Buddhism Perspective on the Aging Process Peer Review Journal Article

April 16, 2022 Post a Comment

Mode of exchange where valuables are given without rewards

A gift economic system or gift culture is a organisation of exchange where valuables are non sold, just rather given without an explicit understanding for immediate or future rewards.^[one] Social norms and community govern giving a gift in a souvenir culture; although there is some expectation of reciprocity, gifts are not given in an explicit exchange of goods or services for money, or some other 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 discipline of a foundational contend in anthropology. Anthropological research into souvenir economies began with Bronisław Malinowski's description of the Kula ring^[iii] in the Trobriand Islands during Earth War I.^[4] The Kula trade appeared to exist gift-similar since Trobrianders would travel great distances over dangerous seas to give what were considered valuable objects without any guarantee of a render. Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such every bit reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and presentation to distinguish between the dissimilar forms of exchange.^[5] ^[6]

According to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, it is the unsettled human relationship between market and not-marketplace exchange that attracts the most attention. Some authors argue that gift economies build community,^[7] while markets harm customs relationships.^[8]

Gift exchange is distinguished from other forms of exchange past a number of principles, such as the grade of belongings rights governing the articles exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct "sphere of commutation" that can be characterized as an "economic system"; and the character of the social relationship that the gift exchange establishes. Souvenir ideology in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of not-market societies. Souvenir economies also differ from related phenomena, such as common property regimes and the substitution of non-commodified labour.

Principles of gift exchange [edit]

According to anthropologist Jonathan Parry, discussion on the nature of gifts, and of a separate sphere of gift substitution that would constitute an economic system, has been plagued by the ethnocentric use of modern, western, marketplace society-based conception of the souvenir applied equally if it were a cross-cultural, pan-historical universal. However, he claims that anthropologists, through assay of a diversity of cultural and historical forms of exchange, have established that no universal practice exists.^[9] His archetype summation of the gift exchange debate highlighted that ideologies of the "pure gift" "are most likely to arise in highly differentiated societies with an avant-garde division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and demand to be distinguished from not-market "prestations".^[10] Co-ordinate to Weiner, to speak of a "gift economy" in a non-market place society is to ignore the distinctive features of their commutation relationships, as the early archetype debate between Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss demonstrated.^[v] ^[6] Gift exchange is ofttimes "embedded" in political, kin, or religious institutions, and therefore does not found an "economical" arrangement per se.^[11]

Property and alienability [edit]

Gift-giving is a form of transfer of property rights over particular objects. The nature of those belongings rights varies from society to society, from culture to culture, and are non universal. The nature of souvenir-giving is thus contradistinct by the type of property regime in place.^[12]

Property is not a thing, but a relationship amongst people well-nigh things.^[thirteen] According to Chris Hann, property is a social relationship that governs the conduct of people with respect to the utilise and disposition of things. Anthropologists clarify these relationships in terms of a variety of actors' (individual or corporate) "packet of rights" over objects.^[12] An example is the electric current debates around intellectual property rights.^[fourteen] ^[15] ^[xvi] ^[17] ^[18] Hann and Strangelove both requite the example of a purchased volume (an object that he owns), over which the author retains a "copyright". Although the book is a commodity, bought and sold, information technology has not been completely "alienated" from its creator who maintains a hold over it; the owner of the volume is limited in what he tin can do with the book by the rights of the creator.^[19] ^[20] Weiner has argued that the ability to give while retaining a right to the gift/commodity is a disquisitional feature 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 after an incredible journey effectually the Trobriand islands. The gifts given in Kula exchange still remain, in some respects, the holding of the giver.^[6]

In the example 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 considering "private property" endemic by an individual may be quite limited in telescopic (encounter § The eatables below).^[12] Productive resources, such equally land, may be held by members of a corporate group (such equally a lineage), but but some members of that group may accept "use rights". When many people concur rights over the aforementioned 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 yet tied to its corporate owners. Anthropologist Annette Weiner refers to these types of objects every bit "inalienable possessions" and to the process every bit "keeping while giving".^{[half dozen]}

Gift versus prestation [edit]

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

Malinowski's study of the Kula band^[21] became the subject field of fence with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don", 1925).^[5] Parry argued that Malinowski emphasized the commutation of appurtenances between individuals, and their selfish motives for gifting: they expected a render of equal or greater value. Malinowski argued that reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting, and at that place is no "free gift" without expectation.^[22]

In contrast, Mauss emphasized that the gifts were not 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 not alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like crown jewels, embodied the reputation, history and identity of a "corporate kin group", such every bit a line of kings. Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His reply was an enigmatic concept, "the spirit of the souvenir". Parry believes that much of the defoliation (and resulting fence) was due to a bad translation. Mauss appeared to exist arguing that a return gift is given to maintain the human relationship between givers; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the hope of any hereafter gifts.

