The Giver Ch 10 Summary

Mode of exchange where valuables are given without rewards

A gift economic system or souvenir civilisation is a system of substitution where valuables are not sold, but rather given without an explicit agreement for immediate or futurity rewards.^[1] Social norms and customs govern giving a gift in a gift culture; although in that location is some expectation of reciprocity, gifts are non given in an explicit exchange of appurtenances or services for coin, or another article or service.^[2] This contrasts with a barter economy or a market economy, where goods and services are primarily explicitly exchanged for value received.

The nature of gift economies is the subject of a foundational debate in anthropology. Anthropological inquiry into gift economies began with Bronisław Malinowski's clarification of the Kula ring^[iii] in the Trobriand Islands during Globe War I.^[four] The Kula merchandise appeared to be gift-like since Trobrianders would travel great distances over unsafe seas to give what were considered valuable objects without any guarantee of a return. Malinowski'due south debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complication of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and presentation to distinguish between the dissimilar forms of exchange.^[5] ^[vi]

According to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, it is the unsettled human relationship between market place and non-market exchange that attracts the nearly attention. Some authors fence that souvenir economies build community,^[7] while markets harm customs relationships.^[8]

Gift exchange is distinguished from other forms of exchange by a number of principles, such as the form of belongings rights governing the manufactures exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct "sphere of substitution" that can be characterized as an "economic system"; and the grapheme of the social human relationship that the gift exchange establishes. Gift credo in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of not-market place societies. Souvenir economies also differ from related phenomena, such every bit mutual property regimes and the exchange of non-commodified labour.

Principles of gift exchange [edit]

Co-ordinate to anthropologist Jonathan Parry, give-and-take on the nature of gifts, and of a separate sphere of souvenir exchange that would constitute an economic system, has been plagued by the ethnocentric use of modern, western, market society-based conception of the souvenir applied as if it were a cross-cultural, pan-historical universal. Still, he claims that anthropologists, through analysis of a multifariousness of cultural and historical forms of commutation, have established that no universal practice exists.^[9] His classic summation of the gift substitution debate highlighted that ideologies of the "pure gift" "are nearly likely to ascend in highly differentiated societies with an advanced partition of labour and a pregnant commercial sector" and demand to be distinguished from not-marketplace "prestations".^[10] According to Weiner, to speak of a "gift economy" in a not-market guild is to ignore the distinctive features of their exchange relationships, as the early classic debate betwixt Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss demonstrated.^[five] ^[six] Gift exchange is frequently "embedded" in political, kin, or religious institutions, and therefore does not plant an "economic" system per se.^[eleven]

Holding and alienability [edit]

Souvenir-giving is a form of transfer of property rights over item objects. The nature of those property rights varies from society to gild, from culture to culture, and are not universal. The nature of gift-giving is thus altered by the type of holding regime in identify.^[12]

Property is not a affair, just a relationship among people almost things.^[13] According to Chris Hann, property is a social relationship that governs the conduct of people with respect to the use and disposition of things. Anthropologists analyze these relationships in terms of a multifariousness of actors' (individual or corporate) "bundle of rights" over objects.^[12] An example is the electric current debates around intellectual property rights.^[14] ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[xviii] Hann and Strangelove both give the example of a purchased book (an object that he owns), over which the author retains a "copyright". Although the book is a article, bought and sold, it has not been completely "alienated" from its creator who maintains a hold over it; the owner of the book is limited in what he tin practise with the book by the rights of the creator.^[19] ^[20] Weiner has argued that the ability to requite while retaining a right to the gift/commodity is a critical characteristic of the gifting cultures described by Malinowski and Mauss, and explains, for example, why some gifts such as Kula valuables return to their original owners later on an incredible journey effectually the Trobriand islands. The gifts given in Kula exchange still remain, in some respects, the holding of the giver.^[vi]

In the instance used above, "copyright" is one of those bundled rights that regulate the use and disposition of a book. Gift-giving in many societies is complicated because "private belongings" owned by an individual may exist quite limited in telescopic (see § The commons beneath).^[12] Productive resources, such as land, may be held by members of a corporate group (such every bit a lineage), but only some members of that group may take "use rights". When many people hold rights over the same objects gifting has very different implications than the gifting of private property; only some of the rights in that object may be transferred, leaving that object nevertheless tied to its corporate owners. Anthropologist Annette Weiner refers to these types of objects as "inalienable possessions" and to the process every bit "keeping while giving".^[6]

Souvenir versus prestation [edit]

A Kula necklace, with its distinctive red shell-disc beads, from the Trobriand Islands

Malinowski'south report of the Kula ring^[21] became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don", 1925).^[5] Parry argued that Malinowski emphasized the substitution of appurtenances betwixt individuals, and their selfish motives for gifting: they expected a return of equal or greater value. Malinowski argued that reciprocity is an implicit function of gifting, and in that location is no "free gift" without expectation.^[22]

In contrast, Mauss emphasized that the gifts were non between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectives. These gifts were a "total prestation", a service provided out of obligation, like "community service".^[23] They were non alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like crown jewels, embodied the reputation, history and identity of a "corporate kin grouping", such as a line of kings. Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His answer was an enigmatic concept, "the spirit of the gift". Parry believes that much of the defoliation (and resulting fence) was due to a bad translation. Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to maintain the relationship betwixt givers; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of whatsoever time to come gifts.

Both Malinowski and Mauss agreed that in not-market societies, where there was no articulate institutionalized economical exchange organization, gift/prestation exchange served economic, kinship, religious and political functions that could not be conspicuously distinguished from each other, and which mutually influenced the nature of the practise.^[22]

Inalienable possessions [edit]

Mauss' concept of "total prestations" was further adult by Annette Weiner, who revisited Malinowski's fieldsite in the Trobriand Islands. Her critique was twofold: offset, Trobriand Island society is matrilineal, and women hold much economic and political power, but their exchanges were ignored by Malinowski. Secondly, she adult Mauss' argument well-nigh reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift" in terms of "inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping while giving".^[6] Weiner contrasted "moveable goods" which can be exchanged, with "immoveable goods" that serve to draw the gifts back (in the Trobriand case, male Kula gifts with women's landed property). She argues that the goods given, like crown jewels, are and then identified with particular groups, that even when given, they are not truly alienated. Such goods depend on the existence of particular kinds of kinship groups in society.

