000			02082nab a2200181 4500
003			OSt
005			20230830163415.0
007			cr aa aaaaa
008			230830b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aCahill, Damien _957317
245			_aMarket analysis beyond market fetishism/
260			_bSage, _c2020.
300			_aVol. 52, Issue 1, 2020 ( 27–45 p.)
520			_aThis article responds to Peck’s call for a heterodox economic analysis of markets that is sensitive to their sociality and spatiality with Polanyi’s work as a starting point. It is argued that while Polanyi’s concept of the socially embedded economy offers a useful heuristic for apprehending the social foundations of economic activity, his analysis exhibits ‘market fetishism’ – a tendency to treat markets as things in and of themselves, without a proper appreciation of their inherently social foundations – and that this is reflected in broader scholarly discourses with respect to markets. Thus, it is argued, we need to augment Polanyi’s framework with other heterodox economic insights. The article outlines a four-step approach to ‘de-fetishizing’ markets. First, the article foregrounds the specifically capitalist nature of the global economy, and the ‘unique system of market dependence’ to which capitalist social relations give rise. Second, it is argued that de-fetishizing markets requires that an agent-centred approach be adopted. Rather than viewing markets as ‘things’ it is argued that they are most usefully understood as the interactions between agents, the most significant of which, within the contemporary global economy, is the large capitalist firm. Third, the interaction between such agents is structured by pervasive frameworks of rules. Fourth, it is argued that markets are inherently spatial phenomena. They are spatially constituted and contribute to the production of space.
773	0		_08877 _917103 _dLondon Pion Ltd. 2010 _tEnvironment and planning A _x1472-3409
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18820917
942			_2ddc _cEJR
999			_c14380 _d14380