Both Malinowski and Mauss agreed that in non-marketplace societies, where there was no clear institutionalized economic exchange system, 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 exercise.^[22]

Inalienable possessions [edit]

Mauss' concept of "total prestations" was further developed by Annette Weiner, who revisited Malinowski's fieldsite in the Trobriand Islands. Her critique was twofold: first, Trobriand Island society is matrilineal, and women hold much economic and political ability, just their exchanges were ignored by Malinowski. Secondly, she developed Mauss' argument about reciprocity and the "spirit of the souvenir" in terms of "inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping while giving".^[6] Weiner contrasted "moveable goods" which tin can be exchanged, with "immoveable appurtenances" that serve to draw the gifts back (in the Trobriand case, male Kula gifts with women'southward landed property). She argues that the goods given, similar crown jewels, are then identified with particular groups, that even when given, they are non truly alienated. Such appurtenances depend on the existence of particular kinds of kinship groups in lodge.

French anthropologist Maurice Godelier^[24] continued this assay in "The Enigma of the Souvenir" (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 South Sulawesi, Indonesia) are all characterized by ranked aloof kin groups that fit Claude Lévi-Strauss' model of "House Societies" (where "business firm" 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 place in a ranked society.^[25]

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

Chris Gregory argued that reciprocity is a dyadic exchange human relationship that nosotros characterize, imprecisely, as gift-giving. Gregory argued that 1 gives gifts to friends and potential enemies in society to establish a relationship, by placing them in debt. He as well claimed that in order for such a human relationship to persist, there must exist a time lag betwixt the gift and counter-gift; one or the other partner must ever be in debt. Marshall Sahlins stated that birthday gifts are an example of this: they are separated in time so that i partner feels the obligation to make a return gift; and to forget the render gift may be enough to end the human 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 below).^[26]

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

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

Jonathan Parry argued that ideologies of the "pure gift" are most likely to arise simply in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a pregnant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from the not-market "prestations" discussed above.^[10] Parry as well underscored, using the instance of charitable giving of alms in India (Dāna), that the "pure gift" of alms given with no expectation of render could exist "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 condition: the poison of the gift.^[28] David Graeber points out that no reciprocity is expected between unequals: if you make a souvenir of a dollar to a beggar, he volition not give information technology back the next time you run into. More than likely, he volition enquire for more, to the detriment of his condition.^[29] Many who are forced by circumstances to accept clemency feel stigmatized. In the Moka substitution organization of Papua New Guinea, where gift givers become political "big men", those who are in their debt and unable to repay with "interest" are referred to every bit "rubbish men".

The French writer Georges Bataille, in La part Maudite, uses Mauss's statement in club to construct a theory of economy: the structure 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 action.

Spheres of commutation and "economical systems" [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Simply other anthropologists refused to encounter these different "exchange spheres" every bit such polar opposites. Marilyn Strathern, writing on a similar surface 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 gift?

Rather than emphasize how particular kinds of objects are either gifts or commodities to be traded in restricted spheres of substitution, Arjun Appadurai and others began to look at how objects flowed betwixt these spheres of exchange (i.east. how objects can be converted into gifts and and so back into bolt). They refocussed attention away from the character of the human being relationships formed through exchange, and placed information technology on "the social life of things" instead. They examined the strategies past which an object could be "singularized" (fabricated unique, special, 1-of-a-kind) then withdrawn from the marketplace. A matrimony ceremony that transforms a purchased ring into an irreplaceable family unit heirloom is one instance; the heirloom, in plough, 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 fabric 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 attending to the "entangled objects" and their roles as both gifts and commodities.^[35]

Proscriptions [edit]

Many societies take strong prohibitions against turning gifts into merchandise or capital goods. Anthropologist Wendy James writes that among the Uduk people of northeast Africa there is a stiff custom that any souvenir that crosses subclan boundaries must be consumed rather than invested.^[36] ^: 4 For example, an animal given as a gift must be eaten, non bred. Withal, 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 matter of giving some other gift, either directly in return or to another political party. To keep the gift and not requite some other in exchange is reprehensible. "In folk tales," Lewis Hyde remarks, "the person who tries to concur onto a gift commonly dies."^[36] ^: v

Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied the modest Pirahã tribe of hunter-gatherers in Brazil,^[37] reported that, while they are aware of nutrient preservation using drying, salting, and so along, they reserve their utilise for items bartered outside the tribe. Within the group, when someone has a successful hunt they immediately share the affluence past inviting others to enjoy a feast. Asked about this practice, one hunter laughed and replied, "I store meat in the abdomen of my blood brother."^[38] ^[39]

