Polanyi’s The Great Transformation – a summary

From  Professor, Economist and currently Vice Chancellor of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad:

Ever since the spectacular failure of modern economic theory became obvious to all in the Global Financial Crisis, the search for alternative ways of organizing our economic affairs has intensified. The vast majority of alternatives under consideration offer minor tweaks and patches, remaining within the methodological framework of neoclassical economics. In contrast, Polanyi offers a radical alternative, with unique insights based on a deep study of the history of the emergence of capitalism. A major obstacle to understanding Polanyi is the fact that living in a market society shapes our mindsets and behaviors, making it difficult to imagine radical alternatives. Understanding Polanyi requires standing outside the streams of history which have shaped modern societies, to see how our economic, political and social theories about the world have been shaped by external forces, and have evolved in time. Studying this archaeology of knowledge offers us insights into the historical processes which have shaped our thoughts, and gives us the tools necessary to liberate us from the narrow boundaries created by our own past experiences.
The central theme of Polanyi’s book is a historical description of the emergence of the market economy as a competitor to the traditional economy. The market economy won this battle, and ideologies supporting the market economy won the corresponding battle in the marketplace of ideas. Today, the victory of the market economy is so complete that it has become difficult for us to imagine societies where the market does not play a central role. Polanyi argues that contrary to popular belief, markets have been of marginal importance in traditional societies throughout history. The market economy emerged after a prolonged battle against these traditions. As Polanyi clarifies, this is not a good development. The commodification of human beings and land required by the dominance of the market has done tremendous damage to society and environment. The value of human life has been degraded to their earning power. This enables the grim calculations made by Ambassador Albright that sacrificing half a million Iraqi children is worth the control of oil. Similarly, precious rainforests, coral reefs, plants, fish, and animal species which took millions of years in the making, and cannot be replaced at any price, are reduced to the value of timber, food or chemicals. This is the root cause of the social and environmental catastrophes we currently face. The analysis of Polanyi can be summarized in the six points listed below.
1: All societies face the economic task of producing and providing for all members of society. Modern market societies are unique in assigning this responsibility to the marketplace, thereby creating entitlements to production for those with wealth, and depriving the poor of entitlement to food. All traditional societies have used non-market mechanisms based on cooperation and social responsibility to provide for members who cannot take care of their own needs. It is only in a market society that education, health, housing, and social welfare services are only available to those who can pay for it.
2: Market mechanisms for providing goods to members conflict with other social mechanisms and are harmful to society. They emerged to central prominence in Europe after a protracted battle, which was won by markets over society due to certain historical circumstances peculiar to Europe. The rise of markets caused tremendous damage to society, which continues to this day. The replacement of key mechanisms which govern social relations, with those compatible with market mechanisms, was traumatic to human values. Land, labour and money are crucial to the efficient functioning of a market economy. Market societies convert these into commodities causing tremendous damage. This involves (A) changing a nurturing and symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth into a commercial one of exploiting nature, (B) Changing relationships based on trust, intimacy and lifetime commitments into short term impersonal commercial transactions, and (C) Turning human lives into saleable commodities in order to create a labor market.
3:  Unregulated markets are so deadly to human society and environment that creation of markets automatically sets into play movements to protect society and envirnoment from the harm that they cause. Paradoxically, it is this counter-movement, this opposition to markets, that allows markets to survive. If this was not present, markets would destroy the society and the planet. For example, the Great Depression caused the collapse of many free market institutions, and the government stepped in to prop them up and substitute for them. Similarly, only massive government intervention save the world from a major economic crisis following the Global Financial Crisis of 2007. This protective, anti-market, move allowed capitalism to survive. This is called the “Double Movement” by Polanyi, who says that the history of capitalism cannot be understand without looking at both sides — the forces trying to liberate markets from all regulations, and the forces fighting to protect society from the harmful effects of unregulated markets.
4: Certain ideologies, which relate to land, labour and money, and the profit motive are required for efficient functioning of markets. In particular, both poverty, and a certain amount of callousness and indifference to poverty are required for efficient functioning of markets. Capitalist economics require sales, purchase, and exploitation of labor, which cannot be done without creating poverty, and using it to motivate workers. The sanctification of property rights is another essential feature of markets. Thus, the existence of a market economy necessitates the emergence of certain ideologies and mindsets which are harmful to, and in contradiction with, natural human tendencies.
5: Markets have been fragile and crisis-prone and have lurched from disaster to disaster, as amply illustrated by GFC 2007. Polanyi prognosticated in 1944 that the last and biggest of these crises in his time, the Second World War, had finally killed the market system and a new method for organising economic affairs would emerge in its wake. In fact, the Keynesian ideas eliminated the worst excesses of market-based economies and dominated the scene for about 30 years following that war. However, the market system rose from the ashes and came to dominate the globe in an astonishing display of power. This story has been most effectively presented by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
6: Market economies require imposition by violence — either natural or created. As noted by the earliest strategists, deception is a crucial element of warfare. One of the essential ingredients in the rise of markets has been a constant battle to misrepresent facts, so that stark failures of markets have been painted as remarkable successes. There are a number of strategies commonly used to portray an economic disaster as progress and development. Without this propaganda, markets could not survive, as the forces of resistance to markets would be too strong. For example, a fundamental message of modern economics textbooks is that capitalism has created tremendous wealth and unprecedented progress. In fact, notwithstanding capitalist propaganda to the contrary, this growth has been extremely costly. We have sold planet Earth and the future of our children, and are celebrating the proceeds without taking into reckoning the costs. Accounting for the costs of destruction of environment, animal species, and human society, shows that that costs of growth have been far higher than the benefits.
See “Evaluating the Costs of Growth” (September 21, 2014). Real World Economics Review, issue 67, 9 May 2014, page 41-51.. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2499115.
We conclude by briefly considering the consequences of this analysis. The organization of production in a capitalist economy rests essentially on the exploitation of laborers, and requires using poverty as the goad to moltivate laborers to work. This means that if we provide universal basic incomes, we will remove the incentives for production which lie at the heart of capitalist systems of production. Instead, Polanyi suggests that we focus on ensuring that all people have the right to earn a decent livelihood. This can be accommodated within the present systems of production without radical change. Long run solutions require more radical changes in mindsets which would reverse the great transformation by prioriotizing social relationships and subordinating the market to the society.
I recently recorded a half-hour talk discussing the material summarized in the above post. The video is linked below:
Supplementary Readings and Videos:
For a more complete list of papers/videos/posts on Polnayi, see: Resources for Study of Poplanyi’s Great Transformation
Polanyi’s analysis cannot be understood by modern economists because it is based on methodological principles radically different from those currently in use.  The Methodology of Polanyi’s Great Transformation explains these principles, which demonstrate the necessity of considering historical and cultural context of economic theories. Polanyi’s analysis provides the basis for a radically different approach to economics, which considers politics, society, environment, and economics as inter-related subjects which cannot be understood in isolation.
The relationship between the Great Transformation and the looming environmental catastrophe which threatens the future of humanity on planet Earth is discussed in Zaman, A. “Unregulated Markets and the Transformation of Society” Chapter 18, Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society. Editor Clive Spash. 2016. A brief summary of this paper, and a video-talk on the topic is available from another post on this blog: “Markets & Society
A 30 page article, which provides further details of this brief sketch,  can be downloaded from the link below:   “The Rise and Fall of the Market Economy,” Review of Islamic Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2010, pp. 123–155. This post, and the connections to Islamic Economics, are explained in my blog: “An Islamic WorldView“.

