<p>The definition that you are using to describe markets is one beloved by neoliberal economists, otherwise known as market fundamentalism. It's very reductive, hence the term.</p>
<p>Nomadic societies like the Plains Indians didn't have markets in the way that we now understand them. There would have been exchange and barter, but to understand them as markets is to misunderstand markets and barter.</p>
<p>Markets tend to develop in sedentary societies. Living in a fixed place allows for a great deal more accumulation of goods, a prerequisite of a market economy. This basic level of accumulation was called primitive accumulation by Marx in his study of the history of economic systems.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-04T11:03:26.567Z
In fact the underlying question concerns the very definition of a market. Given that I my knowledge in this field is very limited I by no means would consider my definition as final. I am striving towards a definition. In fact you argumentation was similar to my line of thoughts.

More specifically, britannica has a similar argumentation as yours:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/market/The-historical-development-of-markets
user1192748
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-02T14:31:14.750Z
2020-09-03T14:43:25.273Z
2020-09-03T14:43:25.273Z
Mozibur Ullah
<p>If you mean that if there was ever a society in which there was an agreement NOT to produce a market, I'd say no, there was never such a society.</p>
<p>Even in socialism there were commercial relationships between humans.</p>
<p>NOW it depends on what you understand as a society. I'm not sure but I understand the Amish have no market at all.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-02T00:46:23.830Z
2020-09-02T00:46:23.830Z
Adolf
<p>I was having a discussion about whether the &quot;market&quot; or &quot;markets&quot; always and inherently emerge as long as human societies exist.</p>
<p>Given the definition of market as the interplay of supply and demand and given that in our reality there is always a demand to sustain one's own life and at the same time there are limited resources, it is tempting to suggest that markets are an inherent feature of human societies.</p>
<p>Thus, the question: Have there been cultures or societes for which there is an agreement that they did not produce a market?</p>
<p>In this context I was reading about the terms reciprocity and redistribution. Are these mechanisms distinguished from the formal definition of a market? I.e., could one say that a group of people that exercised reciprocity observed a society without a market?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-01T21:36:43.887Z
It would depend what do you mean by reciprocity. A barter exchange, that is exchange of one commodity or service for another without use of money is still a market exchange. Moreover, generally speaking voluntary trade/market exchange is by dictionary definition reciprocal because generally speaking people mutually benefit by doing it. Also note that as you correctly mentioned in your question market is simply a place where supply and demand or sellers and buyers meet. There are markets even in societies such as North Korea - there are just no free markets there.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-01T22:14:44.740Z
One would need to find an anthropologist to get a definitive answer, but my understanding of the literature is that almost all societies have a notion of reciprocity. Either gift-giving, or via exchanging favours. “Barter” only shows up in exchanges between groups where there is no means of establishing trusted relationships. David Graeber’s “Debt: the first 5,000 years” has probably the most accessible summary of anthropological thinking.
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-04T10:54:58.843Z
@1muflon1: My idea of reciprocity follows the meaning stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(cultural_anthropology)
user1192748
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-04T10:57:15.090Z
@user1192748 if you use specific jargon from non-economic field you should make it part of your question otherwise on an economics forum you will get incorrect answers because most economists will either assume economics jargon or common English. Putting it as a part of your question will make sure you get better answers that target what you are exactly looking for
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-04T11:06:58.310Z
@1muflon1 With the actual source of this definition coming from economic anthropology, I expected this to be a sub-genre of economics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1007/BF02958736?journalCode=rfse20
user1192748
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-04T11:11:59.050Z
@user1192748 economic anthropology is very niche interdisciplinary field. I suspect that the definition of reciprocity there is actually purely anthropological because I seen in international economics literature (which is more wider and less interdisciplinary field) normal trade to be referred to as reciprocal but under that Wikipedia definition trade would not normally be considered reciprocal. Anyway, my recommendation stands, I think you will get much better answers if you simply put the definition of reciprocity in your Q with link to that Wikipedia site or the article in second comment
1muflon1
<markets>
Economic anthropology: Have there been cultures / societies without a market?
user1192748
# Economic anthropology: Have there been cultures / societies without a market?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-09-01)

I was having a discussion about whether the "market" or "markets" always and inherently emerge as long as human societies exist.

Given the definition of market as the interplay of supply and demand and given that in our reality there is always a demand to sustain one's own life and at the same time there are limited resources, it is tempting to suggest that markets are an inherent feature of human societies.

Thus, the question: Have there been cultures or societes for which there is an agreement that they did not produce a market?

In this context I was reading about the terms reciprocity and redistribution. Are these mechanisms distinguished from the formal definition of a market? I.e., could one say that a group of people that exercised reciprocity observed a society without a market?

**Tags:** markets

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It would depend what do you mean by reciprocity. A barter exchange, that is exchange of one commodity or service for another without use of money is still a market exchange. Moreover, generally speaking voluntary trade/market exchange is by dictionary definition reciprocal because generally speaking people mutually benefit by doing it. Also note that as you correctly mentioned in your question market is simply a place where supply and demand or sellers and buyers meet. There are markets even in societies such as North Korea - there are just no free markets there.  
> **username_2**: One would need to find an anthropologist to get a definitive answer, but my understanding of the literature is that almost all societies have a notion of reciprocity. Either gift-giving, or via exchanging favours. “Barter” only shows up in exchanges between groups where there is no means of establishing trusted relationships. David Graeber’s “Debt: the first 5,000 years” has probably the most accessible summary of anthropological thinking.  
> **username_0**: @username_1: My idea of reciprocity follows the meaning stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(cultural_anthropology)  
> **username_1**: @username_0 if you use specific jargon from non-economic field you should make it part of your question otherwise on an economics forum you will get incorrect answers because most economists will either assume economics jargon or common English. Putting it as a part of your question will make sure you get better answers that target what you are exactly looking for  
> **username_0**: @username_1 With the actual source of this definition coming from economic anthropology, I expected this to be a sub-genre of economics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1007/BF02958736?journalCode=rfse20  
> **username_1**: @username_0 economic anthropology is very niche interdisciplinary field. I suspect that the definition of reciprocity there is actually purely anthropological because I seen in international economics literature (which is more wider and less interdisciplinary field) normal trade to be referred to as reciprocal but under that Wikipedia definition trade would not normally be considered reciprocal. Anyway, my recommendation stands, I think you will get much better answers if you simply put the definition of reciprocity in your Q with link to that Wikipedia site or the article in second comment  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-09-02. Score: 0

The definition that you are using to describe markets is one beloved by neoliberal economists, otherwise known as market fundamentalism. It's very reductive, hence the term.

Nomadic societies like the Plains Indians didn't have markets in the way that we now understand them. There would have been exchange and barter, but to understand them as markets is to misunderstand markets and barter.

Markets tend to develop in sedentary societies. Living in a fixed place allows for a great deal more accumulation of goods, a prerequisite of a market economy. This basic level of accumulation was called primitive accumulation by Marx in his study of the history of economic systems.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: In fact the underlying question concerns the very definition of a market. Given that I my knowledge in this field is very limited I by no means would consider my definition as final. I am striving towards a definition. In fact you argumentation was similar to my line of thoughts.  More specifically, britannica has a similar argumentation as yours:  https://www.britannica.com/topic/market/The-historical-development-of-markets  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-09-02. Score: -1

If you mean that if there was ever a society in which there was an agreement NOT to produce a market, I'd say no, there was never such a society.

Even in socialism there were commercial relationships between humans.

NOW it depends on what you understand as a society. I'm not sure but I understand the Amish have no market at all.


---