Carol Stack's All Our Kin describes both the positive and negative sides of a network of obligation and gratitude finer constituting a gift economic system. Her narrative of The Flats, a poor Chicago neighborhood, tells in passing the story of 2 sisters who each came into a modest inheritance. One sister hoarded the inheritance and prospered materially for some time, just was alienated from the community. Her union broke up, and she integrated herself dorsum into the community largely past giving gifts. The other sis fulfilled the community's expectations, but inside half dozen weeks had nothing material to show for the inheritance but a coat and a pair of shoes.^[36] ^: 75–76

Case studies: prestations [edit]

Marcel Mauss was conscientious to distinguish "souvenir economies" (reciprocity) in market societies from the "total prestations" given in not-market societies. A prestation is a service provided out of obligation, like "customs service".^[23] These "prestations" join domains that we would differentiate as political, religious, legal, moral and economical, such that the commutation tin can be seen to exist embedded in not-economic social institutions. These prestations are oftentimes competitive, as in the potlatch, Kula substitution, and Moka exchange.^[40]

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

The Moka is a highly ritualized organisation of exchange in the Mount Hagen area, Papua New Guinea, that has become emblematic of the anthropological concepts of a "gift economy" and of a "large homo" political system. Moka are reciprocal gifts that heighten the social status of the giver if the souvenir is larger than 1 that the giver received. Moka refers specifically to the increment in the size of the gift.^[41] The gifts are of a express range of goods, primarily pigs and scarce pearl shells from the coast. To return the same value as ane has received in a moka is simply to repay a debt, strict reciprocity. Moka is the actress. To some, this represents interest on an investment. However, 1 is non spring to provide moka, only to repay the debt. One adds moka to the souvenir to increase one's prestige, and to identify the receiver in debt. It is this constant renewal of the debt relationship which keeps the human relationship alive; a debt fully paid off ends further interaction. Giving more than than one receives establishes a reputation as a Large homo, whereas the simple repayment of debt, or failure to fully repay, pushes one's reputation towards the other end of the scale, "rubbish human being".^[42] Souvenir exchange thus has a political consequence; granting prestige or status to one, and a sense of debt in the other. A political organisation can be built out of these kinds of status relationships. Sahlins characterizes the divergence between condition and rank past highlighting that Large man is not a role; it is a condition that is shared by many. The Big man is "not a prince of men", merely a "prince among men". The "big man" system is based on the ability to persuade, rather than control.^[43]

Toraja funerals: the politics of meat distribution [edit]

3 tongkonan noble houses in a Torajan hamlet.

Ritual slaughter of gift cattle at a funeral.

The Toraja are an indigenous group ethnic to a mountainous region of South Sulawesi, Indonesia.^[44] Torajans are renowned for their elaborate funeral rites, burial sites carved into rocky cliffs, and massive peaked-roof traditional houses known equally tongkonan which are owned by noble families. Membership in a tongkonan is inherited by all descendants of its founders. Thus any individual may exist a fellow member of numerous tongkonan, as long every bit they contribute to its ritual events. Membership in a tongkonan carries benefits, such as 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 like "big 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 draw 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 brandish all the cattle horns from their winning sacrifice on a pole in front of the tongkonan.^[45]

The Toraja funeral differs from the "big human being" organisation in that the winner of the "gift" exchange gains command of the Tongkonan's property. Information technology creates a clear 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 gain hire, they are meliorate able to compete in the funeral souvenir exchanges, and their social rank is more than stable than the "big human" organisation.^[45]

Charity and alms giving [edit]

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

Clemency and alms-giving are religiously sanctioned voluntary gifts given without expectation of return. However, example studies show that such gifting is not 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 according to doctrine, through gifts to monks and temples. The emphasis is on the selfless gifting which "earns merit" (and a futurity better life) for the giver rather than on the relief of the poor or the recipient on whom the gift is bestowed. Still, Bowie's enquiry shows that this ideal form of gifting is express to the rich who have the resources to endow temples and sponsor the ordination of monks.^[48] Monks come from these same families, and then this gifting doctrine has a class element. Poorer farmers identify much less emphasis on merit making through gifts to monks and temples. They every bit validate gifting to beggars. Poverty and dearth is widespread amongst these poorer groups, and by validating souvenir-giving to beggars, they are in fact demanding that the rich see to their needs in hard times. Bowie sees this every bit an instance of a moral economic system (come across beneath) in which the poor use gossip and reputation to resist aristocracy exploitation and pressure them to ease their "this world" suffering.^[49]

