Referee Reports
RRPE
REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS
Hazel Dayton Gunn, Managing Editor
Department of City and Regional Planning
106 W. Sibley Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
315/789-1414
October 5, 2015
Asad Zaman
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE)
QAU Campus
Islamabad
Pakistan
Dear Asad
As the Managing Editor of the Review of Radical Political Economics, I must inform you that your article submission SSN 3163 has not been accepted for publication by the editorial review panel.
I have enclosed the comments from the readers. Please accept these commentaries in the constructive spirit in which they are intended.
Thank you for considering the RRPE, and for your patience during the review process.
Sincerely
Hazel Dayton Gunn
Cc: O’Hara Boddy Mongiovi
REFEREE REPORT FOR THE REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS BY PHILLIP O’HARA; MANUSCRIPT NO. 3163; “Methodology of Polanyi’s Great Transformation” [sic];
28 September 2015: Vote: Do Not Accept (but see below **)
GENERAL
The Review of Radical Political Economics could well do with a general or specific article on Karl Polanyi that deals with some issues common with Polanyi and RRPE. As someone who has been publishing on Polanyi for over twenty years and reading him for over 30 years, I have noticed in more recent years that Polanyi has become fashionable all throughout the social sciences, including in economics and also radical political economy. The literature on Polanyi is now extensive. Checking the references to him in RRPE on the Sage website gives us 87 references (none used by the current paper).
The current paper does offer some interesting insights on Polanyi, especially concerning a ‘critique’ of class; plus history and markets. But none of them are linked to RRPE or URPE type issues (specifically). There is no real linkage to radical political economy here in this paper, not even a reference to the radical institutionalists (I think Polanyi was one of these). The article has not been targeted towards URPE type ideas as such, and a rewrite along these lines would take up too much space as already the article is at 10,000 words. A shame that no real link was given to URPE type issues as the author (elsewhere) has done some interesting editorial work on Marx’s contemporary relevance (I checked the Internet). Just as problematic, Polanyi’s main concerns along RRPE lines (the disembedded economy; the double movement; the major contradictions of capitalism) are completely ignored in this paper! Amazingly only 11 references are included in this paper, of the thousands on Polanyi!
Below I outline the main problems with this paper which led me to reject it for publication; alternatively, ** if other referees like this paper, these points could be listed for major inclusion in the rewrite ** (but how would this be reconciled with the number of words already being at the maximum?).
All this said, I do, encourage the author to write another paper that would be suitable to the main themes of RRPE, and to reference works in RRPE/others that discuss Polanyi (eg) and his main radical themes.
ISSUE ONE: NO LINK TO RRPE
One good way to have presented the article for RRPE would have been to have read some of the numerous articles and book reviews that discuss Polanyi in the RRPE; and then to incorporate some of these ideas into the current paper. But this was not done. Other ways to have linked the article to RRPE would have been to have (1) engaged in the discussion of class vis-a-vis RRPE, (2) recognised that Polanyi and his wife were both socialists (link this to Marx?), and (3) discussed Polanyi’s thesis of the main internal contradictions of capitalism (the current emphasis on “external technology” in this paper gives one the mistaken impression that Polanyi was an “exogenous factors” scholar).
ISSUE TWO: POLANYI’S MAIN RADICAL THEMES ARE IGNORED
Polanyi’s main themes of (1) the ‘disembedded economy’ (specific term), and (2) the ‘double movement’ (specific term), and (3) the ‘major contradictions of contradiction’ (specific term), re ignored completely in this paper. The disembedded economy is the notion that capitalism has a tendency to promote economy over society, and thereby to periodically fall into crisis and instability due to insufficient attention being given to reciprocity, redistribution and informal markets. The double movement is the notion that capitalism tends to move into high degrees of disembeddedness, but then to save itself from terminal crisis its agents and institutional evolution often moves into a slightly more embedded process to ensure socioeconomic reproduction; and so on later to disembedded trend and then to more embedded (historically) The major internal contradiction of capitalism for Polanyi is thus this disembedded tendency and the double movement.