French anthropologist Maurice Godelier^[24] connected this analysis in "The Enigma of the Gift" (1999). Albert Schrauwers argued that the kinds of societies used as examples by Weiner and Godelier (including the Kula ring in the Trobriands, the Potlatch of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, and the Toraja of Southward Sulawesi, Indonesia) are all characterized by ranked aristocratic kin groups that fit Claude Lévi-Strauss' model of "House Societies" (where "house" refers to both noble lineage and their landed estate). He argues that total prestations are given to preserve landed estates identified with particular kin groups and maintain their identify in a ranked society.^[25]

Reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift" [edit]

Chris Gregory argued that reciprocity is a dyadic exchange relationship that we narrate, imprecisely, as souvenir-giving. Gregory argued that one gives gifts to friends and potential enemies in club to establish a relationship, by placing them in debt. He also claimed that in order for such a human relationship to persist, there must be a fourth dimension lag between the gift and counter-gift; 1 or the other partner must always be in debt. Marshall Sahlins stated that altogether gifts are an case of this: they are separated in time so that i partner feels the obligation to make a return gift; and to forget the render souvenir may be enough to stop the relationship. Gregory stated that without a relationship of debt, there is no reciprocity, and that this is what distinguishes a gift economy from a "true gift" given with no expectation of return (something Sahlins calls "generalized reciprocity": see beneath).^[26]

Marshall Sahlins, an American cultural anthropologist, identified three chief types of reciprocity in his volume Stone Age Economics (1972). Gift or generalized reciprocity is the substitution of goods and services without keeping rails of their exact value, but frequently with the expectation that their value will balance out over time. Counterbalanced or Symmetrical reciprocity occurs when someone gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible render at a specified amount, time, and place. Marketplace or negative reciprocity is the substitution of goods and services where each party intends to profit from the exchange, often at the expense of the other. Gift economies, or generalized reciprocity, occurred within closely knit kin groups, and the more afar the exchange partner, the more counterbalanced or negative the commutation became.^[27]

Clemency, debt, and the "poison of the gift" [edit]

Jonathan Parry argued that ideologies of the "pure gift" are nigh likely to arise only in highly differentiated societies with an advanced partition of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from the non-marketplace "prestations" discussed higher up.^[10] Parry too underscored, using the instance of charitable giving of alms in India (Dāna), that the "pure souvenir" of alms given with no expectation of return could be "poisonous". That is, the gift of alms embodying the sins of the giver, when given to ritually pure priests, saddled these priests with impurities of which they could not cleanse themselves. "Pure gifts", given without a return, can place recipients in debt, and hence in dependent status: the poisonous substance of the gift.^[28] David Graeber points out that no reciprocity is expected between unequals: if yous make a gift of a dollar to a beggar, he will not give it back the next fourth dimension you meet. More than than probable, he volition inquire for more than, to the detriment of his status.^[29] Many who are forced by circumstances to accept charity feel stigmatized. In the Moka exchange system of Papua New Guinea, where gift givers become political "large men", those who are in their debt and unable to repay with "interest" are referred to as "rubbish men".

The French writer Georges Bataille, in La part Maudite, uses Mauss's argument in order to construct a theory of economy: the construction of gift is the presupposition for all possible economy. Bataille is particularly interested in the potlatch as described by Mauss, and claims that its agonistic character obliges the receiver to confirm their own subjection. Thus gifting embodies the Hegelian dipole of master and slave within the human activity.

Spheres of exchange and "economic systems" [edit]

The relationship of new market commutation systems to ethnic non-market substitution remained a perplexing question for anthropologists. Paul Bohannan argued that the Tiv of Nigeria had three spheres of exchange, and that only certain kinds of goods could exist exchanged in each sphere; each sphere had its own form of special-purpose money. However, the market and universal coin allowed appurtenances to exist traded betwixt spheres and thus damaged established social relationships.^[30] Jonathan Parry and Maurice Bloch argued in "Money and the Morality of Exchange" (1989), that the "transactional order" through which long-term social reproduction of the family occurs has to be preserved as separate from short-term market relations.^[31] Information technology is the long-term social reproduction of the family that is sacralized past religious rituals such baptisms, weddings and funerals, and characterized past gifting.

In such situations where gift-giving and market substitution were intersecting for the first time, some anthropologists contrasted them equally polar opposites. This opposition was classically expressed by Chris Gregory in his book "Gifts and Commodities" (1982). Gregory argued that

Article exchange is an substitution of alienable objects betwixt people who are in a country of reciprocal independence that establishes a quantitative human relationship between the objects exchanged ... Gift exchange is an commutation of inalienable objects between people who are in a state of reciprocal dependence that establishes a qualitative relationship between the transactors (accent added).^[32]

Gregory contrasts gift and commodity exchange according to 5 criteria:^[33]

Commodity exchange	Gift exchange
firsthand exchange	delayed exchange
alienable goods	inalienable goods
actors independent	actors dependent
quantitative relationship	qualitative relationship
between objects	betwixt people

But other anthropologists refused to see these different "exchange spheres" as such polar opposites. Marilyn Strathern, writing on a similar area in Papua New Guinea, dismissed the utility of the contrasting setup in "The Gender of the Gift" (1988).^[34]

Wedding rings: commodity or pure souvenir?