Charity: Dana in Republic of 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 souvenir"), 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 be able to assimilate the sin through ritual activeness and transmit the gift with increment to someone of greater worth. It is imperative that this be a truthful gift, with no reciprocity, or the evil will return. The souvenir is not intended to create whatsoever human relationship between donor and recipient, and there should never be a render gift. Dana thus transgresses the then-chosen universal "norm of reciprocity".^[10]

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 gild based on the values of peace, equality and social justice. They built this ornate temple to raise money for the poor, and built the province of Ontario'southward starting time shelter for the homeless. They took a lead part in organizing the province'south first branch, the Farmers' Storehouse, and opened the province's first credit marriage. The group before long found that the charity they tried to distribute from their Temple fund endangered the poor. Accepting clemency was a sign of indebtedness, and the debtor could be jailed without trial at the time; this was the "poison of the souvenir". They thus transformed their charity fund into a credit union that loaned pocket-sized sums like today's micro-credit institutions. This is an example of singularization, every bit money was transformed into charity in the Temple ceremony, then shifted to an alternative exchange sphere every bit a loan. Interest on the loan was then singularized, and transformed back into clemency.^[50]

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

Non-commodified spheres of exchange exist in relation to the market place economic system. They are created through the processes of singularization as specific objects are de-commodified for a diversity of reasons and enter an alternative substitution sphere. It may be in opposition to the market and to its perceived greed. Information technology may also be used past corporations as a means of creating a sense of endebtedness and loyalty in customers. Modern marketing techniques often aim at infusing commodity substitution with features of gift substitution, 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 chapters – to the status of commodities".^[52] "The rapid transfer of organ transplant engineering 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 north, "creating a kind of 'Kula ring' of bodies and torso parts."^[53] However, all commodities can too be singularized, or de-commodified, and transformed into gifts. In Northward America, it is illegal to sell organs, and citizens are enjoined to requite the "gift of life" and donate their organs in an organ gift economic system.^[54] However, 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 clear form divisions between those who donate (often in the global south) and will never benefit from gifted organs, and those who can pay the fees and thereby receive a gifted organ.^[54]

Unlike body organs, claret and semen have been successfully and legally commodified in the United States. Blood and semen tin thus exist commodified, only once consumed are "the gift of life". Although both tin be either donated or sold, are perceived every bit the "souvenir of life" still are stored in "banks", and tin can be collected just under strict regime regulated procedures, recipients very clearly prefer altruistically donated semen and blood. Ironically, the blood and semen samples with the highest market value are those that have 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 souvenir of "free" oral communication [edit]

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

Points and loyalty programs [edit]

Many retail organizations have "gift" 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 considering they are given abroad in large numbers "free with purchase" in a mass-consumption environment. They give equally an example ii bars of lather in which one is given gratuitous with purchase: which is the commodity and which the souvenir? The mass-gift both affirms the singled-out difference between gift and commodity while confusing information technology at the aforementioned time. As with gifting, mass-gifts are used to create a social relationship. Some customers embrace the relationship and souvenir whereas others reject the gift human relationship and translate the "gift" as a 50% off sale.^[59]

Costless shops [edit]

Inside Utrecht Giveaway shop. The imprint reads "The earth has enough for everyone'south need, but not for everyone's greed".

"Requite-away shops", "freeshops" or "free stores" are stores where all goods are free. They are similar to charity shops, with generally 2nd-hand items – only everything is bachelor at no cost. Whether it is a volume, a piece of furniture, a garment or a household item, information technology is all freely given abroad, although some operate a one-in, i-out–blazon policy (bandy shops). The free store is a form of constructive direct action that provides a shopping alternative to a monetary framework, allowing people to commutation goods and services outside a coin-based economy. The agitator 1960s countercultural grouping The Diggers^[60] opened gratis stores which gave away their stock, provided free food, distributed complimentary drugs, gave away coin, organized free music concerts, and performed works of political art.^[61] The Diggers took their proper noun from the original English language Diggers led by Gerrard Winstanley^[62] and sought to create a mini-society costless of money and capitalism.^[63]

Called-for Homo [edit]

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

Burning Man is a week-long annual art and community event held in the Black Rock Desert in northern Nevada, in the The states. The consequence is described equally an experiment in customs, radical self-expression, and radical self-reliance. The event forbids commerce (except for water ice, coffee, and tickets to the event itself)^[64] and encourages gifting.^[65] Gifting is one of the 10 guiding principles,^[66] equally participants to Burning Man (both the desert festival and the year-circular global community) are encouraged to rely on a gift economy. The practice of gifting at Burning Man is also documented by the 2002 documentary film "Gifting It: A Burning Embrace of Gift Economy",^[67] equally well equally past Making Contact's radio show "How We Survive: The Currency of Giving [encore]".^[65]

Cannabis market in the District of Columbia and U.S. states [edit]

According to the Associated Press, "Gift-giving has long been a office of marijuana culture" and has accompanied legalization in U.S. states in the 2010s.^[68] Voters in the District of Columbia legalized the growing of cannabis for personal recreational use by approving Initiative 71 in November 2014, only the 2015 "Cromnibus" Federal appropriations bills prevented the District from creating a system to allow for its commercial sale. Possession, growth, and use of the drug by adults is legal in the District, as is giving information technology away, but auction and barter of it is non, in effect attempting to create a souvenir economy.^[69] All the same 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, it was expected that a similar market would emerge there.^[71] For a time, people in Portland, Oregon could only legally obtain cannabis equally a gift, which was celebrated in the Burnside Burn down rally.^[72] For a time, a similar situation ensued subsequently possession was legalized in California, Maine and Massachusetts.^[68] ^[73] ^[74]

[edit]

Mutual aid [edit]

Many anarchists, specially anarcho-primitivists and anarcho-communists, believe that variations on a gift economy may be the cardinal to breaking the cycle of poverty. Therefore, they ofttimes desire to refashion all of society into a souvenir economic system. Anarcho-communists advocate a gift economy as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets, nor planning. This view traces dorsum at least to Peter Kropotkin, who saw in the hunter-gatherer tribes he had visited the image of "mutual assistance".^[75] In place of a market place, anarcho-communists, such equally those who lived in some Castilian villages in the 1930s, back up a gift economy without currency, where goods and services are produced by workers and distributed in community stores where everyone (including the workers who produced them) is essentially entitled to consume whatsoever they desire or need as payment for their production of appurtenances and services.^[76]

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

Moral economy [edit]

English historian E.P. Thompson wrote almost the moral economic system of the poor in the context of widespread English food riots in the English countryside in the tardily 18th century. Thompson claimed that these riots were more often than not peaceable acts that demonstrated a common political culture rooted in feudal rights to "set the price" of essential goods in the marketplace. These peasants believed that a traditional "fair cost" was more important to the community than a "complimentary" market toll and they punished large farmers who sold their surpluses at college prices outside the hamlet while some village members nonetheless needed produce. Thus a moral economy is an attempt to preserve an alternative exchange sphere from market place penetration.^[78] ^[79] The notion of peasants with a non-capitalist cultural mentality using the marketplace for their ain ends has been linked to subsistence agriculture and the need for subsistence insurance in hard times. Even so, 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 cost for their assistance; this aid is given to recruit followers. The concept of moral economic system has been used to explain why peasants in a number of colonial contexts, such every bit the Vietnam War, accept rebelled.^[eighty]

The commons [edit]

Some may confuse common property regimes with souvenir exchange systems. The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such every bit air, water, and a habitable earth. These resource are held in common, not endemic privately.^[81] The resources held in common can include everything from natural resource and common land to software.^[82] The eatables contains public property and individual property, over which people have certain traditional rights. When ordinarily held belongings is transformed into private property this process is called "enclosure" or "privatization". A person who has a right in, or over, common land jointly with some other or others is called a commoner.^[83]

There are a number of important aspects that tin can exist used to describe true commons. The first is that the eatables cannot exist commodified – if they are, they stop to exist commons. The second aspect is that unlike individual property, the commons are inclusive rather than exclusive – their nature is to share ownership as widely, rather than as narrowly, as possible. The third aspect is that the assets in commons are meant to be preserved regardless of their return of capital. Just as nosotros receive them as a shared right, and so we have a duty to pass them on to future generations in at to the lowest degree the same condition as we received them. If we can add to their value, so much the ameliorate, but at a minimum we must not degrade them, and we certainly have no correct to destroy them.^[84]

New intellectual eatables: free content [edit]

Free content, or free data, is whatever kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content that meets the definition of a free cultural work.^[85] A free cultural work is 1 which has no significant legal restriction on people'southward freedom:

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

Although unlike definitions are used, gratuitous content is legally similar if not identical to open content. An analogy is the utilize of the rival terms free software and open source which describe ideological differences rather than legal ones.^[88] Gratuitous content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above. Because copyright law in most countries past default grants copyright holders monopolistic control over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared costless, ordinarily by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work.

Although a work which is in the public domain considering its copyright has expired is considered gratis, information technology can become not-gratis over again if the copyright police changes.^[89]

Information is particularly suited to souvenir economies, every bit data is a nonrival good and tin can exist gifted at practically no cost (zero marginal cost).^[90] ^[91] In fact, there is often an advantage to using the same software or information formats as others, so fifty-fifty from a selfish perspective, it tin be advantageous to give away 1's information.

