The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ethical economic practice
Abstract
This chapter calls for a renewed focus on questions of value, distribution and fairness in economic anthropology. It revisits literature on ethical consumption, corporate social responsibility and solidarity economies and contrasts it with ethical economic practice from the Right. It claims that regressive value mobilisations are on the rise and calls for an analytic reorientation to make sense of their claims on things economic. It proposes three elements of such a reorientation: (1) a stress on ambivalence and everyday politics of value mobilisations, (2) a comparative and contrastive approach on ethical economic practices, and (3) a historical sensibility to explore genealogies and distant histories of how the economic and the political have been related to one another. The chapter proposes to engage with other sub-disciplines such as feminist anthropology and the anthropology of race to build alliances for understanding changing moral economies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“By taking those claims seriously, importantly by empathy, not sympathy (Streinzer 2019), the ethnographer can cross hegemonic socio-political and ideological boundaries (Pasieka 2017).”
From Thinking with Gramsci Today: Gramscian perspectives in ethnographies of Europe (2022) · cites this paper as Streinzer 2019
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thinking with Gramsci Today: Gramscian perspectives in ethnographies of Europe
Streinzer, A., & Tosic, J. (2022) · Dialectical Anthropology · doi:10.1007/s10624-022-09679-0 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Streinzer, A.
- Venue
- A Research Agenda for Economic Anthropology
- Publisher
- Edward Elgar Publishing
- Published
- 2019-07-26
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review