Rather than emphasize how particular kinds of objects are either gifts or commodities to be traded in restricted spheres of exchange, Arjun Appadurai and others began to look at how objects flowed between these spheres of commutation (i.e. how objects tin exist converted into gifts and then back into commodities). They refocussed attention away from the graphic symbol of the human relationships formed through commutation, and placed information technology on "the social life of things" instead. They examined the strategies by which an object could be "singularized" (made unique, special, i-of-a-kind) and and then withdrawn from the market. A marriage ceremony that transforms a purchased ring into an irreplaceable family heirloom is one example; the heirloom, in turn, makes a perfect gift. Singularization is the reverse of the seemingly irresistible process of commodification. They thus show how all economies are a constant menstruation of material objects that enter and leave specific exchange spheres. A similar approach is taken past Nicholas Thomas, who examines the same range of cultures and the anthropologists who write on them, and redirects attention to the "entangled objects" and their roles as both gifts and commodities.^[35]

Proscriptions [edit]

Many societies have strong prohibitions against turning gifts into merchandise or capital goods. Anthropologist Wendy James writes that amongst the Uduk people of northeast Africa there is a strong custom that any gift that crosses subclan boundaries must be consumed rather than invested.^[36] ^: four For example, an fauna given as a gift must be eaten, not bred. Still, as in the example of the Trobriand armbands and necklaces, this "perishing" may not consist of consumption as such, but of the gift moving on. In other societies, it is a affair of giving some other gift, either directly in return or to another party. To keep the gift and not requite another in exchange is reprehensible. "In folk tales," Lewis Hyde remarks, "the person who tries to concur onto a gift commonly dies."^[36] ^: 5

Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied the small Pirahã tribe of hunter-gatherers in Brazil,^[37] reported that, while they are enlightened of food preservation using drying, salting, and and then along, they reserve their use for items bartered exterior the tribe. Within the group, when someone has a successful hunt they immediately share the affluence by inviting others to enjoy a feast. Asked about this practice, ane hunter laughed and replied, "I store meat in the belly of my blood brother."^[38] ^[39]

Carol Stack'south All Our Kin describes both the positive and negative sides of a network of obligation and gratitude effectively constituting a souvenir economy. Her narrative of The Flats, a poor Chicago neighborhood, tells in passing the story of two sisters who each came into a small-scale inheritance. I sister hoarded the inheritance and prospered materially for some time, but was alienated from the community. Her marriage broke upward, and she integrated herself back into the community largely by giving gifts. The other sister fulfilled the community'southward expectations, just within six weeks had nothing textile to show for the inheritance but a coat and a pair of shoes.^[36] ^: 75–76

Case studies: prestations [edit]

Marcel Mauss was careful to distinguish "souvenir economies" (reciprocity) in market societies from the "total prestations" given in not-marketplace societies. A prestation is a service provided out of obligation, like "community service".^[23] These "prestations" join domains across political, religious, legal, moral and economic definitions, such that the exchange can be seen to be embedded in not-economical social institutions. These prestations are often competitive, every bit in the potlatch, Kula exchange, and Moka commutation.^[40]

Moka commutation in Papua New Guinea: competitive exchange [edit]

The Moka is a highly ritualized system of exchange in the Mount Hagen area, Papua New Guinea, that has become emblematic of the anthropological concepts of a "souvenir economic system" and of a "big man" political system. Moka are reciprocal gifts that heighten the social condition of the giver if the gift is larger than one that the giver received. Moka refers specifically to the increment in the size of the souvenir.^[41] The gifts are of a limited range of appurtenances, primarily pigs and scarce pearl shells from the coast. To return the same value as one has received in a moka is simply to repay a debt, strict reciprocity. Moka is the extra. To some, this represents interest on an investment. Notwithstanding, one is non leap to provide moka, only to repay the debt. One adds moka to the gift to increase one's prestige, and to identify the receiver in debt. Information technology is this constant renewal of the debt human relationship which keeps the relationship alive; a debt fully paid off ends further interaction. Giving more than than one receives establishes a reputation as a Big man, whereas the simple repayment of debt, or failure to fully repay, pushes one's reputation towards the other finish of the scale, "rubbish man".^[42] Gift substitution thus has a political upshot; granting prestige or condition to one, and a sense of debt in the other. A political system can be congenital out of these kinds of status relationships. Sahlins characterizes the difference betwixt condition and rank by highlighting that Big man is not a role; it is a status that is shared by many. The Big human being is "not a prince of men", but a "prince amongst men". The "big man" system is based on the ability to persuade, rather than command.^[43]

Toraja funerals: the politics of meat distribution [edit]

Three tongkonan noble houses in a Torajan hamlet

Ritual slaughter of gift cattle at a funeral

The Toraja are an indigenous group indigenous to a mountainous region of S Sulawesi, Republic of indonesia.^[44] Torajans are renowned for their elaborate funeral rites, burial sites carved into rocky cliffs, and massive peaked-roof traditional houses known as tongkonan which are owned by noble families. Membership in a tongkonan is inherited by all descendants of its founders. Thus whatsoever private may exist a member of numerous tongkonan, every bit long as they contribute to its ritual events. Membership in a tongkonan carries benefits, such equally the right to rent some of its rice fields.^[45]

Toraja funeral rites are of import social events, usually attended by hundreds of people and lasting several days. The funerals are similar "large men" competitions where all the descendants of a tongkonan compete through gifts of sacrificial cattle. Participants have invested cattle with others over the years, and depict on those extended networks to make the largest gift. The winner of the competition becomes the new owner of the tongkonan and its rice lands. They display all the cattle horns from their winning sacrifice on a pole in front of the tongkonan.^[45]

The Toraja funeral differs from the "large man" system in that the winner of the "gift" substitution gains control of the Tongkonan's property. It creates a articulate social hierarchy between the noble owners of the tongkonan and its land, and the commoners who are forced to rent their fields from him. Since the owners of the tongkonan proceeds rent, they are improve able to compete in the funeral gift exchanges, and their social rank is more than stable than the "large human" system.^[45]

Charity and alms giving [edit]

Anthropologist David Graeber argued that the great world religious traditions of charity and souvenir giving emerged well-nigh simultaneously during the "Axial age" (800 to 200 BCE), when coinage was invented and marketplace economies were established on a continental footing. Graeber argues that these clemency traditions emerged equally a reaction confronting the nexus formed by coinage, slavery, military violence and the marketplace (a "military-coinage" complex). The new world religions, including Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, and Islam all sought to preserve "homo economies" where money served to cement social relationships rather than purchase things (including people).^[46]

Charity and alms-giving are religiously sanctioned voluntary gifts given without expectation of return. However, case studies evidence that such gifting is non necessarily donating.^[47]

Merit making in Buddhist Thailand [edit]

