The Great Transformation (book)

Last updated
The Great Transformation
OriginsOfOurTimeTheGreatTransformation.jpg
First UK edition (publ. Victor Gollancz, 1945)
Author Karl Polanyi
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Subject
Publisher Farrar & Rinehart
Publication date
1944
Followed byTrade and Markets in the Early Empires (1957) 

The Great Transformation is a book by Karl Polanyi, a Hungarian political economist. First published in 1944 by Farrar & Rinehart, it deals with the social and political upheavals that took place in England during the rise of the market economy. Polanyi contends that the modern market economy and the modern nation-state should be understood not as discrete elements but as a single human invention, which he calls the "Market Society".

Contents

A distinguishing characteristic of the "Market Society" is that humanity's economic mentalities have been changed. Prior to this, people based their economies on reciprocity and redistribution across personal and communal relationships. [1] As a consequence of industrialization and increasing state influence, competitive markets were created that undermined these previous social tendencies, replacing them with formal institutions that aimed to promote a self-regulating market economy. [1] The expansion of capitalist institutions with an economically liberal mindset not only changed laws but also fundamentally altered humankind's economic relations; prior to this, markets played a very minor role in human affairs and were not even capable of setting prices because of their diminutive size. [2] It was only after industrialization and the onset of greater state control over newly created market institutions that the myth of human nature's propensity toward rational free trade became widespread. [3] However, Polanyi asserts instead that "man's economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships," [4] and he therefore proposes an alternative ethnographic economic approach called "substantivism", in opposition to "formalism", both terms coined by Polanyi in future work. [5]

On a broader theoretical level, The Great Transformation argues that markets cannot solely be understood through economic theory. Rather, markets are embedded in social and political logics, which makes it necessary for economic analysts to take into account politics when trying to understand the economy. [6] [7] For this reason, The Great Transformation is a key work in the fields of political economy and international political economy.

History

Polanyi began writing The Great Transformation in England in the late 1930s. He completed the book in the United States during World War II. He set out to explain the economic and social collapse of the 19th century, as well as the transformations that Polanyi had witnessed during the 20th century. [8]

General argument

Polanyi argued that the development of the modern state went hand in hand with the development of modern market economies and that these two changes were inextricably linked in history. Essential to the change from a premodern economy to a market economy was the altering of human economic mentalities away from their grounding in local social relationships and institutions, and into transactions idealized as "rational" and set apart from their previous social context. [1] Prior to the Market Society, markets had a very limited role in society and were confined almost entirely to long-distance trade. [9] As Polanyi wrote, "the same bias which made Adam Smith's generation view primeval man as bent on barter and truck induced their successors to disavow all interest in early man, as he was now known not to have indulged in those laudable passions." [10]

The modern market economy was forced by the powerful modern state, which was needed to push changes in social structure, and in what aspects of human nature were amplified and encouraged, which allowed for a competitive capitalist economy to emerge. For Polanyi, these changes implied the destruction of the basic social order that had reigned throughout pre-modern history. Central to the change was that factors of production, such as land and labor, would now be sold on the market at market-determined prices instead of allocated according to tradition, redistribution, or reciprocity. [11] This was both a change of human institutions and human nature.

His empirical case in large part relied upon analysis of the Speenhamland laws, which he saw not only as the last attempt of the squirearchy to preserve the traditional system of production and social order but also a self-defensive measure on the part of society that mitigated the disruption of the most violent period of economic change. Polanyi also remarks that the pre-modern economies of China, the Incan Empire, the Indian Empires, Babylon, Greece, and the various kingdoms of Africa operated on principles of reciprocity and redistribution with a very limited role for markets, especially in settling prices or allocating the factors of production. [12] The book also presented his belief that market society is unsustainable because it is fatally destructive to human nature and the natural contexts it inhabits.

