in- cerns itself with the production, consumption and cir-
formal economies remain unstudied because of the dif- culation of objects between people. Implicitly then,
ficulty in recording non-monetary interactions between the study involves thinking about how people think of
people. This is a) a significant issue for policy makers themselves and how they think about the world around
that base decisions on the size or growth of economies,
73
them. This raises some tricky questions of ontology follows ‘to what extent can we define and compare cat-
and epistemology for any comparative method. egories of economic interaction’? And, is it even pos-
The seminal work completed by economic anthropolo- sible to do so without reducing the discipline to relativ-
gists, such as Mauss (1950/2002) and Malinowski ism? In the second half of the 20th century these ques-
(1922/1992), considered the various ways that items tions pulled anthropology apart. Some researchers,
circulate through societies and their associated moral like Needham (1971), drew on Wittgensteinian notions
purpose. Later work by authors such as Polanyi of ‘family resemblance’ to question the universality of
(1944), Sahlins (1979) and Levi-Strauss (1949) in- concepts like kinship, incest or marriage. Others (e.g.
cluded greater consideration about what economic re- Leach, 1961) questioned whether English patterns of
lations could be described as fundamental, regardless thought can be translated into universal axioms. They
of culture. These are referred to here as ‘archetypal’ also cautioned against excessive empiricism with the
relationships, but there is still disagreement about aim of categorising social groups into types and sub-
which relations are actually archetypal. Polanyi iden- types.
tified market exchange, reciprocity and redistribution
as three different patterns for economic provisioning of Dominant schools of thought in the 20th century led to
material goods within societies. He also recognised the a focus on exchange as the main criterion of measure-
significance of the way people pool resources together ment. However, exchange relies on institutional sup-
through institutions or kinship groups and referred to port of private property. It is extremely difficult to find
this as ‘householding’. Each of these archetypes are any anthropological or historical evidence of sustained
relationships which in principle can be understood in exchange between people without institutions that first
graph theoretical terms as a directed graph, indeed Po- establish property rights (Graeber, 2011). Furthermore,
lanyi spoke of degrees of ‘centricity’ and ‘symmetry’ the right of ownership is, as various anthropologists de-
being implicit in each respective form (1944, p.51). In scribe (e.g. Hart, 2005) only made possible because of
contrast, Levi-Strauss (1949/1969) and Sahlins (1979) a shared access to goods which support the possibility
both identified reciprocity as the basis of economic re- of individual appropriation. This undercarriage of
lations. Sahlins suggested that pooling should be con- goods is typically referred to as ‘base’ or infrastructure,
sidered as a special subset of reciprocal relations and because it quite literally supports the possibility of
described three forms of reciprocity: ‘general’, ‘bal- higher, more nuanced and individualised property
anced’ and ‘negative’. He suggested that each form of rights (Gudeman, 2008).
interaction is related to kinship i.e. how close or related To illustrate this point it is worth first considering the
people feel to each other, or as Sahlins (2012, p.28) types of goods that can be said to exist and the property
puts it in later work as ‘mutuality of being’. rights that are made possible by virtue of human rela-
tions to goods. Rather than analyse the simple dualism
The problem with the hypothesis that economic life is of public versus private goods, it is possible to
always premised upon reciprocity, albeit much of it acknowledge that some goods can be consumed a finite
‘generalised’ reciprocity is that it is difficult to falsify number of times and some goods can be appropriated
without a longitudinal dataset which encompasses all by a person and then excluded from others. These at-
of the relations between people that could be termed tributes are recognised in the political-economy litera-
‘economic’. Given that the economy is never simply ture as subtractability and excludability (Hess &
localised, this means it is impossible to obtain the nec- Ostrom, 2003). When the attributes are contrasted
essary dataset and thus the hypothesis remains imper- against one another four distinct types of goods can be
vious to analysis. Furthermore, any social scientific ap- distinguished. These are contrasted in the 2x2 matrix
proach to human action which presupposes such an ep- below:
istemic claim, reduces all social interaction to ex-
change, either through individual ‘transactions’ or as
an all-encompassing feature of culture at large. Subtractability
Each of the archetypal categories that Polanyi and
Sahlins described can in principle be observed as em- Low High
pirical events by social scientists. Indeed, Sahlins de-
scribes a range of ethnographic studies in great depth, Public Common
from across the globe, in order to justify distinct forms Excludabil- Difficult Goods Pool
of reciprocity. The problem with these basic arche- ity Resources
types though, is that they do not reflect the real-world Club Private
complexity that could be examined through longitudi- Easy Goods Goods
nal empirical studies. Furthermore, by describing all
human relations in terms of ‘reciprocity’ this elimi-
nates the possibility to examine behaviour which is not Table 1: Types of Goods (Hess & Ostrom, 2003, p.120)
motivated by consequential ethics, in other words it ig-
nores acts done for their own sake. The question thus
74
The possibility of excluding a good is a critical factor rights of one stakeholder can affect the qualitatively
involved in whether or not a person can successfully distinct rights of others. The transformation of over-
appropriate and exchange it. Sometimes goods are pub- lapping property rights is therefore an issue which in-
lic, like the air that humans breathe, and are shared by volves multiplexity. Forms of measurement that in-
default because they cannot be appropriated by a single volve multiple simultaneous relations may best be un-