3 responses to “Polanyi’s The Great Transformation – a summary

  1. Excellent! I’ve heard this person‘s name here in there but thank you for the soda explanation.

    I have not read anything by him of course I’ve only read your post here, maybe a couple things here and there.
    But I have a comment that could be relevant.

    I think what is radical about Polianis idea is that we don’t worry about the system.

    We don’t worry about trying to put in fixes that really just perpetuate the problems of the system itself. I think this is a radical approach.

    And actually coincidently it’s part of the book that I’m finishing up right now which would be totally cool if you wanted to read it. Anyways…

    But the idea really is philosophically that we have created this idea of a system as if somehow we are not able to behave without it. The problem of at least the 20th century philosophy is it that it has made an explanation of ontology into a description of oppressing systems.

    It took an extra sensual situation of being human and look for an excuse of itself. If we look at much of 20th century philosophy it’s kind of difficult to read it without seeing it as a sort of excuse for my inability to act. I mean then you get the later kind of post modernist philosophers that start to come out and for me anyways, it’s difficult to read some of these philosophers because to me it feels like they’re just whining and complaining.

    A thorough analysis of much of 20th century philosophy or even the philosophy that everyone likes to fashion has arisen since Kant, might just show that there really is no system that is a pressing us at all. That really what philosophy is done is stripped the individual human being from its power, has justified being powerless against the system.

    This is why I called postmodernism a religious apology for modernism.

    I think what is radical is like what Badiou has suggested, namely that the most radical political move is to stop participating in party politics.

    The way we would do this socially is not to somehow destroy a system to erect another system. That is just more religious ideology as if my religion and my way of thinking is better than your way and as if somehow we can intentionally create a system that is utopian and yet not Eutopian.

    What would be radical is to change our focus. Of course the clergy want to keep arguing how their religion is the best and most correct while they try to addressed priests who are never the less molesting and raping young children. The radical move would not be to pose another religion like good old Protestantism or something like that. The radical move would be to merely focus on the people themselves and what we do.

    Anyways that’s just a rough thought I haven’t thought to thoroughly in this particular area but it sounds very similar to parts of my book.

  2. Detailed thinking! Yes! I’d only add:

    “Ever since the spectacular failure of modern economic theory became obvious to all in the Global Financial Crisis, the search for alternative ways of organizing our economic affairs has intensified.”

    To address this metaphorically: are we not passengers on an accelerating train through the windows of which can be viewed increasingly disturbing scenery? In other words, how much agency, within The System, can we realistically claim? Our “search for alternative ways of organizing our economic affairs” is, as far as I can tell, a hypothetical activity. We can each jump off the train, as individuals (with varying outcomes to look forward to), but jumping off the train en mass would appear to be the only substantive (change-inflicting) alternative possible. If A) the number of those who jump falls under a critical cutoff or B) the ones who jump cannot be in some way unified/organized, the resulting change will be negligible. Either way, the engineers and conductors (and the tracks themselves) are not amenable to our input.


    “The radical move would be to merely focus on the people themselves and what we do.”

    Yes: turning our backs on The System, as it is. If we can unify/organize: the most powerful option. You can’t be forced to be productive for The System that oppresses you (which is why brainwashing is a larger component of The System than armed policing is). Resisting the macho urge to indulge in “burning the shit down” (aka Ground Zero revolution pathology, which always recapitulates The System) and opting instead for a rational, just and carefully-considered schedule of culture-wide boycotts, might work. Focus on one pillar of Hegemony at a time, eg: if ten million could boycott the buying of gasoline for six months…? And so on. First step: turn off the Televisions (the main source of the brainwashing)…!

  3. Pingback: syndax vuzz·

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s