Polanyi attempted to turn the tables on the orthodox liberal account of the rise of capitalism by arguing that “laissez-faire was planned”, whereas social protectionism was a spontaneous reaction to the social dislocation imposed by an unrestrained free market. He argues that the construction of a "self-regulating" market necessitates the separation of society into economic and political realms. Polanyi does not deny that the self-regulating market has brought "unheard of material wealth", but he suggests that this is too narrow a focus. The market, once it considers land, labor and money as fictitious commodities, and including them "means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market." [13]

This, he argues, results in massive social dislocation, and spontaneous moves by society to protect itself. In effect, Polanyi argues that once the free market attempts to separate itself from the fabric of society, social protectionism is society's natural response, which he calls the "double movement." Polanyi did not see economics as a subject closed off from other fields of enquiry, indeed he saw economic and social problems as inherently linked. He ended his work with a prediction of a socialist society, noting, "after a century of blind 'improvement', man is restoring his 'habitation.'" [14]

Gold standard

Polanyi offers a prominent argument in the field of political economy for Britain's decision to depart from the gold standard. [15] He argues that Britain went off the gold standard due to both deteriorating international economic conditions and pressures from labor, which had grown stronger over time. Labor opposed the gold standard because maintaining it meant that the British government had to implement austerity. [15] James Ashley Morrison found many later explanations for the collapse of the gold standard very much resemble the Polanyian argument, which he summarized as follows:

Developments in the global economy, particularly after World War I, made maintaining the gold standard increasingly painful. Diminished international cooperation combined with Britain’s relative economic decline to exacerbate its difficulties. At the same time, a newly empowered working class harnessed evolving “social purpose” to resist the austerity necessary to defend gold

Before the market society

Based on Bronislaw Malinowski's ethnological work on the Kula ring exchange in the Trobriand Islands, Polanyi makes the distinction between markets as an auxiliary tool for ease of exchange of goods and market societies. Market societies are those where markets are the paramount institution for the exchange of goods through price mechanisms. Polanyi argues that there are three general types of economic systems that existed before the rise of a market society: reciprocity, redistribution, and householding.

  1. Reciprocity: exchange of goods is based on reciprocal exchanges between social entities. On a macro level, this would include the production of goods to gift to other groups.
  2. Redistribution: trade and production is focused to a central entity such as a tribal leader or feudal lord and then redistributed to members of their society.
  3. Householding: economies where production is centered on individual households. Family units produce food, textile goods, and tools for their own use and consumption.

These three forms were not mutually exclusive, nor were they mutually exclusive of markets for the exchange of goods. The main distinction is that these three forms of economic organization were based around the social aspects of the society they operated in and were explicitly tied to those social relationships. Polanyi argued that these economic forms depended on the social principles of symmetry, centricity, and autarchy (self-sufficiency). Markets existed as an auxiliary avenue for the exchange of goods that were otherwise not obtainable.[ page needed ]

Reception

The book has influenced scholars such as Marshall Sahlins, Immanuel Wallerstein, James C. Scott, E.P. Thompson, and Douglass North. [16] John Ruggie, who called the Great Transformation a "magisterial work", was influenced by the work in coining the term Embedded liberalism for the Bretton Woods system of the post-World War II period. [17]

The sociologists Fred L. Block and Margaret Somers argue that Polanyi's analysis could help explain why the resurgence of free market ideas has resulted in "such manifest failures as persistent unemployment, widening inequality, and the severe financial crises that have stressed Western economies over the past forty years." They suggest that "the ideology that free markets can replace government is just as utopian and dangerous" as the idea that Communism will result in the withering away of the state. [18]

In Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, anthropologist David Graeber offers compliments to Polanyi's text and theories. Graeber attacks formalists and substantivists alike: "those who start by looking at society as a whole are left, like the Substantivists, trying to explain how people are motivated to reproduce society; those who start by looking at individual desires, like the formalists, unable to explain why people chose to maximize some things and not others (or otherwise to account for questions of meaning)." [19] While appreciative of Polanyi's attack on formalism, Graeber attempts to move beyond ethnography and towards understanding how individuals find meaning in their actions, synthesizing insights of Marcel Mauss, Karl Marx, and others.

