Economic Anthropology最新文献

Brandon D. Lundy, Kennesaw State University

Kelly McKowen, Southern Methodist University

Katherine E. Browne, Colorado State University

Mike Chibnik, University of Iowa

Rudi Colloredo-Mansfeld, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Dolores Koenig, American University

Carolyn Lesorogol, Washington University, St. Louis

John K. Millhauser, North Carolina State University

Arthur D. Murphy, University of North Carolina, Greensboro

K. Anne Pyburn, Indiana University

Daniel Souleles, Copenhagen Business School

Rich Warms, Texas State University

Rick Wilk, Indiana University

Helen Hobson, Kennesaw State University

Economic Anthropology is published by the Society for Economic Anthropology (SEA) to make available research that is innovative and interdisciplinary and focused on economic and social life to serve scholars, practitioners, and general audiences. Contributors to the journal represent a wide range of disciplines including cultural anthropology, archaeology, sociology, demography, economics, ecology, geography, and history. In 2017, Economic Anthropology doubled its annual publication list from one to two: a theme-based issue pegged to the SEA annual conference, and an open submission issue representing a wide variety of research engaged with economy and society.

Economic Anthropology was founded in 2013 during the transition from the SEA's independent status to a society within the American Anthropological Association (AAA). The premier issue was published in January 2014.

For the 30 years preceding the founding of the journal, the SEA published an annual volume of articles drawn from the SEA spring conference. Annual themes reflect issues of current debate and significance. Now with a high-quality online format, full indexing of articles, a forward-looking vision, and the support of Wiley publishing and AAA, the journal is able to reach a broad base of scholars and publics.

To further the goal of making the most current research available to a broad audience, Economic Anthropology emphasizes clear and accessible writing. Authors are encouraged to take advantage of the journal's online format and incorporate photos, graphics, and links to video or other related materials. The journal considers the work of scholars at all points in their careers, including advanced Ph.D. students.

Economic Anthropology promotes inclusivity, diversity, antiracism, and anti-colonialism. We therefore encourage our contributors to cite relevant publications of members of historically marginalized groups and scholars from countries where their research was carried out.

The Publisher, American Anthropological Association, and Editors cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in this journal; the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of

As the biosocial and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to be tallied, focus has turned toward pandemic response and recovery. With the majority of emerging infections linked to zoonotic origins, responses that aim for outcomes like better disease surveillance, health security, and prevention of future pandemics must begin with a critical examination of global food systems. Anthropologists offer a vital perspective on the history of inequality and violence in human health that is embedded in the anthropogenic transformation of ecosystems, including contemporary agribusiness, and they are, in turn, uniquely situated for response and activism.

The anthropogenic modification of food systems is central to the history of our species. Our earliest Paleolithic hominin ancestors in Africa,¹ and those who began to roam and expand outside of Africa, lived as nomadic/seminomadic hunter-gatherers (i.e., foragers). Then, some time around ten thousand years ago, humans began a significant transition in how they lived and procured food. Humans began to settle down and produce their own food through the domestication of plants and animals. This “Neolithic Revolution” created not only a change in diet but a new landscape for the evolution of pathogens and our exposure to infectious disease, creating conditions that were particularly favorable for zoonotic infections. Close living conditions with domesticated animals would have increased transmission from animal hosts to human hosts, permanent large settlements would have allowed pathogens to more easily propagate, and an increase in waste would have fostered conditions for parasitic and gastrointestinal infections (Cohen and Armelagos 1984; Harper and Armelagos 2010). We also know that the cultivation of stable crops led to a reduction in dietary diversity and a reliance on foods with poor nutrition that would have exacerbated host vulnerability of these early communities, increasing childhood mortality along with fertility (Cohen and Armelagos 1984; Cohen and Crane-Kramer 2007). As populations eventually aggregated into crowded urban centers, disease intensified and numerous epidemics/pandemics occurred, such as cholera, viral infections like smallpox, and vector-borne diseases like tuberculosis and the plague (Barrett et al. 1998; Cohen and Crane-Kramer 2007).