Theravada Buddhism in Thailand emphasizes the importance of giving alms (merit making) without any intention of return (a pure souvenir), which is all-time accomplished co-ordinate to doctrine, through gifts to monks and temples. The emphasis is on the selfless gifting which "earns merit" (and a future better life) for the giver rather than on the relief of the poor or the recipient on whom the souvenir is bestowed. However, Bowie's research shows that this ideal grade of gifting is limited to the rich who have the resources to endow temples and sponsor the ordination of monks.^[48] Monks come up from these aforementioned families, then this gifting doctrine has a class element. Poorer farmers place much less emphasis on merit making through gifts to monks and temples. They as validate gifting to beggars. Poverty and dearth is widespread among these poorer groups, and by validating gift-giving to beggars, they are in fact demanding that the rich see to their needs in difficult times. Bowie sees this as an instance of a moral economy (encounter below) in which the poor employ gossip and reputation to resist elite exploitation and pressure them to ease their "this world" suffering.^[49]

Clemency: Dana in India [edit]

Dāna is a form of religious charity given in Hindu India. The souvenir is said to embody the sins of the giver (the "poison of the gift"), whom it frees of evil by transmitting it to the recipient. The merit of the gift depends on finding a worthy recipient such equally a Brahmin priest. Priests are supposed to exist able to assimilate the sin through ritual activeness and transmit the gift with increment to someone of greater worth. It is imperative that this exist a true souvenir, with no reciprocity, or the evil volition render. The gift is not intended to create any relationship between donor and recipient, and there should never be a return gift. Dana thus transgresses the so-chosen universal "norm of reciprocity".^[ten]

The Children of Peace in Canada [edit]

The Children of Peace (1812–1889) were a utopian Quaker sect. Today, they are primarily remembered for the Sharon Temple, a national historic site and an architectural symbol of their vision of a lodge based on the values of peace, equality and social justice. They congenital this ornate temple to heighten money for the poor, and built the province of Ontario's get-go shelter for the homeless. They took a lead role in organizing the province's first co-operative, the Farmers' Storehouse, and opened the province's first credit spousal relationship. The group soon establish that the clemency they tried to distribute from their Temple fund endangered the poor. Accepting charity was a sign of indebtedness, and the debtor could be jailed without trial at the time; this was the "poisonous substance of the gift". They thus transformed their clemency fund into a credit union that loaned minor sums like today'due south micro-credit institutions. This is an instance of singularization, equally money was transformed into charity in the Temple ceremony, then shifted to an alternative substitution sphere as a loan. Interest on the loan was then singularized, and transformed back into clemency.^[fifty]

Gifting as non-commodified exchange in market societies [edit]

Non-commodified spheres of exchange exist in relation to the market economy. They are created through the processes of singularization as specific objects are de-commodified for a variety of reasons and enter an culling substitution sphere. Information technology may be in opposition to the market place and to its perceived greed. It may likewise exist used by corporations equally a means of creating a sense of endebtedness and loyalty in customers. Mod marketing techniques often aim at infusing commodity commutation with features of gift exchange, thus blurring the presumably sharp distinction between gifts and commodities.^[51]

Organ transplant networks, sperm and claret banks [edit]

Claret donation poster, WWII

Market economies tend to "reduce everything – including human beings, their labor, and their reproductive capacity – to the status of commodities".^[52] "The rapid transfer of organ transplant technology to the third world has created a trade in organs, with sick bodies travelling to the Global South for transplants, and healthy organs from the Global South existence transported to the richer Global N, "creating a kind of 'Kula band' of bodies and body parts."^[53] Even so, all commodities can also be singularized, or de-commodified, and transformed into gifts. In North America, it is illegal to sell organs, and citizens are enjoined to give the "gift of life" and donate their organs in an organ gift economic system.^[54] Even so, this gift economy is a "medical realm rife with potent forms of mystified commodification".^[55] This multimillion-dollar medical industry requires clients to pay steep fees for the gifted organ, which creates articulate class divisions between those who donate (ofttimes in the global s) and will never benefit from gifted organs, and those who tin pay the fees and thereby receive a gifted organ.^[54]

Dissimilar body organs, claret and semen accept been successfully and legally commodified in the U.s.a.. Blood and semen tin can thus exist commodified, just once consumed are "the gift of life". Although both can exist either donated or sold, are perceived as the "gift of life" yet are stored in "banks", and can be collected only under strict government regulated procedures, recipients very clearly adopt altruistically donated semen and blood. The claret and semen samples with the highest marketplace value are those that accept been altruistically donated. The recipients view semen as storing the potential characteristics of their unborn child in its DNA, and value altruism over greed.^[56] Similarly, gifted blood is the classic of a pure gift relationship considering the donor is only motivated by a desire to help others.^[57] ^[58]

Copyleft vs copyright: the gift of "gratis" speech [edit]

Engineers, scientists and software developers have created gratis software projects such as the Linux kernel and the GNU operating arrangement. They are prototypical examples for the gift economy's prominence in the applied science sector, and its active office in instating the use of permissive free software and copyleft licenses, which permit gratis reuse of software and knowledge. Other examples include file-sharing, open up access, unlicensed software and and so on.

Points and loyalty programs [edit]

Many retail organizations take "souvenir" programs meant to encourage customer loyalty to their establishments. Bird-David and Darr refer to these as hybrid "mass-gifts" which are neither gift nor commodity. They are called mass-gifts because they are given away in big numbers "free with buy" in a mass-consumption environment. They requite as an example two bars of soap in which one is given costless with purchase: which is the commodity and which the gift? The mass-gift both affirms the distinct divergence between gift and commodity while confusing it at the aforementioned fourth dimension. Every bit with gifting, mass-gifts are used to create a social human relationship. Some customers embrace the relationship and souvenir whereas others reject the gift relationship and interpret the "gift" as a fifty% off sale.^[59]

Gratuitous shops [edit]

Within Utrecht Giveaway shop. The banner reads "The earth has enough for everyone's demand, but not for everyone'due south greed".