In parallel with Polanyi's account of markets being made internal to society as a result of state intervention, Graeber argues the transition to credit-based markets from societies with separated "spheres of exchange" in gift giving was likely the accidental byproduct of state or temple bureaucracy (temple in the case of Sumer). [20] : 39–40  Graeber also notes that the criminalization of debt supplemented the enclosure movements in the destruction of English communities, since credit between community members had originally reinforced communal ties prior to state intervention:

The criminalization of debt, then, was the criminalization of the very basis of human society. It cannot be overemphasized that in a small community, everyone normally was both lender and borrower. One can only imagine the tensions and temptations that must have existed in a community—and communities, much though they are based on love, in fact, because they are based on love, will always also be full of hatred, rivalry and passion—when it became clear that with sufficiently clever scheming, manipulation, and perhaps a bit of strategic bribery, they could arrange to have almost anyone they hated imprisoned or even hanged.

—  David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years [20] : 334 

Economist Joseph Stiglitz favors Polanyi's account of market liberalization, arguing that the failures of "Shock Therapy" in Russia and the failures of IMF reform packages echo Polanyi's arguments. Stiglitz also summarizes the difficulties of "market liberalization" in that it requires unrealistic "flexibility" amongst the poor. [21]

Charles Kindleberger praised the book, saying it "is a useful corrective to the economic interpretation of the world, and should be read more and more by economists, particularly those of the Chicago school." He did however argue that everything in the book should not be taken as accurate. [22]

Polanyi's argument is often cited as the "Polanyian moment", "Polanyi Moment" or "Polanyi's moment", which indicates the time when social protectionism starts to surpass marketization and thus reversing the direction of the double movement. This term has been used to describe the situation after the Great Recession in 2008 [23] the COVID-19 pandemic. [24] Gemici compared the Polanyi Moment to the Minsky moment, the moment of a sudden collapse in the market. [25]

Criticism

Rutger Bregman, writing for Jacobin , criticized Polanyi's account of the Speenhamland system as reliant on several myths (increased poverty, increased population growth and increased unrest, as well as "'the pauperization of the masses,' who 'almost lost their human shape';" "basic income did not introduce a floor, he contended, but a ceiling") and the flawed Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832. [26]

Both Bregman and Corey Robin credited Polanyi's view with Richard Nixon moving away from a proposed basic income system because Polanyi was heavily quoted in a report by Nixon's aide, Martin Anderson, then ultimately providing arguments for various reductions in the welfare state introduced by Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. [26] [27]

Economic historians (e.g. Douglass North) have criticized Polanyi's account of the origins of capitalism. [28] Polanyi's account of reciprocity and redistributive systems is inherently changeless and thus cannot explain the emergence of the more specific form of modern capitalism in the 19th century. [29]

Deirdre McCloskey has criticized several aspects of the Great Transformation. She notes that Polanyi's account of "pre-market" societies are inconsistent with anthropological evidence which suggests these societies were not as equitable, socially stable, and successful as Polanyi makes them appear to be. McCloskey notes that market-based societies are not a nascent invention, as Polanyi claims, but that they extend further back in time. She also criticizes Polanyi's conceptualization of self-regulating markets whereby any and all government intervention in the markets means the markets are no longer markets. [16]

The Great Transformation has been criticized for underplaying power and class relations in its analysis. [30] [31] Polanyi argued, "class interests offer only a limited explanation of long-run movements in society." [32] He argued that while humans are "naturally conditioned by economic factors", human motives are only rarely determined by "material want-satisfaction"; rather, human motives were more social (e.g. desire for security and status) than material. [32]