ISSUE THREE: MAIN REFERENCES ON POLANYI ARE IGNORED
The reference list (only eleven items!) indicates that the author hasn’t done sufficient reading on Polanyi, because not only are Polanyi’s other works not even mentioned, but the core secondary literatures are also missing. No references are given to the discussions of Polanyi in RRPE (mentioned above), nor are any of the hundreds of crucial works on Polanyi even mentioned. I think part of the problem is that the author relies on articles (one each) by Mayhew and Hodgson—mainstream institutionalists who have consistently eschewed radical institutionalists and Marxists (I know from personal experience) hence the need for the author to write on radical political economy (see editorial statement of RRPE).
Just a few of the (much more numerous) important references linking Polanyi with radicals
Stanfield, The Economic Thought of Karl Polanyi: Lives and Livelihood.
Dugger (Ed), Radical Institutionalism: Contemporary Voices
O’Hara, Marx, Veblen and Contemporary Institutional Political Economy
Dalton (Ed), Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi
Kari Polanyi-Levitt (Ed), The Life and Work of Karl Polanyi
Mendell & Salee (Eds), The Legacy of Karl Polanyi
Selwyn & Miyamura, “Marx, Polanyi and the Meanings and Possibilities of Social Transformation”, New Political Economy, Vol 19, No 5, pp. 639-661
ISSUE FOUR: FICTITIOUS COMMODITIES
Like Marx, Polanyi regarded labor, land and money as fictitious commodities; but the current paper calls them “fictional commodities”, when Polanyi has a heading for his chapter 6 as specifically “fictitious commodities” (not fictional). This is important since the author doesn’t know how crucial the core word “fictitious” is for both Marx and Polanyi. This is indicative of the wider problem of the paper’s lack of linkage of Polanyi with radicals (and insufficient background knowledge of Polanyi).
End of Referee Report
Ray Boddy
MSNO:3163
The Methodology of Polanyi’s Great Transformation
Vote DNU
Stylistically this is a well written paper that raises some important issues. The issues, however, do not appear to be solely or even mainly questions of methodology. They are questions of core assumptions, scope and political strategies.
The Methodology of Polanyi
The authors state their goal is to articulate Polanyi’s heretofore unarticulated methodology. They claim his methodology is radically different from existing methodologies of both orthodox and heterodox economists and also differs in several dimensions from current approaches to social science. They warn the reader Polanyi operates at a” meta-theoretical” level and analyses the emergence of theories to understand emergent historical situations. . Claims to such originality would surprise Marx, Keynes and a host of others. What then is Polanyi’s methodology which he did not make explicit? How was it new? How does it fit within philosophical discourse? If it is so different why did he fail to give the reader some guidance? These are questions the authors do not address adequately for publication in RRPE.
An alternative approach that may help the reader understand Polanyi’s methodology and provide a means to assess his substantive contributions might be to compare his work more directly and extensively to the work of other heterodox theorists-- particularly Marx. Marx’ work has been sifted many times over as to its analytical base, methodology and political ramifications. There remain and are likely to remain conflicting interpretations of Marx. That should be kept in mind in some of the contrasts and similarities between Polanyi and Marx I raise below.
Since the authors present Polanyi through a mixture of quotes and accurate paraphrases I will make no distinction and attribute all of the material to Polanyi. My remarks and questions follow the authors’ headings.
2. An Institutional Perspective
Polanyi argued that 19th century civilization rested on four institutions: the balance of power, the gold standard, the self-regulating market and the liberal state. Would Marx be surprised about the importance of these four institutions or the point that the institutions are not exogenous and ultimate cause?
3. The Spirit of History
Polanyi argues that institutions represent the embodiment of the collective will. Is that collective will generally greater than Marx’s will of the ruling class -- taking into account the actions and resistance of the oppressed classes?
4. Methodological Communitarianism.
Polanyi argues that individual behavior and motivation cannot be understood outside community and social norms. Does Polanyi differ from Marx as to what body is the relevant community?