Filesharing [edit]

Markus Giesler in his ethnography Consumer Gift Organisation, described music downloading as a system of social solidarity based on gift transactions.^[92] Equally Cyberspace admission spread, file sharing became extremely pop amid 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. Withal, online file sharing persists in various forms such equally Bit Torrent and Direct download link. A number of communications and intellectual belongings experts such as Henry Jenkins and Lawrence Lessig take described file-sharing as a form of gift exchange which provides many benefits to artists and consumers alike. They take argued that file sharing fosters community among distributors and allows for a more equitable distribution of media.

Gratuitous and open-source software [edit]

In his essay "Homesteading the Noosphere", noted calculator programmer Eric Due south. Raymond said that free and open-source software developers accept created "a 'gift culture' in which participants compete for prestige by giving fourth dimension, energy, and creativity away".^[93] Prestige gained as a issue of contributions to source code fosters a social network for the programmer; the open up source community will recognize the developer's accomplishments and intelligence. Consequently, the developer may find more opportunities to work with other developers. Yet, prestige is not the only motivator for the giving of lines of code. An anthropological study of the Fedora community, as part of a master's study at the University of North Texas in 2010–11, constitute 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 like, "Mainly I contribute just to make information technology work for me", and "programmers develop software to 'scratch an crawling'".^[94] The International Institute of Infonomics at the University of Maastricht in holland reported in 2002 that in addition to the to a higher place, large corporations, and they specifically mentioned IBM, besides spend large almanac sums employing developers specifically for them to contribute to open 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 economic system.^[96] The IT enquiry firm IDC valued the Linux kernel at Us$18 billion in 2007 and projected its value at Usa$40 billion in 2010.^[97] The Debian distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system offers over 37,000 free open-source software packages via their AMD64 repositories alone.^[98]

Collaborative works [edit]

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

See besides [edit]

Agitator economics
Basic income
Credibility points
Calculation in kind
Digital currency
Egoboo
Food swap
Free instruction
Giving circles
History of money
Homestay – CouchSurfing
Knowledge marketplace
Natural economy
Pay information technology forward
Post-scarcity economy
Primitive communism
Solidarity economic system
Globe currency

Notes [edit]