"Requite-away shops", "freeshops" or "gratis stores" are stores where all goods are free. They are like to clemency shops, with mostly second-hand items – merely everything is available at no cost. Whether it is a book, a piece of furniture, a garment or a household item, it is all freely given away, although some operate a i-in, 1-out–type policy (bandy shops). The free store is a form of constructive direct action that provides a shopping culling to a monetary framework, assuasive people to exchange goods and services outside a money-based economy. The anarchist 1960s countercultural group The Diggers^[sixty] opened free stores which gave away their stock, provided free food, distributed gratuitous drugs, gave away money, organized gratuitous music concerts, and performed works of political art.^[61] The Diggers took their proper name from the original English Diggers led by Gerrard Winstanley^[62] and sought to create a mini-society free of money and commercialism.^[63]

Burning Man [edit]

Black Rock Urban center, the temporary settlement created in the Nevada Desert for Burning Man, 2010

Burning Man is a week-long almanac art and community event held in the Blackness Stone Desert in northern Nevada, in the United States. The upshot is described equally an experiment in community, radical self-expression, and radical cocky-reliance. The event forbids commerce (except for ice, java, and tickets to the event itself)^[64] and encourages gifting.^[65] Gifting is i of the 10 guiding principles,^[66] as participants to Called-for Human being (both the desert festival and the year-round global community) are encouraged to rely on a souvenir economy. The practice of gifting at Burning Human is also documented by the 2002 documentary film Gifting Information technology: A Burning Comprehend of Gift Economy,^[67] too every bit by Making Contact'due south radio show "How We Survive: The Currency of Giving [encore]".^[65]

Cannabis market in the Commune of Columbia and U.Due south. states [edit]

According to the Associated Press, "Gift-giving has long been a part of marijuana culture" and has accompanied legalization in U.S. states in the 2010s.^[68] Voters in the Commune of Columbia legalized the growing of cannabis for personal recreational use by blessing Initiative 71 in November 2014, but the 2015 "Cromnibus" Federal appropriations bills prevented the District from creating a arrangement to allow for its commercial sale. Possession, growth, and use of the drug by adults is legal in the Commune, as is giving it away, merely sale and barter of it is not, in effect attempting to create a gift economy.^[69] Yet it ended up creating a commercial market linked to selling other objects.^[70] Preceding the January, 2018 legalization of cannabis possession in Vermont without a corresponding legal framework for sales, information technology was expected that a similar market would sally there.^[71] For a time, people in Portland, Oregon, could but legally obtain cannabis every bit a souvenir, which was historic in the Burnside Burn rally.^[72] For a fourth dimension, a similar state of affairs ensued later possession was legalized in California, Maine and Massachusetts.^[68] ^[73] ^[74]

[edit]

Common assistance [edit]

Many anarchists, particularly anarcho-primitivists and anarcho-communists, believe that variations on a gift economy may be the fundamental to breaking the cycle of poverty. Therefore, they often desire to refashion all of society into a gift economy. Anarcho-communists advocate a gift economy as an ideal, with neither coin, nor markets, nor planning. This view traces dorsum at least to Peter Kropotkin, who saw in the hunter-gatherer tribes he had visited the prototype of "common help".^[75] In place of a market, anarcho-communists, such every bit those who lived in some Spanish villages in the 1930s, support a gift economic system without currency, where goods and services are produced by workers and distributed in community stores where anybody (including the workers who produced them) is substantially entitled to eat whatever they want or need as payment for their production of appurtenances and services.^[76]

Equally an intellectual abstraction, mutual assistance was developed and advanced by mutualism or labor insurance systems and thus merchandise unions, and has been also used in cooperatives and other civil gild movements. Typically, common-assistance groups are free to bring together and participate in, and all activities are voluntary. Often they are structured equally not-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic non-profit organizations, with members decision-making all resources and no external financial or professional person back up. They are member-led and member-organized. They are egalitarian in nature, and designed to back up participatory republic, equality of fellow member status and power, and shared leadership and cooperative decision-making. Members' external societal status is considered irrelevant inside the group: status in the group is conferred by participation.^[77]

Moral economic system [edit]

English historian E.P. Thompson wrote nearly the moral economy of the poor in the context of widespread English food riots in the English countryside in the late 18th century. Thompson claimed that these riots were by and large peaceable acts that demonstrated a mutual political culture rooted in feudal rights to "set the price" of essential goods in the market place. These peasants believed that a traditional "fair price" was more of import to the community than a "costless" marketplace price and they punished large farmers who sold their surpluses at college prices outside the hamlet while some village members still needed produce. Thus a moral economy is an attempt to preserve an culling exchange sphere from market penetration.^[78] ^[79] The notion of peasants with a non-backer cultural mentality using the marketplace for their own ends has been linked to subsistence agriculture and the need for subsistence insurance in hard times. Yet, James C. Scott points out that those who provide this subsistence insurance to the poor in bad years are wealthy patrons who exact a political price for their aid; this assist is given to recruit followers. The concept of moral economy has been used to explicate why peasants in a number of colonial contexts, such as the Vietnam War, have rebelled.^[eighty]

The commons [edit]

Some may misfile mutual property regimes with gift substitution systems. The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a order, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable globe. These resources are held in common, not endemic privately.^[81] The resources held in common can include everything from natural resource and mutual land to software.^[82] The commons contains public property and individual holding, over which people have sure traditional rights. When commonly held property is transformed into private property this process is called "enclosure" or "privatization". A person who has a correct in, or over, common country jointly with another or others is called a commoner.^[83]

There are a number of important aspects that can exist used to describe true commons. The get-go is that the commons cannot exist commodified – if they are, they stop to be commons. The second attribute is that unlike private property, the eatables are inclusive rather than sectional – their nature is to share buying every bit widely, rather than equally narrowly, as possible. The third aspect is that the avails in commons are meant to be preserved regardless of their render of uppercase. But as nosotros receive them as a shared right, so we accept a duty to pass them on to future generations in at least the aforementioned status as we received them. If we can add to their value, so much the better, simply at a minimum nosotros must non degrade them, and we certainly have no right to destroy them.^[84]

New intellectual commons: free content [edit]

Free content, or free information, is whatsoever kind of functional work, artwork, or other artistic content that meets the definition of a gratis cultural work.^[85] A free cultural work is one which has no significant legal restriction on people'southward freedom:

to use the content and benefit from using it,
to study the content and utilise what is learned,
to make and distribute copies of the content,
to change and meliorate the content and distribute these derivative works.^[86] ^[87]

Although different definitions are used, costless content is legally like if not identical to open content. An illustration is the employ of the rival terms complimentary software and open source which describe ideological differences rather than legal ones.^[88] Complimentary content encompasses all works in the public domain and as well those copyrighted works whose licenses accolade and uphold the freedoms mentioned above. Considering copyright police force in about countries by default grants copyright holders monopolistic command over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared free, normally past the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from inside the work.