4.1 Individual Behavior Shaped by Society
Polanyi argues that all economic systems known to us to the end of feudalism in Western Europe were organized on the principles of reciprocity or redistribution. Among the great variety of individual motives gain was not prominent. How does this differ from Marx’ emphasis on use values and satiation prior to capitalism?
Based on studies of earlier or non-industrial societies Polanyi concludes there is a changelessness of “man” as a social being. This will become the basis of resistance to the market economy of capitalism. Did Marx ignore this changelessness? Is this a crucial break from Marx with his emphasis on historical changes in class struggle and resistance?
4.2 History Is Shaped by Groups
Polanyi argues it was machine production that required the establishment of a market system and new class of entrepreneurs came into being ….to take charge of a development which was consonant with the interests of the community as a whole. How does this differ from Marx on the shift from manufactory to machine production? Is it Polanyi’s stress on “the interests of the community as a whole” that differs from Marx? And how would that be determined?
5. Beyond Class Struggle.
Polanyi argues that” mere class struggle” cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for any long-run social process. He states it is only within a stable social structure that societal dynamics may be driven by class struggle. The process of social change may create or destroy social classes. Challenges that lead to change are challenges to society as a whole and are created by external causes. Is this Polanyi’s fundamental dismissal of Marx’ methodology where the dialectical contradictions within an existing class struggle can set the stage for new class structures? If so, say so. If so this is the point the authors should highlight and justify. Polanyi’s obvious point that classes emerge and are destroyed cannot carry the weight he puts on it.
5.1 Emergence of a Group Interest.
Polanyi argued the gold standard linked economies and provided the vehicle for international trade and this external circumstance created a new group interest. He states that only a madman would have doubted that the international economic system was the axis of the material existence of the race. Was this a common interest cutting across classes? Or was it a shared plight?
Was this the outcome of the exogenous looting of gold and silver from the New World.? Innovations in the management of banking? What is the evidence that the commitment to free trade was viewed as a necessity by all that over-rode narrow class interests?
5.2 External Circumstances may determine outcomes.
Polanyi argued that the catastrophic collapse of the gold standard was determined by technical and economic external factors so that the combined striving of all groups-the spirit of the age-did not lead to the desired outcome. In the face of so much analysis of the roots of the Versailles treaty and the hegemonic power of the United States, this conclusion must be explained more extensively.
5.3 Acting Across Class Interests
Polanyi argues that typically no class has sufficient power to enforce its desired outcomes and this leads to the necessity of building coalitions. His example is the 100 years of peace 1815-1915. As examples of coalitions led by Marxists, Lenin and Mao urged the building of class coalitions for national liberation struggles. These fractured after initial triumphs. Did Marxian class theory limit the ability for the working class to build coalitions because that theory was false?
5.4 External Causes Drive Social Change
Polanyi argued that once elaborate machines and plant were used for production in a commercial society the idea of a self-regulating market was bound to take shape. In Machinery and Modern Industry, Capital Vol 1 Chapter XV, Marx notes the contest between the capitalist and the wage-labourer goes back to the very origin of capital. It raged through-out the whole manufacturing period. But only since the introduction of machinery has the workman fought against the instrument of labour itself which is the material basis of the capitalist mode of production. Marx notes that it was not till the invention of Watt’s second and so-called double acting steam-engine was a prime mover found that created its own force by the consumption of coal and water so that power was completely under human control. This permitted production to be concentrated in towns instead of near the water-wheels scattered up and down the country. Manufacturing produced the machinery by means of which the handicraft and manufacturing systems were undermined. Watt in his patent made it clear that it was an agent universally applicable in Mechanical Industry While extremely important Marx treats the development of machinery as endogenous to earlier capital. What is the methodology that assures Polanyi this was an external cause that drove social change?
6.0 Interlinkage of Social, Political and Economic Spheres
Polanyi argues that machine production in a commercial society involves the transformation of the natural and human substance of society into commodities. Does not this mirror Marx?