individual. Others, like fishing stocks are shared be- derstood as multi-layered networks. In network sci-
cause there is a cultural resistance to ownership by a ence, multiplexity is the word used to describe how
single person, these are referred to as common-pool re- multiple overlapping relationships occur between a set
sources. A further category is ‘club’ goods which have of nodes. Bliemel et al. (2014, p.370) note that ‘multi-
a low subtractability because many people can interact plexity occurs when multiple types of relationships
with them, but they are easy to exclude from people, overlap within the same set of actors, thus causing the
for example a cinema or a lecture theatre. relationships and actors to be interdependent’.
The informal economy has received a large amount of 3 Measuring informal economies
attention wherever private goods have been concerned, through a network-centred approach:
but far less attention has been given to the way in which
A preliminary sketch
those same private transactions are made possible by
more basic relationships between people and the ob- The position adopted here presupposes neither reci-
jects they rely on. Categories of goods influence the procity nor exchange across all areas of social interac-
potential property rights that can be assigned to them. tion. This is a small detail, but the methodological sig-
Indeed, property rights should be identified as involv- nificance is that individual acts may be observed as part
ing not merely private ownership, but a hierarchical of broader social structures without having to reduce
range of qualitatively distinct possibilities depending explanation to either. What can be analysed instead are
on the category of good to which they are assigned. the property rights that overlap (through multiplexity)
This has been discussed at length by Ostrom & Hess but are nonetheless separate in observable form. If
(2007), who note a list of seven different property property rights are understood as a transitive quality of
rights, although this varies widely depending on cul- people and the collective institutions they form, this
ture and legal systems. opens up possibilities to measure and examine the
transformation of property rights throughout networks
Property Definition over time. Network multiplexity adequately captures
Right the nature of human economic relationships insofar as
Access The right to enter a defined physi- they are premised upon distinct, but nonetheless con-
cal area and enjoy non-subtractive tingent and interdependent, property relations between
benefits people. This is similar to what Appadurai (1988) pro-
Contribution The right to contribute to content posed by tracing the lifecycle of objects throughout an
Extraction The right to obtain resource units economy in order to reveal the way in which social
or products of a resource system structure is transformed:
Removal The right to remove one’s artifacts
from the resource ‘…we have to follow the things themselves, for their
Management The right to regulate internal use meanings are inscribed in their forms, their uses, their
/ Participa- patterns and transform the re- trajectories. It is only through the analysis of these tra-
tion source by making improvements jectories that we can interpret the human transactions
Exclusion The right to determine who will and calculations that enliven things. Thus, even though
have access, contribution, and re- from a theoretical point of view human actors encode
moval rights and how those rights things with significance, from a methodological point
may be transferred of view it is the things-in-motion that illuminate their
Alienation The right to sell or lease manage- human and social context.’ Appadurai (1988, p.5)
ment and exclusion rights
Table 2: Types of property rights (Ostrom & Hess, The informal economy has historically presented vari-
2007, p.16) ous methodological issues for quantitative analysis due
to the lack of formal record or receipt during exchange,
If we consider the previous lecture theatre example, for the absence of numerical balance in trade (i.e. cur-
instance, a university may own the alienable right of rency), and the often deliberately subversive or illicit
outright ownership, but the exclusion right of the thea- nature of informal exchange i.e. the activity is per-
tre could simultaneously be appropriated by the SIM- formed surreptitiously in relation to monetised or reg-
BIG conference management team, and conference at- ulated market economies. Thankfully, the technical de-
tendees could also simultaneously enjoy rights to con- velopment of web technologies and the Internet have
tribute to and access the theatre. The important aspect not only helped to facilitate new forms of informal
of this arrangement is that property rights simultane- economy but also provide the means to easily record,
ously overlap between stakeholders. One change in the
75
and thus quantify at scale, the previously obscured eco- property rights that people assign to them, so it is im-
nomic relations between people. This is of interest for portant to recognise both in any analysis of economic
a variety of economic practices, particularly those that relations. The property rights that people assign to ob-
are mediated by the Internet, because longitudinal da- jects are transitive and can be passed between people
tasets can be associated with non-monetary interac- in the case of exchange and giving, or rights can be
tions even in the absence of receipts. They can there- granted to others without discrete transfers, such as in
fore be analysed retrospectively for patterns of activity the case of sharing or access to common pool re-
that emerge over time. This is a novel and emerging sources. Transferal of property rights occurs in both
form of inquiry but studies have already been com- formal and informal economies and can be enacted by
pleted for at least two popular websites including individuals or institutions i.e. groups of people acting
Couchsurfing (a service that allows people to share ac- in unison. Examining direct and indirect reciprocity of
commodation – see Lauterbach et al., 2009) and for property rights, rather than the goods themselves, pro-
Streetbank (a service that encourages neighbours to vides an insight into whether interactions are premised
give and share their belongings with each other – see on some form of balance or whether they are done for
Harvey, 2016). their own sake.