Although a work which is in the public domain because its copyright has expired is considered free, it can become not-free over again if the copyright law changes.^[89]

Information is particularly suited to gift economies, every bit information is a nonrival good and tin can be gifted at practically no cost (nada marginal cost).^[xc] ^[91] In fact, at that place is often an advantage to using the same software or data formats as others, so even from a selfish perspective, it can be advantageous to give away one's information.

Filesharing [edit]

Markus Giesler, in his ethnography Consumer Gift Organisation, described music downloading equally a organisation of social solidarity based on souvenir transactions.^[92] Equally Cyberspace access spread, file sharing became extremely popular among users who could contribute and receive files on line. This form of gift economy was a model for online services such as Napster, which focused on music sharing and was later sued for copyright infringement. Nonetheless, online file sharing persists in various forms such as BitTorrent and straight download link. A number of communications and intellectual belongings experts such every bit Henry Jenkins and Lawrence Lessig have described file-sharing as a grade of gift exchange which provides many benefits to artists and consumers akin. They have argued that file sharing fosters community amongst distributors and allows for a more than equitable distribution of media.

Free and open up-source software [edit]

In his essay "Homesteading the Noosphere", noted computer programmer Eric Southward. Raymond said that gratuitous and open-source software developers have created "a 'gift culture' in which participants compete for prestige by giving time, energy, and creativity away".^[93] Prestige gained equally a result of contributions to source lawmaking fosters a social network for the programmer; the open up source community will recognize the developer'due south accomplishments and intelligence. Consequently, the developer may observe more opportunities to work with other developers. Nonetheless, prestige is non the but motivator for the giving of lines of code. An anthropological study of the Fedora customs, every bit part of a master's study at the University of N Texas in 2010–11, plant that common reasons given by contributors were "learning for the joy of learning and collaborating with interesting and smart people". Motivation for personal gain, such as career benefits, was more rarely reported. Many of those surveyed said things similar, "Mainly I contribute just to make it work for me", and "programmers develop software to 'scratch an itch'".^[94] The International Constitute of Infonomics at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands reported in 2002 that in addition to the above, large corporations, and they specifically mentioned IBM, also spend big annual sums employing developers specifically for them to contribute to open up source projects. The firms' and the employees' motivations in such cases are less clear.^[95]

Members of the Linux community often speak of their community as a souvenir economy.^[96] The IT research house IDC valued the Linux kernel at US$eighteen billion in 2007 and projected its value at US$40 billion in 2010.^[97] The Debian distribution of the GNU/Linux operating organization offers over 37,000 free open up-source software packages via their AMD64 repositories lonely.^[98]

Collaborative works [edit]

Collaborative works are works created by an open community. For instance, Wikipedia – a free online encyclopedia – features millions of articles developed collaboratively, and nearly none of its many authors and editors receive any direct material advantage.^[99] ^[100]

Run across also [edit]

Anarchist economics
Bones income
Credibility points
Calculation in kind
Digital currency
Egoboo
Nutrient swap
Costless instruction
Giving circles
History of money
Homestay – CouchSurfing
Cognition market
Natural economy
Pay it forward
Post-scarcity economy
Archaic communism
Solidarity economy
World currency

Notes [edit]