^ Cheal, David J (1988). "one". The Gift Economy. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–xix. ISBN0415006414 . Retrieved 2009-06-18 .
^ R. Kranton: Reciprocal exchange: a self-sustaining system, American Economic Review, 5. 86 (1996), Upshot four (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 Visitor. p. 165.
^ ^a ^b ^c Mauss, Marcel (1970). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Substitution in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & Due west.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^{due east} Weiner, Annette (1992). Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-while-Giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.
^ Bollier, David. "The Stubborn Vitality of the Souvenir Economy." Silent Theft: The Individual Plunder of Our Mutual Wealth. First Printing ed. New York: Routledge, 2002. 38–39^{[ ISBN missing ]}.
^ J. Parry, Grand. Bloch (1989). "Introduction" in Money and the Morality of Commutation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. viii–12.
^ Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Gift, the Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift'". Man. 21 (3): 453–473. doi:10.2307/2803096. JSTOR 2803096.
^ ^a ^b ^c Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Gift, the Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift'". Man. 21 (3): 467. doi:10.2307/2803096. JSTOR 2803096.
^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Academic Press. pp. 6–9.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hann, C.M. (1998). Property Relations: Renewing the Anthropological Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing. p. four.
^ Sider, Gerald M. (1980). "The Ties That Bind: Culture and Agriculture, Property and Propriety in the Newfoundland Hamlet Fishery". Social History. 5 (ane): 2–3, 17. doi:x.1080/03071028008567469.
^ Coleman, Gabriella (2004). "The Political Agnosticism of Gratis and Open up 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 property, Intellectual Property, the Civilization of Property, and Software Pirating". Anthropology of Work Review. eight (1): 7–9. doi:10.1525/awr.1987.viii.ane.7.
^ Friedman, Jonathan (1999). "The Cultural Life of Intellectual Backdrop: Authorship, Appropriation, and the Law". American Ethnologist. 26 (4): 1001–1002. doi:10.1525/ae.1999.26.iv.1001.
^ Aragon, Lorraine; James Leach (2008). "Arts and Owners: Intellectual property law and the politics of calibration in Indonesian Arts". American Ethnologist. 35 (iv): 607–631. doi:x.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00101.x.
^ Coombe, Rosemary J. (1993). "Cultural and Intellectual Properties: Occupying the Colonial Imagination". PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. xvi (i): 8–15. doi:10.1525/pol.1993.16.1.eight.
^ Chris Hann, Keith Hart (2011). Economical Anthropology: History, Ethnography, Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 158.
^ Strangelove, Michael (2005). The Empire of Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-Capitalist Movement. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 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 Guinea. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Printing.
^ ^a ^b Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Gift, the Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift'". Human. 21 (3): 466–469. doi:10.2307/2803096. 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 form: On the importance of capitals in key Sulawesi". Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. 160 (1): 72–94. doi:10.1163/22134379-90003735.
^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Commodities. London: Bookish Press. pp. 189–194.
^ Sahlins, Marshall (1972). Rock Age Economics . Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. ISBN0202010996.
^ Parry, Jonathan (1986). "The Gift, the Indian Gift and the 'Indian Gift'". Man. 21 (3): 463–467. doi:10.2307/2803096. JSTOR 2803096.
^ Graeber, David (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The false coin of our own dreams. New York: Palgrave. p. 225.
^ Bohannan, Paul (1959). "The Affect of money on an African subsistence economy". The Journal of Economic History. 19 (4): 491–503. doi:10.1017/S0022050700085946. S2CID 154892567.
^ Parry, Jonathan; Maurice Bloch (1989). Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing. pp. 28–30.
^ Gregory, Chris (1982). Gifts and Bolt. London: Academic Press. pp. 100–101.
^ "Gifts and Commodities | Chapter III: Gifts and commodities: Circulation". haubooks.org . Retrieved 2016-12-21 .
^ Strathern, Marilyn (1988). The Gender of the Souvenir: Bug with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Printing. pp. 143–147.
^ Thomas, Nicholas (1991). Entangled Objects: Exchange, Fabric Culture, 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 Pattern Features of Man Language". Electric current Anthropology. 46 (4): 621–646. doi:x.1086/431525. hdl:2066/41103. S2CID 2223235.
^ Curren, Erik (2012). "Charles Eisenstein wants to devalue your money to save the economy". Transition Vocalization. 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 Commodities. London: Academic Printing. p. 53.
^ Gregory, C.A. (1982). Gifts and Bolt. London: Academic Press. pp. 53–54.
^ Sahlins, Marshall (1963). "Poor Man, Rich Man, Large-Human being, Main: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia". Comparative Studies in Society and History. iii. five (three): 294–297. doi:10.1017/s0010417500001729. S2CID 145254059.
^ "Tana Toraja official website" (in Indonesian). Archived from the original on May 29, 2006. Retrieved 2006-10-04 .
^ ^a ^b ^c Schrauwers, Albert (2004). "H(h)ouses, Eastward(e)states and class; On the importance of capitals in fundamental Sulawesi". Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. 160 (i): 83–86. doi:10.1163/22134379-90003735.
^ Graeber, David (2011). Debt: The first 5,000 years . New York: Melville House. pp. 223–249. ISBN978-1933633862.
^ Bowie, Katherine (1998). "The Alchemy of Charity: Of class and Buddhism in Northern Thailand". American Anthropologist. 100 (2): 469–481. doi:x.1525/aa.1998.100.2.469.
^ Bowie, Katherine (1998). "The Abracadabra of Charity: Of class and Buddhism in Northern Thailand". American Anthropologist. 100 (2): 473–474. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.2.469.
^ Bowie, Katherine (1998). "The Abracadabra of Charity: Of class and Buddhism in Northern Thailand". American Anthropologist. 100 (2): 475–477. doi:ten.1525/aa.1998.100.2.469.