Longitudinal datasets can provide insight into where
and when reciprocity occurs between donors and recip- One of the most promising approaches for examining
ients (direct reciprocity) and between networks of peo- property rights as graphs is the triad census. This is
ple motivated to ‘pass it on’ (i.e. indirect reciprocity). also the most immediate empirical measure for a di-
This type of approach can begin to ask questions that graph containing direct and indirect forms of reciproc-
anthropologists have arguably failed to answer, such as ity. For every possible triad of nodes in a directed net-
what specifically is ‘base’, ‘gifts’ or non-monetary work there is a potential for 16 different types of con-
economics when compared to markets, and should the figuration. A triad census does not merely describe the
two be separated for the purpose of analysis? Only nodes that interact through direct relationships, it also
through such an approach is it possible to critique the counts the nodes which are not active participants. It is
claims that human life is always premised on reciprocal this characteristic of the census which means that it can
forms. give an ‘overview’ of the structure of the network and
the relationships that consistently emerge. According
Anthropologists have on occasion attempted to incor- to Moody (1998, p.291) the triad census provides the
porate graph theory into practical ethnographic re- most empirically direct way of measuring the way that
search (e.g. Hage & Harary, 1996). A wide range of ‘individuals negotiate local relations and how those lo-
social scientists have also sought to use graph theory - cal relations cumulate into structures. Researchers can
and in particular forms of directed graphs - in order to test structural network hypotheses by comparing linear
model trust, friendships, alliances and communication combinations of the triad census to that expected under
networks to better understand human relations. How- a random or conditionally random.’
ever, transference of property rights between people
has received far less consideration and this may be due
to influential ‘practice’ theory approaches that have
taken precedence. For instance, the anthropologist
Rodney Needham (1975) drew attention to the problem
of categorising human activity through monothetic
forms of classification and instead called for greater at-
tention to be given to polythetic forms of classification,
that are fuzzier. The point of polythetic classification
is to help eliminate category errors. For example, when
an anthropologist observes a one-way transfer of mate-
rial wealth they should restrict themselves from think-
ing about the transfer as if it had a universal moral sta-
tus e.g. as a gift or as a bribe as experienced in their
own respective lives. This approach encourages re-
searchers to understand other people on their own
terms and relate the action to a broader set of social
facts. The consequence of this is that research accounts
are described in terms of incommensurable practices.
This is a problem for any normative economic science
because it removes the basis upon which to compare.
In contrast to polythetic accounts of categorisation, the
alternative described here is to recognise the ontologi-
cal basis of interaction – that people and goods are both Figure 1: Types of Triads (Batagelj & Mrvar, 2001)
essential. There is a distinction between goods and the
76
A variety of formulae have been put forward by authors icy. As more of the economy becomes digitally-medi-
over the past forty years to test network hypotheses ated there is an increasing amount of data that can be
(e.g.Holland and Leinhardt 1970, 1976; Fersht- used to analyse informal economies in ways previously
man,1985; Snijders and Stokman, 1987), but this form impossible. This wealth of data being created by
of data collection exercise should not just result in emerging online services as part of the ‘sharing econ-
straight-forward deductive testing of hypotheses. In- omy’ is predominately online and held by organisa-
stead it should help inform abductive reasoning about tions. This creates a challenge of access for research-
how particular economies come into existence, persist ers, but it also represents an opportunity, because those
or perish. The prevalence of particular triads is illus- same organisations are often non-profit and depend
trative of particular forms of economic relationship. upon support from policymakers. If the social effects
For instance triad 10 is an instance of indirect reciproc- of new models are to be properly understood and com-
ity, which would demonstrate that people primarily use municated to policymakers there must be far greater
a system to give and take. In contrast, intransitive rela- scrutiny given to multiplex relationships and how they
tionships (such as triads 4 and 5) demonstrate imbal- change through time.
