Reformulating the debate between the substantivists and formalists in economic anthropology: Is the neoclassical model suitable for describing conditions in nonmarket economies

This dissertation examines a debate from the 1960s in the field of economic anthropology. The two participants in the debate were the formalists and the substantivists. The formalists argue that all individual economic agents always seek to maximize their individual well-being. As a result, the formal neoclassical choice theoretic model is an appropriate tool for all economic studies. The substantivists argue that the motivations of individual economic agents are socially determined. In their analysis, the substantivists articulated three main criticisms of the formalist approach. The three criticisms concern choice under scarcity and the isolated and selfish nature of the choice process that appear in the formal neoclassical model. While scarcity and the isolated selfish individual may be evident in market economies, they may not be factors in nonmarket economies. The formalists respond that their model is general and can be modified to account for any number of specific conditions of economic choice. It is argued in this dissertation that this response is false. Via examination of the formal mathematical structure of the neoclassical choice model, it is argued that the substantivist criticisms are reflected and embedded in the formal neoclassical choice model. While one could change the mathematical structure of the formal model to address these substantivist criticisms, the changes would leave one with a model that was outside the neoclassical approach to economic decision making.