Contents

Editions

The book was originally published in the United States in 1944 and then in England in 1945 as The Origins of Our Time. It was reissued by Beacon Press as a paperback in 1957 and as a 2nd edition with a foreword by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in 2001. [33]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Polanyi, The Great Transformation, ch. 4
  2. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, ch. 2,3
  3. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, ch. 3,4 & 15
  4. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, p. 48
  5. ↑ Polanyi, Karl (1957). "7". In Dalton, George (ed.). Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. pp. 139–174.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  6. ↑ McNamara, Kathleen R. (2015). The Politics of Everyday Europe: Constructing Authority in the European Union. OUP Oxford. p. 115. ISBN   978-0-19-102552-5.
  7. ↑ Blyth, Mark (2002). Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-01052-8.
  8. ↑ "The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time". eh.net. Retrieved 2021-07-26.
  9. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, p. 56
  10. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, p. 45
  11. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, p. 41
  12. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, pp. 52-53
  13. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, p. 71 (see also the entirety of Chapter 6).
  14. ↑ Polanyi, The Great Transformation, p. 257
  15. 1 2 Morrison, James Ashley (2016). "Shocking Intellectual Austerity: The Role of Ideas in the Demise of the Gold Standard in Britain". International Organization. 70 (1): 175–207. doi:10.1017/S0020818315000314. ISSN   0020-8183. S2CID   155189356.
  16. 1 2 McCloskey, Deirdre (1997). "Polanyi Was Right, and Wrong" (PDF). Eastern Economic Journal.
  17. ↑ Ruggie, John Gerard (1982). "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order". International Organization. 36 (2): 379–415. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300018993 . ISSN   0020-8183. JSTOR   2706527. S2CID   36120313.
  18. ↑ Fred Block and Margaret R. Somers. The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi's Critique. Harvard University Press, 2014. ISBN   0674050711
  19. ↑ David Graeber (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value . p. 12. ISBN   0-312-24044-9.
  20. 1 2 David Graeber (2011). Debt: The First 5000 Years . Melville House. ISBN   978-1-933633-86-2.
  21. ↑ Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, 2nd ed. Foreword by Joseph E. Stiglitz; pg.vii-xvii
  22. ↑ Kindleberger, Charles P. (1974). ""The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi". Daedalus. 103 (1): 45–52. ISSN   0011-5266. JSTOR   20024185.
  23. ↑ Stephen McBride; Rianne Mahon; Gerard W. Boychuk (2016). After'08: Social Policy and the Global Financial Crisis. UBC Press. pp. 5–11. ISBN   978-0774829663.
  24. ↑ Polanyi Levitt, K.; Seccareccia, M. (2022). "The Polanyi Moment, Decommodification of Labor and the Struggle for Full Employment: How the COVID-19 Crisis has Opened the Debate Over the Nature of the Fictitious Labor Market in Both the Industrialized and Developing World". International Journal of Political Economy. 51 (4): 292–306. doi:10.1080/08911916.2022.2129467. S2CID   256630616.
  25. ↑ Gemici, K. (2016). "Beyond the Minsky and Polanyi moments: Social origins of the foreclosure crisis". Politics & Society. 44 (1): 15–43. doi:10.1177/0032329215617463. S2CID   156366217.
  26. 1 2 Bregman, Rutger (May 5, 2016). "Nixon's Basic Income Plan". Jacobin . Retrieved January 18, 2019.
  27. ↑ Robin, Corey (October 10, 2013). "When Richard Nixon Met Karl Polanyi". Jacobin . Retrieved January 18, 2019.
  28. ↑ "Karl Polanyi's Battle with Economic History | Libertarianism.org". www.libertarianism.org. 2013-09-12. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  29. ↑ North, Douglass (1977). "Markets and Other Allocation Systems in History: The Challenge of Karl Polanyi". Journal of European Economic History. 6 (3): 703–716.
  30. ↑ Halperin, Sandra (2004). "Dynamics of Conflict and System Change: the Great Transformation Revisited". European Journal of International Relations. 10 (2): 263–306. doi:10.1177/1354066104042939. ISSN   1354-0661. S2CID   53048194.
  31. ↑ Silver, Beverly J.; Arrighi, Giovanni (2003). "Polanyi's "Double Movement": The Belle Époques of British and U.S. Hegemony Compared". Politics & Society. 31 (2): 325–355. doi:10.1177/0032329203252274. ISSN   0032-3292. S2CID   143455819.
  32. 1 2 Polanyi, Karl (1957). The Great Transformation. Beacon Press. pp. 152–153. ISBN   978-0-8070-5679-0.
  33. ↑ Block, F., & Polanyi, K. (2003) Karl Polanyi and the Writing of "The Great Transformation". Theory and Society, 32, June, 3, 275-306.
  34. ↑ Polanyi, Karl (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time – Karl Polanyi – Google Books. Beacon Press. ISBN   9780807056431 . Retrieved 2014-02-12.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barter</span> Direct reciprocal exchange of goods or services without the use of money