While advanced genomic tools have begun to offer a refinement of temporal and geographic histories of ancient pathogens (Spyrou et al. 2019), deep-time perspectives allow us to investigate the larger causative relationships between demographics, socioeconomic factors, and disease. The (bio)archaeological and historical record demonstrates the role of inequality and violence in amplifying the impact of disease on marginalized populations. For example, the plague, or “Black Death,” that struck Europe between 1346 and 1353 and killed as muc

Here we revisit the decline of Indigenous populations of North America by using the concept of perceived risk. We argue that the root cause behind Indigenous depopulation in North America was not the lack of immunological defenses against novel pathogens introduced to the New World from the Old World, a hypothesis known as “Virgin Soil.” Certainly many Indigenous people died of disease, but so did many Euro-American colonizers. The populations of colonizers rebounded, as most populations do, but Indigenous populations could not recover because of colonizer violence and the persistent marginalization perpetrated against them. We show that European settlers promoted and practiced an ideology of domination based on an exaggerated perception of risk against Indigenous communities. On the basis of colonial prejudices, they created a distorted perception of Native Americans that depicted them as dangerous savages, un-Christian, and untrustworthy. Native Americans were seen as capable of damaging the life and property of the colonists and as incapable of being assimilated by them. Colonists assessed the Indigenous groups as an unacceptable and intolerable risk that had to be eliminated, irrespective of the financial cost of waging war on them. This ideology of risk has continued to impact the lives and well-being of Indigenous people for more than five hundred years as demonstrated by the elevated deaths from COVID-19 for Native Americans and other persons of color. Structural inequalities derived from the ideology of risk are behind the deaths of Indigenous people even today.

Risk can be approached as the probability of occurrence of a hazardous event and its consequences (risk = probability of loss/gain * danger * exposure * vulnerability). Specialists in the social sciences know that risk involves a balance between profit and loss, and there is risk associated with every aspect of life (Douglas 1985; Douglas and Wildavsky 1982). Indeed, risk-aversion behaviors may bring high opportunity costs, such as the loss of income to individuals or groups, and may be irrational from the point of view of classical economic theory (Blaikie et al. 1994). High risk, high returns is at the core of modern financial and insurance markets, on which the modern economy relies. Nevertheless, the public approaches risk based on the negative consequences and threats to human life, on bodily injury, or on loss of welfare due to external dangers outside their control. Risk assessment by most laypeople tends to be based on perception, and it is easily manipulated by propagation of irrational fear. We argue that the fear of the “other” by American colonists created a colonial ideology that drove and justified policies of exclusion, violence, and marginalization toward Native Americans and other groups who did not comply with the racial and religious ideals of the colonists. As Thomas Jefferson said, “the two principles on which ou

Mali is one of the least developed countries in the world, ranking 184 of 189 on the Human Development Index (United Nations Development Programme 2021). Average per capita income is estimated at US$2,269. Mali's poverty rate (less than US$1.90 per person per day) remains high, falling from 43.3% in 2017 to 41.2% in 2019 (World Bank 2020, 42). Low levels of formal education are also increasing.

Since 2012, Mali has been challenged by high structural insecurity. In 2012, a military coup coupled with the takeover of much of Mali's north by jihadist insurgents created political crisis. Despite democratic elections in 2013 and subsequent peace talks, the north remains insecure, and violence has spread to central Mali. Community self-defense groups have often set off intercommunity violence. Owing to national political instability, travel is dangerous in areas of Mali. Another coup in August 2020 was followed by a transition government of civilians and military in September 2020.

Despite its problems, Mali has maintained a robust public health structure. Many basic health indicators have recently improved. Mali participates in international health activities such as childhood vaccinations and HIV programs. When Mali recognized its first official cases of COVID-19 on March 25, 2020, about three months after the first publicized cases in Wuhan, China, Mali's Ministry of Health and Social Development had already elaborated an action plan against COVID-19. Nevertheless, its ability to respond was hampered by larger international inequalities, internal socioeconomic inequalities, and the microeconomics of everyday life in a poor country.

This essay is based on information I gathered as a member of the scientific commission put into place by the Ministry of Health and Social Development to advise national authorities on the COVID-19 response. My reflections here are my own and based on my experience as a researcher, not as a member of the commission. The commission focused on health guidelines. Nonetheless, the data collected from many actors, including health professionals and community members (the sick and former patients, those in isolation, contacts of patients) provided much additional information. This piece is focused on two major issues: (a) how inequalities affected responses to the pandemic and (b) how the microeconomics of everyday life touched household responses.

Mali's ability to maintain its public health structure has depended in part on access to international programs that provide tangible resources. Certain parts of the structure were also weak, such as diagnostic testing capacity throughout the country. Actions in the Ministry of Health's plan included prevention, epidemiological surveillance, and breaking the transmission chain. Isolation and treatment centers were put into place. International borders were closed for some time. Health personnel were provided gloves, masks, and other