Does Market Integration Buffer Risk, Erode Traditional Sharing Practices and Increase Inequality? a Test Among Bolivian Forager-Farmers
Sharing and exchange are common practices for minimizing food insecurity in rural populations. The advent of markets and monetization in egalitarian indigenous populations presents an alternative means of managing risk, with the potential impact of eroding traditional networks. We test whether market involvement buffers several types of risk and reduces traditional sharing behavior among Tsimane Amerindians of the Bolivian Amazon. Results vary based on type of market integration and scale of analysis (household vs. village), consistent with the notion that local culture and ecology shape risk management strategies. Greater wealth and income were unassociated with the reliance on others for food, or on reciprocity, but wealth was associated with a greater proportion of food given to others (i.e., giving intensity) and a greater number of sharing partners (i.e., sharing breadth). Across villages, greater mean income was negatively associated with reciprocity, but economic inequality was positively associated with giving intensity and sharing breadth. Incipient market integration does not necessarily replace traditional buffering strategies but instead can often enhance social capital.
Gurven, M., Jaeggi, A. V., von Rueden C, Hooper, P. L., & Kaplan, H. (2015). Does market integration buffer risk, erode traditional sharing practices and increase inequality? A test among Bolivian forager-farmers. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 43(4), 515-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9764-y
Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons, Economic Theory Commons, Ethnic Studies Commons, Latin American Studies Commons, Other Anthropology Commons, Other Economics Commons, Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons
This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, volume 43, issue 4, in 2015 following peer review. The final publication may differ and is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9764-y .