^ Cheal, David J (1988). "1". The Gift Economy. New York: Routledge. pp. one–xix. ISBN0415006414 . Retrieved 2009-06-18 .
^ R. Kranton: Reciprocal exchange: a self-sustaining system, American Economic Review, V. 86 (1996), Issue iv (September), pp. 830–851
^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London.
^ Keesing, Roger; Strathern, Andrew (1988). Cultural Anthropology. A Contemporary Perspective. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace and Company. p. 165.
^ ^a ^b ^c Mauss, Marcel (1970). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Commutation in Primitive Societies. London: Cohen & Due west.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-while-Giving. Berkeley: Academy of California Press.
^ Bollier, David. "The Stubborn Vitality of the Gift Economy." Silent Theft: The Individual Plunder of Our Common Wealth. First Printing ed. New York: Routledge, 2002. 38–39^{[ ISBN missing ]}.
^ J. Parry, M. Bloch (1989). "Introduction" in Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 8–12.
^ Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Gift, the Indian Souvenir and the 'Indian Gift'". Human being. 21 (3): 453–473. doi:10.2307/2803096. JSTOR 2803096.
^ ^a ^b ^c Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Souvenir, the Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift'". Man. 21 (3): 467. doi:10.2307/2803096. JSTOR 2803096.
^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Bolt. London: Academic Press. pp. 6–9.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hann, C.G. (1998). Holding Relations: Renewing the Anthropological Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. four.
^ Sider, Gerald M. (1980). "The Ties That Bind: Civilization and Agronomics, Holding and Propriety in the Newfoundland Hamlet Fishery". Social History. 5 (1): 2–3, 17. doi:10.1080/03071028008567469.
^ Coleman, Gabriella (2004). "The Political Faithlessness of Gratuitous and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast" (PDF). Anthropological Quarterly. 77 (3): 507–519. doi:10.1353/anq.2004.0035. hdl:10524/1583. S2CID 143633315.
^ Levitt, Leon (1987). "On holding, Intellectual Property, the Culture of Property, and Software Pirating". Anthropology of Work Review. 8 (1): 7–ix. doi:ten.1525/awr.1987.8.one.7.
^ Friedman, Jonathan (1999). "The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation, and the Law". American Ethnologist. 26 (iv): 1001–1002. doi:ten.1525/ae.1999.26.4.1001.
^ Aragon, Lorraine; James Leach (2008). "Arts and Owners: Intellectual belongings law and the politics of calibration in Indonesian Arts". American Ethnologist. 35 (4): 607–631. doi:x.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00101.ten.
^ Coombe, Rosemary J. (1993). "Cultural and Intellectual Properties: Occupying the Colonial Imagination". PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. sixteen (1): 8–fifteen. doi:10.1525/pol.1993.16.i.8.
^ Chris Hann, Keith Hart (2011). Economic Anthropology: History, Ethnography, Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 158.
^ Strangelove, Michael (2005). The Empire of Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-Backer Motility. Toronto: University of Toronto Printing. pp. 92–96.
^ Malinowski, Bronislaw (1984) [1922]. Argonauts of the Western Pacific : an account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Republic of guinea. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Printing.
^ ^a ^b Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Gift, the Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift'". Man. 21 (3): 466–469. doi:ten.2307/2803096. JSTOR 2803096.
^ ^a ^b Hann, Chris, Hart, Keith (2011). Economic Anthropology: History, Ethnography, Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 50.
^ Godelier, Maurice (1999). The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press.
^ Schrauwers, Albert (2004). "H(h)ouses, E(e)states and class: On the importance of capitals in central Sulawesi". Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Country- en Volkenkunde. 160 (i): 72–94. doi:10.1163/22134379-90003735.
^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. pp. 189–194.
^ Sahlins, Marshall (1972). Rock Age Economic science . Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. ISBN0202010996.
^ Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Souvenir, the Indian Souvenir and the 'Indian Souvenir'". Man. 21 (3): 463–467. doi:10.2307/2803096. JSTOR 2803096.
^ Graeber, David (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The faux money of our own dreams. New York: Palgrave. p. 225.
^ Bohannan, Paul (1959). "The Impact of money on an African subsistence economy". The Journal of Economic History. 19 (four): 491–503. doi:x.1017/S0022050700085946. S2CID 154892567.
^ Parry, Jonathan; Maurice Bloch (1989). Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 28–xxx.
^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. pp. 100–101.
^ "Gifts and Commodities | Chapter Three: Gifts and commodities: Apportionment". haubooks.org . Retrieved 2016-12-21 .
^ Strathern, Marilyn (1988). The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Bug with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 143–147.
^ Thomas, Nicholas (1991). Entangled Objects: Commutation, Material Civilisation, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
^ ^a ^b ^c Lewis Hyde: The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property, pg. 18
^ Everett, Daniel L. (Aug–Oct 2005). "Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language". Current Anthropology. 46 (4): 621–646. doi:10.1086/431525. hdl:2066/41103. S2CID 2223235.
^ Curren, Erik (2012). "Charles Eisenstein wants to devalue your money to salve the economy". Transition Vocalisation. Retrieved 9 February 2013.
^ Eisenstein, Charles (2007). "2". The Ascent of Humanity. Harrisburg, PA: Pananthea Press. ISBN978-0977622207. Archived from the original on 2013-02-07. Retrieved 9 February 2013.
^ Graeber, David (2001). "Marcel Mauss Revisited". Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value. Basingstoke: Palgrave. p. 153.
^ Gregory, C.A. (1982). Gifts and Bolt. London: Academic Printing. p. 53.
^ Gregory, C.A. (1982). Gifts and Bolt. London: Bookish Printing. pp. 53–54.
^ Sahlins, Marshall (1963). "Poor Man, Rich Homo, Big-Man, Principal: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 3. 5 (3): 294–297. doi:x.1017/s0010417500001729. S2CID 145254059.
^ "Tana Toraja official website" (in Indonesian). Archived from the original on May 29, 2006. Retrieved 2006-ten-04 .
^ ^a ^b ^c Schrauwers, Albert (2004). "H(h)ouses, Eastward(due east)states and class; On the importance of capitals in fundamental Sulawesi". Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. 160 (1): 83–86. doi:10.1163/22134379-90003735.
^ Graeber, David (2011). Debt: The start 5,000 years . New York: Melville Business firm. pp. 223–249. ISBN978-1933633862.
^ Bowie, Katherine (1998). "The Alchemy of Clemency: Of class and Buddhism in Northern Thailand". American Anthropologist. 100 (2): 469–481. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.ii.469.
^ Bowie, Katherine (1998). "The Abracadabra of Clemency: Of class and Buddhism in Northern Thailand". American Anthropologist. 100 (2): 473–474. doi:x.1525/aa.1998.100.2.469.
^ Bowie, Katherine (1998). "The Alchemy of Charity: Of course and Buddhism in Northern Thailand". American Anthropologist. 100 (2): 475–477. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.two.469.