In trade, barter is a system of exchange in which participants in a transaction directly exchange goods or services for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money. Economists usually distinguish barter from gift economies in many ways; barter, for example, features immediate reciprocal exchange, not one delayed in time. Barter usually takes place on a bilateral basis, but may be multilateral. In most developed countries, barter usually exists parallel to monetary systems only to a very limited extent. Market actors use barter as a replacement for money as the method of exchange in times of monetary crisis, such as when currency becomes unstable or simply unavailable for conducting commerce.

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

The term Homo economicus, or economic man, is the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational and narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively defined ends optimally. It is a wordplay on Homo sapiens, used in some economic theories and in pedagogy.

Economic anthropology is a field that attempts to explain human economic behavior in its widest historic, geographic and cultural scope. It is an amalgamation of economics and anthropology. It is practiced by anthropologists and has a complex relationship with the discipline of economics, of which it is highly critical. Its origins as a sub-field of anthropology began with work by the Polish founder of anthropology Bronislaw Malinowski and the French Marcel Mauss on the nature of reciprocity as an alternative to market exchange. For the most part, studies in economic anthropology focus on exchange.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karl Polanyi</span> Economist, philosopher and historian (1886–1964)

Karl Paul Polanyi, was an Austro-Hungarian economic anthropologist, economic sociologist, and politician, best known for his book The Great Transformation, which questions the conceptual validity of self-regulating markets.

In cultural anthropology, reciprocity refers to the non-market exchange of goods or labour ranging from direct barter to forms of gift exchange where a return is eventually expected as in the exchange of birthday gifts. It is thus distinct from the true gift, where no return is expected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Embedded liberalism</span> Global economic system, 1945 to 1970s

Embedded liberalism is a term in international political economy for the global economic system and the associated international political orientation as they existed from the end of World War II to the 1970s. The system was set up to support a combination of free trade with the freedom for states to enhance their provision of welfare and to regulate their economies to reduce unemployment. The term was first used by the American political scientist John Ruggie in 1982.

Substantivism is an economic position that helps to explain the social relations embedded within the economy. First proposed by Karl Polanyi he argues that the term "economics" has two meanings. The formal meaning, used by today's neoclassical economists, refers to economics as the logic of rational action and decision-making, as rational choice between the alternative uses of limited (scarce) means, as "economizing", "maximizing", or "optimizing".

In cultural anthropology and sociology, redistribution refers to a system of economic exchange involving the centralized collection of goods from members of a group followed by the redivision of those goods among those members. It is a form of reciprocity. Redistribution differs from simple reciprocity, which is a dyadic back-and-forth exchange between two parties. Redistribution, in contrast, consists of pooling, a system of reciprocities. It is a within group relationship, whereas reciprocity is a between relationship. Pooling establishes a centre, whereas reciprocity inevitably establishes two distinct parties with their own interests. While the most basic form of pooling is that of food within the family, it is also the basis for sustained community efforts under a political leader.