^ Schrauwers, Albert (2009). 'Union is Strength': W.L. Mackenzie, The Children of Peace and the Emergence of Joint Stock Democracy in Upper Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Printing. pp. 97–124.
^ Rus, Andrej (2008)."'Gift vs. commoditiy' debate revisited". Anthropological Notebooks xiv (1): 81–102.
^ "Organs For Sale: Prc's Growing Trade and Ultimate Violation of Prisoners' Rights". June 27, 2001. Retrieved February 12, 2019.
^ Schepper-Hughes, Nancy (2000). "The Global Traffic in Human Organs". Current Anthropology. 41 (ii): 193. doi:10.1086/300123. S2CID 23897844.
^ ^a ^b Schepper-Hughes, Nancy (2000). "The Global Traffic in Homo Organs". Current Anthropology. 41 (2): 191–224. doi:10.1086/300123. PMID 10702141. S2CID 23897844.
^ Precipitous, 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 M. (2001). "Semen as Gift, Semen as Goods: Reproductive Workers and the Market in Altruism". Body & Society. seven (2–3): 137–160. doi:10.1177/1357034x0100700205. S2CID 145687310.
^ Titmuss, Richard (1997). The Souvenir Human relationship: From human blood to social policy. New York: The New Press.
^ Silvestri P., "The All too Man Welfare State. Freedom Between Souvenir and Corruption", Teoria due east 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-gift: on gift-commodity hybrids in advanced mass consumption cultures". Economy and Lodge. 38 (2): 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 University 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 Experience: The Summer of Dear. PBS. Retrieved 2007-04-23 .
^ "What is Burning Man? FAQ – Grooming" Retrieved 10/5/11
^ ^a ^b "How Nosotros Survive: The Currency of Giving (Encore)" Making Contact, produced past National Radio Project. December 21, 2010.
^ "The x Principles of Burning Human being". Burning Man . Retrieved 2019-05-02 .
^ Gifting It: A Burning Comprehend of Gift Economy , retrieved 2019-05-02
^ ^a ^b Joy to the weed! Marijuana legalization comes bearing gifts, Associated Printing, December 21, 2017 – via The Seattle Times
^ Barro, Josh (20 March 2015). "Tin Washington's Souvenir Economy 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 Side by side Land to Legalize Marijuana?", High Times, The current Vermont bill does not allow for the retail sale of cannabis. Then if it goes forward with a legal marketplace, it would be similar to that of District of Columbia.
^ Tuttle, Brad (June 29, 2015). "Oregon Is Jubilant Marijuana Legalization With Free Weed". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. OCLC 1311479. Archived from the original on June 30, 2015. Retrieved July ii, 2015.
^ Joshua Miller (Dec 14, 2016), "It'southward official: Marijuana is legal in Massachusetts", Boston Globe, Giving away up to an ounce of the drug without remuneration or public advertizement is OK. "Gifting" pot and and so receiving payment later, or reciprocal "gifts" of pot and items of value: illegal.
^ Hilary Bricken (Dec 23, 2017), "What are California'due south cannabis laws?", Green Country (blog)
^ Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1955 paperback (reprinted 2005), includes Kropotkin's 1914 preface, Foreword and Bibliography by Ashley Montagu, and The Struggle for Being, past Thomas H. Huxley ed.). Boston: Extending Horizons Books, Porter Sargent Publishers. ISBN 0875580246. Projection Gutenberg due east-text, Project LibriVox audiobook
^ [Augustin Souchy, "A Journey Through Aragon," in Sam Dolgoff (ed.), The Anarchist Collectives, ch. x]
^ Turner, Francis J. (2005). Canadian encyclopedia of social work. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. pp. 337–338. ISBN0889204365.
^ Thompson, Edward P. (1991). Customs in Mutual . 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 Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
^ Bollier, David (2002). "Reclaiming the eatables". Boston Review. Archived from the original on 2010-06-13.
^ Berry, David (21 February 2005). "The eatables". Costless Software Magazine. Archived from the original on xv Dec 2009.
^ Anon. "Commoner". Farlex Inc. Retrieved 20 April 2012.
^ Barnes, Peter (2006). Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN978-1576753613.
^ "Definition of Costless Cultural Works". freedomdefined.org . Retrieved 2019-05-02 .
^ "Definition of Free Cultural Works". Retrieved viii December 2011.
^ Stallman, Richard (November 13, 2008). "Complimentary Software and Free Manuals". Free Software Foundation. Retrieved March 22, 2009.
^ Stallman, Richard. "Why Open Source misses the point of Complimentary Software". Free Software Foundation.
^ Anderson, Nate (July 16, 2008). "European union caves to aging rockers, wants 45-year copyright extension". Ars Technica . Retrieved August 8, 2008.
^ Mackaay, Ejan (1990). "Economical Incentives in Markets for Data and Innovation". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. xiii (909): 867–910.
^ Heylighen, Francis (2007). "Why is Open up Admission Development and then Successful?". In B. Lutterbeck; M. 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 customs". opensource.com. Archived from the original on 15 March 2012. Retrieved nineteen March 2012.
^ "Complimentary/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Report". International Found of Infonomics, University of Maastricht and Berlecon Enquiry GmbH. 2002. Archived from the original on 21 August 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
^ Matzan, Jem (5 June 2004). "The souvenir economic system and gratuitous software". Archived from the original on 12 July 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2012.
^ "IDC Linux Ecosystem Worth $twoscore Billion by 2010". Archived from the original on 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2012-04-07 .
^ "Chapter 2. Debian packet management". www.debian.org . Retrieved 2019-05-09 .
^ D. Anthony, Southward. Westward. Smith, and T. Williamson, "Explaining quality in net collective goods: zealots and adept samaritans in the case of Wikipedia", THanover : Dartmouth Higher, Technical Written report, November 2005.
^ Anthony, Denise; Smith, Sean W.; Williamson, Tim (Apr 2007), "The Quality of Open Source Production: Zealots and Good Samaritans in the Example of Wikipedia" (PDF), Technical Report TR2007-606, Dartmouth College, archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-06-06, retrieved 2011-05-29

Mickelson Ficiones