7.0 Theories of Learning from Historical Experience
8.0 False Theories Shape our Future
8.1 The Commodification of Human Lives
Polanyi argued that the economic theory of the classical economists was essentially confused because the economic system was a mixture of premarket and market economies. The authors should briefly explain that point. Polanyi was very critical of the labor theory of value as developed by Smith and Ricardo and extended by Marx. By the time Marx wrote the premarket economy could hardly be used as a rationale. Polanyi explained that the emergence of a market economy required three “fictional commodities” labor, land and and money. According to Polanyi the emergence of these commodifications were mediated by false theories—including the labor theory of value.
For Marx the labor theory of value explains the dynamics of capitalism. Is Polanyi’s point that it misrepresents the dynamics of capitalism and provides the wrong prospects of the working class? Polanyi had no truck with the roots of neoclassical utility theory. What then is his basis for a value theory? Would such a value theory be rooted in the unvarying basis of community that transcends class and narrow interests? Or is a value theory beside the point at the “meta theory “level of Polanyi?
10 Conclusion
There is a wealth of important thoughts and observations in Polanyi’s work. A global consensus and the building of the necessary institutions to support peace and freedoms and the protection of the environment are worthy goals
The authors see their research as part of the effort being made on many different fronts for meaningful policies. In some ways they have contributed to that goal. They however, do not cite other efforts they believe worthwhile
The authors argue that Polanyi’s methodology is radically different from existing methodologies both orthodox and heterodox. That is a very sweeping statement. . A modest contribution to creating some of the underpinnings for cross class coalitions can be made by addressing the common elements among heterodox work and even some orthodox work while also noting and discussing divergences.
RRPE Referee Report
August 2015
Title: The Methodology of Polanyi’s Great Transformation
MSNO: 3163
Recommendation: Do not accept/not suitable for the RRPE
Comments: This paper does a pretty good job of summarizing the argument of Karl Polanyi’s 1944 masterpiece, The Great Transformation. Unfortunately, the paper doesn’t do anything more than that.
I have no advice to offer the author: his essay is clearly written and well organized, and I detect no serious expositional, interpretative or analytical defects. Nor, however, do I detect any novelty in the argument, and that is the problem: the paper is little more than a dry-as-dust, uncritical sketch of Polanyi’s main ideas. Such a synopsis may be useful so some readers, but many others will be familiar with most of what the paper says. In any case, I don’t believe we ought to be in the business of presenting the great works of social theory in condensed form, which is more or less all that the paper aspires to do. While I acknowledge the relevance of Polanyi’s thinking to radical political economics, the paper itself does not draw out the connections in any clear way.
I’m sorry I can’t be more constructive, but I don’t see how this paper can be rendered suitable for the RRPE.
Gary Mongiovi
St John’s University
REFEREE REPORTS from The Journal of Economic Methodology:
I write you in regards to manuscript # RJEC-2015-02-0006 entitled "The Methodology of Polanyi's Great Transformation" which you submitted to Journal of Economic Methodology.
In view of the criticisms of the reviewers found at the bottom of this letter, we must reject your manuscript for publication in Journal of Economic Methodology.
Thank you for considering Journal of Economic Methodology for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.
Sincerely,
Prof. D. Wade Hands
Editor in Chief, Journal of Economic Methodology
Reviewers' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
This is paper does a very good job describing Polanyi’s thinking but I do not believe it really sets out a methodological analysis of that thinking. The paper identifies factors that operate in Polanyi’s approach, emphasizes key concepts, and describes the different vision of the economy they involve. But there is no explicit discussion of methodology per se, meaning how these concepts and assumptions are justified and explicated apart from the role the play in Polanyi’s thought. Methodological analysis requires one investigate methodology in itself and then look at it as applied. There is potential for this in connection with Polanyi because he reasons in terms of reflexive relationships. These are referred to in the paper, but they are not evaluated, or compared to other ways in which reflexivity reasoning is employed in economics. So the content of reflexivity thinking in the paper is illustrated rather than explained. For example, in regard to institutions one can argue that behavior is embedded in economic systems in such a fashion that there are sets of feedback relationships between it and their institutional setting. But what does Polanyi say about how these feedback relationships work beyond that they do? Is agency modified or codified? Are institutions active or passive structures? My view of the paper then is that it is not appropriate to a methodology journal but rather to a political economy or heterodox journal where it would demonstrate the kinds of methodological elements that go into Polanyi’s thinking.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
This paper is a discussion of Karl Polanyi’s Great Transformation (GT) and it seems to be accurate/correct. The problem with the paper is that it is just a discussion of what Polanyi said; it reads like a lecture on Polanyi’s GT for an audience that has not read it. It is an accurate/correct discussion, but that seems to be all it is.