^ Schrauwers, Albert (2009). 'Union is Forcefulness': West.Fifty. Mackenzie, The Children of Peace and the Emergence of Joint Stock Democracy in Upper Canada. Toronto: Academy of Toronto Press. pp. 97–124.
^ Rus, Andrej (2008)."'Gift vs. commoditiy' contend revisited". Anthropological Notebooks xiv (1): 81–102.
^ "Organs For Sale: China's Growing Trade and Ultimate Violation of Prisoners' Rights". June 27, 2001. Retrieved Feb 12, 2019.
^ Schepper-Hughes, Nancy (2000). "The Global Traffic in Man Organs". Current Anthropology. 41 (two): 193. doi:ten.1086/300123. S2CID 23897844.
^ ^a ^b Schepper-Hughes, Nancy (2000). "The Global Traffic in Man Organs". Current Anthropology. 41 (2): 191–224. doi:10.1086/300123. PMID 10702141. S2CID 23897844.
^ Abrupt, Lesley A. (2000). "The Commodification of the Body and its Parts". Annual Review of Anthropology. 29: 303. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.287. PMID 15977341.
^ Tober, Diane G. (2001). "Semen every bit Souvenir, Semen as Goods: Reproductive Workers and the Market in Altruism". Torso & Social club. seven (2–iii): 137–160. doi:10.1177/1357034x0100700205. S2CID 145687310.
^ Titmuss, Richard (1997). The Souvenir Human relationship: From human claret to social policy. New York: The New Printing.
^ Silvestri P., "The All also Human Welfare State. Liberty Between Gift and Corruption", Teoria eastward critica della regolazione sociale, 2/2019, pp. 123–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7413/19705476007
^ Bird-David, Nurit; Darr, Asaf (2009). "Commodity, gift and mass-souvenir: on souvenir-commodity hybrids in advanced mass consumption cultures". Economic system and Society. 38 (two): 304–325. doi:10.1080/03085140902786777. S2CID 143729708.
^ John Campbell McMillian; Paul Buhle (2003). The new left revisited. Temple University Printing. pp. 112–. ISBN978-1566399760 . Retrieved 28 December 2011.
^ Lytle, Mark Hamilton (2005). America's Uncivil Wars: The Sixties Era from Elvis to the Fall of Richard Nixon. Oxford Academy Press. pp. 213, 215. ISBN978-0190291846.
^ "Overview: who were (are) the Diggers?". The Digger Archives . Retrieved 2007-06-17 .
^ Gail Dolgin; Vicente Franco (2007). American Feel: The Summertime of Love. PBS. Retrieved 2007-04-23 .
^ "What is Burning Man? FAQ – Training" Retrieved 10/5/11
^ ^a ^b "How We Survive: The Currency of Giving (Encore)" Making Contact, produced by National Radio Project. December 21, 2010.
^ "The 10 Principles of Burning Man". Called-for Man . Retrieved 2019-05-02 .
^ Gifting It: A Burning Embrace of Souvenir Economy , retrieved 2019-05-02
^ ^a ^b Joy to the weed! Marijuana legalization comes begetting gifts, Associated Press, December 21, 2017 – via The Seattle Times
^ Barro, Josh (20 March 2015). "Can Washington's Gift Economic system in Marijuana Work?". The New York Times.
^ "The Rolling State to Legal Pot: Washington, D.C." Rolling Stone. 2018-04-25. Retrieved 2018-06-19 .
^ Ab Hanna (September 29, 2017), "Will Vermont Be the Next State to Legalize Marijuana?", High Times, The electric current Vermont pecker does non allow for the retail auction of cannabis. And so if it goes forward with a legal market, it would be similar to that of District of Columbia.
^ Tuttle, Brad (June 29, 2015). "Oregon Is Jubilant Marijuana Legalization With Complimentary Weed". Time. Archived from the original on January 21, 2022. Retrieved July ii, 2015.
^ Joshua Miller (December 14, 2016), "It's official: Marijuana is legal in Massachusetts", Boston Globe, Giving away up to an ounce of the drug without remuneration or public advertisement is OK. "Gifting" pot so receiving payment after, or reciprocal "gifts" of pot and items of value: illegal.
^ Hilary Bricken (December 23, 2017), "What are California's cannabis laws?", Dark-green Land (blog)
^ Mutual Aid: A Cistron of Evolution (1955 paperback (reprinted 2005), includes Kropotkin'south 1914 preface, Foreword and Bibliography by Ashley Montagu, and The Struggle for Existence, by Thomas H. Huxley ed.). Boston: Extending Horizons Books, Porter Sargent Publishers. ISBN 0875580246. Project Gutenberg east-text, Project LibriVox audiobook
^ [Augustin Souchy, "A Journey Through Aragon," in Sam Dolgoff (ed.), The Anarchist Collectives, ch. 10]
^ Turner, Francis J. (2005). Canadian encyclopedia of social work. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier Academy Press. pp. 337–338. ISBN0889204365.
^ Thompson, Edward P. (1991). Customs in Common . New York: New Press. pp. 341. ISBN978-1565840034.
^ Thompson, Edward P. (1991). Customs in Common . New York: New Press. ISBN978-1565840034.
^ Scott, James C. (1976). The Moral Economic system of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Printing.
^ Bollier, David (2002). "Reclaiming the commons". Boston Review. Archived from the original on 2010-06-13.
^ Drupe, David (21 February 2005). "The commons". Complimentary Software Mag. Archived from the original on xv December 2009.
^ Betimes. "Commoner". Farlex Inc. Retrieved 20 Apr 2012.
^ Barnes, Peter (2006). Commercialism three.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Eatables. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN978-1576753613.
^ "Definition of Free Cultural Works". freedomdefined.org . Retrieved 2019-05-02 .
^ "Definition of Gratis Cultural Works". Retrieved 8 December 2011.
^ Stallman, Richard (Nov 13, 2008). "Gratuitous Software and Free Manuals". Costless Software Foundation. Retrieved March 22, 2009.
^ Stallman, Richard. "Why Open Source misses the signal of Gratis Software". Gratis Software Foundation.
^ Anderson, Nate (July 16, 2008). "EU caves to aging rockers, wants 45-twelvemonth copyright extension". Ars Technica . Retrieved Baronial viii, 2008.
^ Mackaay, Ejan (1990). "Economic Incentives in Markets for Information and Innovation". Harvard Journal of Constabulary & Public Policy. 13 (909): 867–910.
^ Heylighen, Francis (2007). "Why is Open Access Evolution and then Successful?". In B. Lutterbeck; Grand. Barwolff; R. A. Gehring (eds.). Open Source Jahrbuch. Lehmanns Media.
^ Markus Giesler, Consumer Gift Systems
^ "Homesteading the Noosphere". catb.org . Retrieved 2019-05-02 .
^ Suehle, Ruth. "An anthropologist's view of an open source community". opensource.com. Archived from the original on 15 March 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
^ "Gratis/Libre and Open up Source Software: Survey and Study". International Institute of Infonomics, University of Maastricht and Berlecon Research GmbH. 2002. Archived from the original on 21 August 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
^ Matzan, Jem (five June 2004). "The gift economic system and costless software". Archived from the original on 12 July 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2012.
^ "IDC Linux Ecosystem Worth $40 Billion by 2010". Archived from the original on 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2012-04-07 .
^ "Affiliate 2. Debian package management". www.debian.org . Retrieved 2019-05-09 .
^ D. Anthony, S. W. Smith, and T. Williamson, "Explaining quality in internet collective appurtenances: zealots and good samaritans in the case of Wikipedia", THanover : Dartmouth College, Technical Study, November 2005.
^ Anthony, Denise; Smith, Sean Due west.; Williamson, Tim (April 2007), "The Quality of Open up Source Product: Zealots and Practiced Samaritans in the Case of Wikipedia" (PDF), Technical Report TR2007-606, Dartmouth Higher, archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-06-06, retrieved 2011-05-29