Inclusive capitalism is a theoretical concept and policy movement that seeks to address the growing income and wealth inequality within Western capitalism following the financial crisis of 2007–2008.

In economics, nonmarket forces are those acting on economic factors from outside a market system. They include organizing and correcting factors that provide order to markets and other societal institutions and organizations, as well as forces utilized by price systems other than the free price system.

Throughout modern history, a variety of perspectives on capitalism have evolved based on different schools of thought.

<i>Debt: The First 5000 Years</i> 2011 book by David Graeber

Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war and government. It draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BCE until the present. Reception of the book was mixed, with praise for Graeber's sweeping scope from earliest recorded history to the present; others raised doubts about the accuracy of some statements in Debt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Svetlana Kirdina</span> Russian sociologist (born 1955)

Svetlana Kirdina-Chandler is a Russian sociologist and economist. Scientific career began in the Novosibirsk School of Economic Sociology. Doctor of Social Sciences, PhD. Research interests: sociological theory, institutions, economic theory, the theory of institutional matrices, transients in Russian society. Author of over 160 scientific papers, the most important of which are devoted to the development and applications of the theory of institutional matrix. She introduced two main and particular interdependent types of institutional matrices existing around the world, X-matrices and Y-matrices.

The X-matrix is characterized by the following basic institutions:

The following basic institutions characterize the Y-matrix:

X-economies and Y-economies could, according to Kirdina, borrow certain properties from each other while keeping their institutional core, although a complete replacement of X-matrix with Y-matrix was not possible. Rather, changes in the basic institutions were likely to result in the destruction of the society as a whole. A typical example was the fate of the Roman Empire. Basic to Kirdina's position was a refusal to consider the market economy as superior to non-market ones, and thus she did not consider the transition from non-market to market economies as progress or modernization." To her both systems were of equal merit, and each of them was effective in its appropriate place.

In economics and economic sociology, embeddedness refers to the degree to which economic activity is constrained by non-economic institutions. The term was created by economic historian Karl Polanyi as part of his substantivist approach. Polanyi argued that in non-market societies there are no pure economic institutions to which formal economic models can be applied. In these cases economic activities such as "provisioning" are "embedded" in non-economic kinship, religious and political institutions. In market societies, in contrast, economic activities have been rationalized, and economic action is "disembedded" from society and able to follow its own distinctive logic, captured in economic modeling. Polanyi's ideas were widely adopted and discussed in anthropology in what has been called the formalist–substantivist debate. Subsequently, the term "embeddedness" was further developed by economic sociologist Mark Granovetter, who argued that even in market societies, economic activity is not as disembedded from society as economic models would suggest.

The opposition between substantivist and formalist economic models was first proposed by Karl Polanyi in his work The Great Transformation (1944).

The archaeology of trade and exchange is a sub-discipline of archaeology that identifies how material goods and ideas moved across human populations. The terms “trade” and “exchange” have slightly different connotations: trade focuses on the long-distance circulation of material goods; exchange considers the transfer of persons and ideas.

Historical materialism is Karl Marx's theory of history. Marx located historical change in the rise of class societies and the way humans labor together to make their livelihoods.

The double movement is a concept originating with Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation. The phrase refers to the dialectical process of marketization and push for social protection against that marketization. First, laissez-faire reformers seek to "disembed" the economy to establish what Polanyi calls a "market society" wherein all things are commodified, including what Polanyi terms "fictitious commodities": land, labor, and money. Second, a reactionary "countermovement" arises whereby society attempts to re-embed the economy through the creation of social protections such as labor laws and tariffs. In Polanyi's view, these liberal reformers seek to subordinate society to the market economy, which is taken by these reformers to be self-regulating. To Polanyi, this is a utopian project, as economies are always embedded in societies.

The concept of fictitious commodities originated in Karl Polanyi's 1944 book The Great Transformation and refers to anything treated as market commodity that is not created for the market, specifically land, labor, and money.

References

Books
Articles
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.