ance in the relationships between people. These ques-
tions of empirical balance are closely related to ques-
tions of morality that have concerned economic anthro- 4 Why does this matter and what next?
pologists since the beginning of the discipline. But it
is only through cross-cultural comparison of datasets There are arguably three areas where a non-exchange
that reciprocity hypotheses can be tested. The collec- centred form of measurement could help with norma-
tion and analysis of these relationships is impossible tive social science for economics and/or anthropology:
for the ethnographer, who may be able to interview and
observe individual relationships at small scale. How- A) Many political decisions are made on the basis of
ever, where organisations capture transactional data aggregate accounts of exchange between people. Alt-
there is an opportunity for network scientists to analyse hough simplistic, growth in exchange figures are gen-
the social structure of economic relationships at scale, erally viewed as positive e.g. GDP. However, this
thus providing more insight than anthropologists alone. lacks depth and fails to account for the way in which
people actually provision for themselves. Various au-
Considered by itself, the triad census shown above thors have drawn attention to the limitations of eco-
does not provide much insight. The census is used nomic growth (e.g. Schumacher, 1973; Jackson 2009)
merely as a means of identifying the presence (or in- previously, but few have called for a fuller account of
deed absence) of particular triadic relations within the economics that includes non-exchange type relations
network and this subsequently can provide an empiri- between people.
cal measure of transitivity. According to Kadushin
(2012, p.25) statistical tests ‘are very supportive of the B) Resource dilemmas are a popular topic in econom-
proposition that interpersonal choices tend to be tran- ics in which researchers examine how people act (or
sitive. Intransitive triads are very rare … Nonetheless, fail to act) in cooperation when given shared access to
balance is only one theory about choice in a network a resource. There has been a great deal of attention
and does have its limitations by postulating rigorous given to this area (e.g. Ostrom, 2011) but models rarely
rules for relations that in messy social life do not al- mention network multiplexity and the way it constrains
ways hold.’ or enables emergent property rights. This absence rep-
resents an opportunity to bolster existing theory
Transitivity is an interesting concept for examining in- through experimental economics and ethnographic
formal economies because it gives an insight into the studies.
relative proportion of the network that can be said to be
balanced. However, for economic relations where a C) Anthropologists often describe cultures in which le-
transfer of property takes place, these are unlikely to be gal systems and property are fundamentally different
of a similar nature to other human relations such as from capitalist arrangements. Some groups of people
friendship or trust because excludability and subtracta- refuse to engage with private property or money due to
bility are both constraining factors. Indeed in work metaphysical / ethical beliefs about the nature of the
completed recently (Harvey 2016) this has been found world and the status of humanity (e.g. Hutterites of
to be the case for an informal website that encourages North America – see Hostetler, 1967). For anthropol-
gift giving and sharing. But very little attention has ogists studying these types of culture an account of
been paid to the effect this type of action has on the property rights that recognises network multiplexity
multiplexity of property rights, indeed it would require would help to describe how g people actually enact
a complex and dynamic account of transformation. communal property rights in order to maintain social
This is a huge opportunity for social network special- cohesion.
ists and anthropologists to collaborate for a novel re-
search agenda, which can help to inform economic pol-
77
Anthropologists seldom know the latest methodologi- K. Hart. 1973. Informal income opportunities and urban em-
cal innovations in network science, but are well placed ployment in Ghana. Journal of Modern African Studies
to understand the variations of property rights that peo- 11, 61-89
ple all over the world experience in their day-to-day K. Hart. 2005. The Hit-man’s Dilemma: On Business, Per-
sonal and Impersonal. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
lives. The scope for collaboration when measuring
economies is enormous, particularly if a realist theory J. Harvey. 2016. An Economic Anthropology of Computer-
of property rights is combined with network measures Mediated Non-Monetary Exchange in England, PhD
of reciprocity, centrality, transitivity and is understood Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham
as a multiplex phenomenon. The subject matter of this
paper covers an abstract, and at times obscure, problem J. Harvey., A. Smith and D. Golightly. 2014a. Giving and
from economic anthropology, but the practical conse- sharing in the computer-mediated economy, Journal of
quences of economic measurement has an impact on us Consumer Behaviour
all. Economic growth is measured solely in terms of
J. Harvey, D. Golightly and A. Smith 2014b. HCI As a
exchange and this is used to justify political choices Means to Prosociality in the Economy. In Proceedings
across the globe. An approach that recognises the mul- of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com-
tiplexity of property rights can provide a fuller and puting Systems (CHI ’14) New York: ACM, pp. 2955–
more appropriate understanding of the way economies 2964,
form, but this will require much greater collaboration
between disciplines. C. Hess and E. Ostrom 2003. Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities:
Information as a Common-Pool Resource, Law and
Contemporary Problems, 66, 111-146
P.W. Holland and S. Leinhardt, S., 1970. A method for de-
References tecting structure in sociometric data. American Journal
A. Appadurai 1988. Introduction: commodities and the poli- of Sociology. 70, 492–513.
tics of value. In The social life of things (ed.) A. Appa-
durai. New York: Cambridge University Press. P.W. Holland and S. Leinhardt 1976. The statistical analysis
of local structure in social networks. In: Heise, D.R.
V. Batagelj and A. Mrvar. 2001. A subquadratic triad cen- Ed., Sociological Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Fran-
sus algorithm for large sparse networks with small max- cisco, 1–45.
imum degree. Social Networks, 23:237
J. Hostetler. 1967. The Hutterites in North America,
M.J. Bliemel, I.P. McCarthy and E. Maine. 2014. An Inte- Wadsworth Publishing
grated Approach to Studying Multiplexity in Entrepre-
neurial Networks. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, T. Jackson. 2009. Prosperity without growth? The transition
4(4), 367-402 to a sustainable economy. London: The Sustainable De-
velopment Commission
C. Codagnone, F. Biagi, and F. Abadie. 2016. The passions
and the interests: Unpacking the sharing economy, In- D. Lauterbach, H. Truong, T. Shah, and L. Adamic. 2009.
stitute for Prospective Technological Studies, JRC Sci- Surfing a web of trust: Reputation and reciprocity on
ence for Policy Report couchsurfing. In Proceedings of the 2009 International
Conference on Computational Science and Engineering,
M. Fershtman, 1985. Transitivity and the path census in so- volume 4, pages 346–353
ciometry. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 11, 159–
189 E. Leach. 1961. Rethinking anthropology, Athlone Press:
London
C. Geertz. 1963. Peddlers and Princes. University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago C. Levi-Strauss. 1949/1969. The elementary structure of
kinship. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode
J.K. Gibson-Graham. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We
Knew It): a feminist critique of political economy, Ox- B. Malinowski. 1922/1992. Argonauts of the Western Pa-
ford: Basil Blackwell cific, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
D. Graeber. 2011. Debt: The first 5,000 years. New York: M. Mauss. 1950/2002. The Gift, Oxon: Routledge Classics
Melville House
R. Needham. 1971. Rethinking kinship and marriage,
S. Gudeman, 2008. Economy’s tension: the dialectics of Tavistock: London
community and markets. Oxford: Berghahn Books
R. Needham. 1975. Polythetic Classification: Convergence
P. Hage and F. Harary 1996. Island Networks: Communica- and Consequences. Man 10:349-369
tion, Kinship, and Classification Structure in Oceania.
New York: Cambridge University Press. E. Ostrom and C. Hess. 2007. A framework for analyzing
the knowledge commons, In
Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From The-
ory to Practice, Edited by Hess, C. & Ostrom, E.
78
E. Ostrom. 2011. Background on the Institutional Analysis
and Development Framework, The Policy Studies Jour-
nal, Vol. 39, No. 1
K. Polanyi. 1944. The Great Transformation. Boston: Bea-
con Press
M. Sahlins. 1979. Stone Age Economics, Chicago: Aldine-
Atherton.
M. Sahlins. 2012. What Kinship Is—And Is Not. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press
E.F. Schumacher. 1973. Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Eco-
nomics As If People Mattered, London: Blond & Briggs
T.A.B. Snijders and F.N. Stokman. 1987. Extensions of
triad counts to networks with different subsets of points
and testing underlying random graph distributions. So-
cial Networks 9, 249–275
79