The author claims that Polanyi’s GT is “radically different from existing methodologies in Economics, both orthodox and heterodox” (p. 1) and there is the implicit presumption that it is not only “different” but methodologically “better” than the other explanations. There are at least two problems with this. The first is that Polanyi’s methodological framework is not all that different from that of much of Institutionalist economics, so it is not “radically different” from all heterodox approaches. However that is much less of an issue than the second problem – the paper does not really contain any methodological analysis of Polanyi’s GT.
The author says “methodology” a lot – even in the title – but there really isn’t much methodology in the paper. A methodological analysis of Polanyi’s GT would involve an analysis of the epistemological justification of the explanation of the great transformation that Polanyi provides. Why is his explanation true, or more justified, or more reliable, or more effective at “saving the phenomena,” or more coherent, or “better” in some other way (related to the warrant for the knowledge claims that Polanyi makes) than other explanations of the feudal-capitalist transformation in Europe? The author appears to believe that it is “better” in some way, but makes no effort to demonstrate, or even attempt to demonstrate, this. The paper tells us what Polanyi said about the great transformation, but does not provide any methodological analysis or defense of his argument.
MY LETTER TO WADE HANDS IN RESPONSE:
Dear Dr. Hands
Thanks for your communication regarding my paper.
I have read and cited some of your work in my own papers, and generally admire your approach to economics. Therefore I would appreciate receiving some input on a few questions that arose in my mind in response to the referee reports. Let me say in advance that I understand very well that an editor faced with reports like those above has no options, and I am not angling for reconsideration, or raising any objections to your decision.
Having had vast numbers of papers rejected, my general strategy is to try to learn something from the referees views and improve the paper before re-submitting to another journal. However, I am at a loss here, since both referees say that my paper is not about methodology. This is very surprising to me, and therefore I would like to request your input about this matter. Perhaps I have completely misunderstood the meaning of this word, and in this case, I need to re-write the paper to focus on whatever the subject matter is -- since I think it is mainly about methodology. Here are the reasons why I think it is about methodology
A: Conventional Economic methodology is based on methodological individualism -- However, the paper argues against this stance and argues in favor of methodological communitarianism. It also argues the Polanyi uses and supports this idea. This appears to me to be an innovation on two fronts:
1: The idea itself "methodological communitarianism" in opposition to "methodological individualism" has not been used or discussed to the best of my knowledge. It has been defined and defended in the paper, supported by historical examples taken from Polanyi to show that it has explanatory power.
2: The paper is not just an explanation of Polanyi's GT to someone who is not familiar with it -- since this idea is not at all explicit in Polanyi's analysis. Although one can derive the idea, as I did, from analysis of Polanyi's work, I did not find any mention of this aspect of his methodology in the vast amount of literature written about Polanyi. As a presentation of the METHODOLOGY, used by Polanyi, I could not find any predecessors. In fact, if the referee who says that my paper is just an explanation of GT to an unfamiliar audience has any references to anyone who has made these points, I would be very happy receive them and incorporate them.
3. The methodology used by Polanyi is dramatically different from any currently in use in Social Science -- indeed the whole idea of "social science" comes into dispute, because the scientific idea of detachment of observer and observed cannot be maintained. We cannot look for patterns in human behavior and extract laws. This is because humans themselves analyze their experience and make theories to explain it. Even though these theories are often wrong, they shape human responses to historical experience. This means that human behavior is not invariant and predictable, as required by science and assumed by economic theories. The process of analyzing and formulating theories makes human activity -- which is FREE, in the sense that humans choose theories from among a menu -- an essential aprt of the analysis.
So I do not understand the comment that my paper is not about methodology. Similarly, my paper is not just an exposition of Polanyi's ideas -- it display a methodology which intricately links the social, political and economic spheres and suggests that isolated analysis of the separate domains is impossible. To take this seriously would mean that current discipline boundaries have been wrongly drawn. Departments of Economics, Political Science and Sociology should be merged. Again this is a methodological innovation of Polanyi which has not received much attention.
I would be very happy to learn of your views on this matter, so that I can understand better how to articulate my ideas.
with best wishes
Asad Zaman
REFEREE REPORTS FROM CJE
Dear Professor Zaman,
I am writing with regard to manuscript # CJE-2014-158 entitled "The Methodology of Polanyi's Great Transformation", which you submitted to the Cambridge Journal of Economics.
Unfortunately the Editors have decided that they are unable to offer publication of the manuscript in Cambridge Journal of Economics. I am attaching comments from the referees to the end of this message. Please note that the Editors may not agree with all comments but the reports are being sent for your information. All papers go through a careful assessment process following peer review and the Editors do regard this decision as final.
Thank you for considering the Cambridge Journal of Economics for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from submitting to the journal in the future.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Jacqui Lagrue
Managing Editor
Cambridge Journal of Economics
Referee Comments to Author:
Referee: 1
Comments to the Author
This paper is an original and strong effort to lay out the methodology that Karl Polanyi uses in The Great Transformation. It has the potential to make a significant contribution, but the present version has several problems that must be overcome.
The first is that the paper almost completely ignores the unit of analysis issue. What is obviously distinctive about the GT is that Polanyi frequently analyzes global dynamics and sees the choices that are made at the level of nations as responses to the global pressures. This is obviously central to his methodology—nations cannot be analyzed in isolation from the organization of the global economy and state system. This element needs to be included in this article.
The second problem is that the paper is weak in explaining why Polanyi’s distinctive methodology is important to understand and possibly emulate. There is some brief discussion of this at the end, but it is not satisfying. Given the massive failure of mainstream analysts to anticipate the 2008 crisis, it would seem a rather easy argument to make. The author could draw on Skidelsky’s powerful critique of the economics discipline and its failure to understand the linkages between economy, polity and ideas.
The third problem is that the paper does not do enough with KP’s analysis of the influence of wrong or mistaken ideas. The author is correct that this is central to his argument, but he or she does not really tell us where this distrust of official knowledge leads the analyst. A related problem is that KP talks about how classes gain power by responding to the needs of society, but how do we know what those needs actually are? How do we escape from the ideological formulations that are systematically produced.
Finally, the paper makes little use of the abundant literature on KP that has emerged in recent years. More familiarity with this literature would have made it possible to avoid mistakes such as failing to recognize that “the great transformation” of Polanyi’s title is what happened in the 1930’s and the quite unsatisfactory discussion of KP’s account of the origins of World Wars.
Referee: 2
Comments to the Author
The paper has some interesting and close textual analysis of the Great Transformation. However, the author would benefit from a wider reading of Polanyi's own work, especially the later anthropological studies. Already in the 1940s Polanyi was drawing on anthropological studies of the shifting place of economies in societies.
The paper would benefit from at least some discussion of the wider literature on Polanyi - eg. in relation to the shaping of economy by ideas (Mark Blyth), Randles on the double movement, and especially Dale's many publications. Fred Block's contributions touch on many of the issues raised in the paper, and need to be addressed when discussing arguments developed in the paper.
The paper is in fact not about methodology, as claimed, but about what kind of explanations Polanyi provides. For example, there is no discussion of the comparative economic anthropological method which underlies much of Polanyi's work, or of the particular historical methodology employed in GT.