Advertisement

Society and Market

  • Jeppe HøstEmail author
Chapter
Part of the MARE Publication Series book series (MARE, volume 16)

Abstract

This chapter begins by discussing what a market is and examining the relations between society, state, and market. This discussion serves to broaden fisheries policy design as a social and cultural object of inquiry, seeing regulations as related to social groups and cultural forms and their agency. The chapter continues by examining the policy design of the Danish market-based fisheries management system. The chapter asks what is at stake when a market is introduced and further evaluates the concrete design of safeguards and anti-concentration rules. Rather than a best-case example, the chapter shows that the Danish Vessel Quota Share system is full of flaws and contradictions in its basic design.

Keywords

Quota concentration Trawling Market economy Social safeguards Quota trade 

References

  1. Aguilera-Klink, F. 1994. Some notes on the misuse of classic writings in economics on the subject of common property. Ecological Economics 9 (3): 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnason, R. 2002. A review of international experiences with ITQs. Portsmouth: Centre for the economics and management of aquatic resources, University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
  3. Beckett, Jens. 2009. The great transformation of embeddedness: Karl Polanyi and the new economic sociology. In Market and society: the great transformation today, eds. C. M. Hann, Keith Hart., and xi, p 320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bonzon, K., K. McIlwain, C.K., Strauss, and T. Van Leuvan. 2010. Catch share design manual: A guide for managers and fishermen New York: Environmental defense fund.Google Scholar
  5. Brox, Ottar, J. M. Bryden, and Robert Storey. 2006. The political economy of rural development: Modernisation without centralisation? Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  6. European Commission on Fisheries. 2012. Transferable fishing concessions. Brussels: European Commission on Fisheries.Google Scholar
  7. Flaaten, Ola. 2013. Institutional quality and catch performance of fishing nations. Marine Policy 38 (0):267–276. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gordon, H. Scott. 1954. The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery. The Journal of Political Economy 62 (2): 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graeber, David. 2001. Toward an anthropological theory of value: The false coin of our own dreams. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grafton, R. Quentin. 1995. Rent capture in a rights-based fishery. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1): 48–67. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grafton, R. Quentin. 1996. Individual transferable quotas: Theory and practice. Fisheries Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6 (1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grafton, R. Quentin. 1999. Private property and economic efficiency: A study of a common-pool resource. Dunedin: University of Otago.Google Scholar
  13. Granovetter, Mark. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91 (3):481–510.Google Scholar
  14. Gudeman, Stephen. 1985. The anthropology of economy: Community, market, and culture. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Gudeman, Stephen. 2008. Economy’s tension: The dialectics of community and market. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  16. Hann, C. M., and Keith Hart. 2009. Market and society: The great transformation today. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardin, G. 1968. Tragedy of Commons. Science 162 (3859): 1243–&.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirschman, Albert O. 1977. The passions and the interests: Political arguments for capitalism before its triumph. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Høst, Jeppe. 2012. Fairness or efficiency? SAMUDRA 61:15–17Google Scholar
  20. Living Sea Denmark. 2012. Evaluation of coastal fishing scheme, translated from Danish, ed. Kystfiskerudvalget. Denmark: Levende Hav.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. 2011. Indstillingsnotat vedrørende ændring af koncentrationsreglerne for IOK og FKA i Reguleringsbekendtgørelsen. Copenhagen: NaturErhvervstyrelsen.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 2005. New regulation. Copenhagen: Ministry of Food and Agriculture.Google Scholar
  23. Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 2012. New concentration rules—press release. Copenhagen: Ministry of Food and Agriculture.Google Scholar
  24. O’riordan, Brian. 2012. Transferable Fishing Concessions. Inshore Ireland 8.Google Scholar
  25. Polanyi, Karl. 1957. The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ribot, Jesse C., and Nancy Lee Peluso. 2003. A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology 68 (2):153–181. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x.Google Scholar
  27. Rittenberg, Libby, Timothy D. Tregarthen, and Knowledge Flatworld. 2008. Principles of microeconomics. Nyak. New York: Flatworld Knowledge.Google Scholar
  28. Sanchirico, James N., and Kailin Kroetz. 2010. Economic insights into the costs of design restrictions in ITQ programs Washington: Resources for the future.Google Scholar
  29. Schou, Mogens. 2010. Sharing the wealth. SAMUDRA 55:18–23.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, Adam, and Edwin Cannan. 2003. The wealth of nations. New York, N.Y.: Bantam Classic.Google Scholar
  31. Townsend, Ralph, and James A. Wilson. 1987. An economic view of the tragedy of the commons. In The question of the commons: The culture and ecology of communal resources, eds. Bonnie J. McCay., and James M. Acheson. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  32. Vedsmand, Tomas. 1998. Fiskeriets regulering og erhvervsudvikling - i et institutionelt perspektiv. Bornholms Forskningscenter, Nexø.Google Scholar
  33. O’riordan, Brian. 2012. Transferable Fishing Concessions. Inshore Ireland 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ethnology Saxo InstituteUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations