(

c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
Political Power and Social Theory
Emerald Book Chapter: A Polanyian Analysis of Capitalism: A Commentary on
Fred Block
Nina Bandelj
Article information:
To cite this document: Nina Bandelj, (2012),"A Polanyian Analysis of Capitalism: A Commentary on Fred Block", Julian Go, in (ed.)
Political Power and Social Theory (Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 23), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 293 - 302
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0198-8719(2012)0000023014
Downloaded on: 16-10-2012
References: This document contains references to 14 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
A POLANYIAN ANALYSIS OF
CAPITALISM: A COMMENTARY
ON FRED BLOCK
Nina Bandelj
ABSTRACT
This chapter responds to Fred Blocks article about the weaknesses of
the concept of capitalism because of its close association with Marxism,
and his proposal for a Polanyian analysis of political economy. In this
chapter, I interrogate what may be the commonalities as opposed to div-
ergences between Marx and Polanyi, and I question whether the concept
of capitalism is really so wedded to Marxism so as to loose its analytic
value, and be better replaced by notions such as market society, or political
economy, as used by Polanyi. I agree with Block that a Polanyian analysis
importantly widens our view beyond economic reductionism to an under-
standing of economy and society as co-constitutive. However, I see utility
in adding the qualier capitalist to political economy to differentiate
between socialist and capitalist political economies, for instance, and to
properly characterize a system based on private property rights, guided
by pursuit of material gain, which advantages some strata in society
more than others, leading to endemic social inequality. I propose that a
Polanyian focus on society and economy as co-constitutive is more
effectively coupled with an analysis that considers capitalism not as a
Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 23, 293302
Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0198-8719/doi:10.1108/S0198-8719(2012)0000023014
293
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
self-driven system of surplus extraction and accumulation, but as an
institutional order dependent on political choices. Such a perspective would
advance a Polanyian analysis of capitalism.
What is the analytic value of capitalism as a concept? asks Fred Block in
his thought-provoking essay. Does it help illuminate key features of
existing societies, or does it carry with it burdensome associations from
earlier historical periods? By earlier historical periods, Block means the
historical materialist analysis offered by Karl Marx of the genetic theory of
capitalism that retains an irreducible teleology about the direction
of history. Block rst argues that the term capitalism is inextricably
intertwined with the Marxist conceptualization and, second, he points to
the weaknesses of the Marxist perspective. Mostly, according to Block,
Marxist analysis has been undermined because of its inability to account
for the expanding role of government in managing the tensions created by
capitalist accumulation. He also notes that efforts, like the Wallersteinian
move to take the analysis of capitalism to the world-system scale, have
its own problems. This leads Block to conclude that capitalism has lost
its analytic value. Instead, he urges us to revive a critique of political
economy and replace the concept of capitalism with the framework
proposed by Karl Polanyi (1944) in his book The Great Transformation,
which generally substitute(s) the term market society for capitalism, and
brings to the forefront politics and political choices, rather than insists on
the primacy of the economic in a Marxist fashion.
I should disclose from the start that I am very sympathetic to the Polanyian
perspective. My own work in economic sociology and about postsocialist
transformations nds inspiration in Polanyis ideas of the always-embedded
economy. For one, in my research on the social foundations of foreign direct
investment markets in Central and East European countries after 1989,
I argue that one can draw parallels between the institutionalization of self-
regulating markets in the 19th century England, that Polanyi discusses in
The Great Transformation, and postsocialist economic transformations after
1989 where, contrary to the neoliberal emphasis on the importance of state
withdrawal from economy to free markets, postsocialist states were crucial
in building market institutions and creating demand for foreign capital
(Bandelj, 2008, 2009). Further, my short book on Economy and State
theorizes the relationship between these two spheres as that of state-economy
embeddedness, which is grounded in the Polanyis notion of ctitious
commodities (Bandelj & Sowers, 2010). Recently, with two graduate student
NINA BANDELJ 294
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
collaborators, we reviewed the literature on the impact of neoliberal
globalization on work, and applied the Polanyian double movement dynamic
at the global level to understand this relationship (Bandelj, Shorette, &
Sowers, 2011). Finally, in an analytical piece debating the utility of the
concept of relational work (Zelizer, 2005, 2012) in economic sociology,
I distinguish between the Polanyian notion of embeddedness from the
one more widely adopted in contemporary economic sociology, namely
the Granovetterian embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985). Here I pinpoint the
crucial difference in how the relationship between the economic and the
social is understood in these two traditions, as co-constitutive and analyti-
cally separate, respectively, which has serious implications for the under-
standing of relationality in economic processes and the theory of economic
action (Bandelj, 2012; see also Krippner & Alvarez, 2007).
This said, simply concluding that I agree with Fred Blocks key point
about the utility of a Polanyian analysis would not provide for much of an
intellectual exercise that I was asked to engage in by writing a response to
his essay. Therefore, I want to question Fred Blocks conclusion about the
obsolescence of the concept of capitalism as much as I want to be critical
about his (and my own) embrace of a Polanyian perspective. I do this by
asking (a) what may be the commonalities as opposed to divergences
between Marx and Polanyi, and (b) whether the concept of capitalism is
really so wedded to Marxism so as to lose its analytic value, and be better
replaced by market society or political economy.
My position is that a Polanyian analysis indeed importantly widens our
view beyond economic reductionism and teleological view of history toward
the analysis of economy and society that treats these two spheres as
co-constitutive. However, embracing the term market over capitalism can
also dangerously reinforce the rightist views that markets are benevolent,
and enable anyone who tries to get ahead. I also want to point to the
vagueness hidden in the concept of political economy, proposed as an
alternative by Block, which does not distinguish between particular types of
social organization of the economy beyond broadly characterizing that
political choices dictate economic arrangements. From this perspective,
socialism and capitalism are both types of political economies, as they are
both sets of institutional arrangements about economic production, dis-
tribution, consumption, and exchange that result from political choices on
how economy should be governed. But no one will argue that socialism
and capitalism are not crucially distinct. We need to retain the qualier
capitalist in the capitalist political economy to denote that the vast
majority of the contemporary economic systems are heavily privatized, and
A Polanyian Analysis of Capitalism: A Commentary on Fred Block 295
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
guided by pursuit of material gain, which advantages some strata in society
more than others, leading to endemic social inequality. In fact, one might
expect that in advancing the Polanyian alternative, Block would discuss
Polanyis mosaic typology of the types of social organization of economy-
market exchange, reciprocity, and redistribution. In my view, this typology
is very useful in describing how different forms of the social organization
of economy can coexist, but we need to be able to emphasize that the
system where market-exchange strongly prevails over other forms is analyti-
cally distinct from other possible combinations of these three economic
arrangements. To capture the characteristics of such a system, in my view,
the qualier capitalist in front of political economy is necessary.
DIVERGENCES AND COMMONALITIES BETWEEN
MARX AND POLANYI
Block proposes that Polanyis notion of political economy as laid out in
The Great Transformation is a better starting point to analyze the contem-
porary societies and the global economy than the (Marxist) concept of
capitalism is. Polanyi, writes Block, was inuenced by Marx in the 1930s,
but in The Great Transformation, he eschewed Marxist terminology and
generally substituted the term market society for capitalism. Moreover,
Polanyi diverged from Marxist historical materialism to emphasize the
primacy of politics over the primacy of the economy. Nevertheless, both
Marx and Polanyi were keenly interested in interpreting the transformations
in the economic systems brought about by industrial revolution. While
Marx has a clear view of the direction of history through different stages
that all have to deal with their inherent contradictions, Polanyis perspective
more closely approximates a cyclical movement, with politics dictating the
type of economic system on the one hand, and the societal reaction
potentially changing the existent system on the other, as captured in the
notion of a double movement. Polanyi also puts more emphasis on the
power of the state as a change agent, rather than on class dynamics
that stands as a central revolutionary force in the Marxist account. This is
consistent with Polanyis view that state can play a crucial role in protecting
society from market forces, rather than, to use a famous quote from Marx,
functions as but a committee for managing the common affairs of the
whole bourgeoisie. Block summarizes the key tenets of the Polanyian
framework, including that market economies are always and everywhere
NINA BANDELJ 296
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
embedded, that market society and the contemporary world economy are
shaped by an ongoing double movement, and that political contestation
at multiple levels local, regional, national, and supranational shapes
the economic paths that are available to societies at any given moment.
All in all, the Marxist analysis retains economy as a sphere analytically
separate from society and state, while the Polanyian approach insists on
co-constitution between economy and society.
Given Blocks rightful reputation as the authoritative interpreter of
Polanyis work, it comes as a surprise that in discussing these tenets Block
does not mention Polanyis central notion of ctitious commodities of
labor, land, and money. Polanyi argued that land, labor, and money are not
commodities in the same sense as these things are produced by rms to be
sold on the market. For one, it is a ction that land, labor, and money are
inherently produced with the intention to be supplied for sale on the market,
thus state action is needed to constitute them as commodities, in the push
to create a market system. In another sense, it is also illusory that land,
labor, and money can be easily multiplied should demand increases, as could
other proper commodities. In fact, state action is needed to constrain
their full-blown commodication and prevent the complete exhaustion
and consequent destruction of these resources, and this represents the
countermovement in the Polanyian double movement logic.
Focusing on the commodication of labor, land, and money is not only
central for understanding the logic of the double movement, but also
important for drawing comparisons between Marx and Polanyi. For
Polanyi, commodication of labor is central to his arguments about the
rise of market society. For Marx, the necessity of the proletariat to sell
their labor as a commodity is the crux of Marxist capitalism. While Marxist
and Polanyian accounts may diverge on the ctitiousness of labor and
the role of the state in labor commodication and decommodication, the
pressures to commodify labor are central to both of their analyses, as is
the concern with social inequality. Even in global nancial capitalism, class
distinctions are not eradicated. On the contrary, one could say that they are
resurfacing with potency in the times of crises, as we can see in the Occupy
Wall Street movement. Protesters may not use the word capitalism, but their
collective action is nevertheless propelled by the clash between the 1% and
the 99%, a clash resulting from patiently obvious social inequality. Block
suggests that Polanyi envisions various actors as participants in a protec-
tive countermovement but he, nevertheless, singles out trade unionists as
those who provide the backbone of the protectionist countermovement.
Labor remains an integral, if not the only, actor. In this sense, the Polanyian
A Polanyian Analysis of Capitalism: A Commentary on Fred Block 297
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
and Marxist analyses share some common concerns, even if they diverge on
identifying the source of these concerns. This is important for the discussion
of the relevance of the concept of capitalism. As much as the Marxist
version of capitalism is dened by its historical materialist teleology, it is
also characterized by the focus on the need to sell labor on the market and
consequent social inequality. One could argue that the use of the term
market society instead of capitalism masks this inherent inequality between
market participants, albeit inequality that transcends just class lines.
A case in point is the much more frequent use of the word market
rather than capitalism to characterize the transformation of the economic
systems after the fall of communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe.
1
Blocks point on how the word capitalism fell out of favor in the United
States because it was too closely associated with the communist left is
telling. One wonders whether in describing the transformations after the fall
of communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe, the word capitalism
was eschewed because it smacked too much of the opposite of socialism.
Market transition and democratic transition were more palatable
descriptions of the systemic transformations than transition to capital-
ism. But the systems put in place in Central and Eastern Europe after
dismantling command economy are nothing but capitalist if capitalism
denotes an economic system based on private property rights in which
economic activity, including the production, distribution, consumption, and
exchange, is basically determined through market operation where private
actors can exchange their property rights with other private actors for
material gain. Differences between owners and non-owners are endemic to
the capitalist system, and they bring with them signicant inequalities.
While it is true that the classications of owners and non-owners are more
blurred in contemporary times of shareholder capitalism and certainly not
conned to production given the rise of nancialization, in practice the
system retains clear divisions between haves and have-nots. This is in
contrast with the expectations associated with the notion of a market,
free-market, or emerging-market, which in their neoliberal interpreta-
tion by-and-large describe a form of individual choice and freedom that
everyone has in succeeding economically only if they try. This kind of
understanding of markets was very appealing in promoting market reforms
in the postcommunist context, while the downsides of markets have
been largely underplayed in political discourse, even if they represent an
integral part of the postsocialist experience, as also evidenced in analyses of
rising inequality in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 (Bandelj &
Mahutga, 2010).
NINA BANDELJ 298
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
CAPITALISM AS INSTITUTIONAL ORDER BASED
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND MARKET
COMPETITION
After interrogating whether Marx and Polanyi provide divergent frame-
works, as intimated by Block,
2
I want to also question Blocks conclusion
that the analysis of capitalism is so wedded to the Marxist framework that
it has lost its value. While I am sympathetic to Blocks critiques of the
genetic theory of capitalism, I am not so ready to dismiss the notion of
capitalism altogether. First, what to make of the fact that over the past
couple of decades it was the literature with the word capitalism in its name
that gained quite some traction, namely the varieties of capitalism
perspective. As Block himself notes, this literature largely moved away from
the Marxist analysis to emphasize that there is no one single (or right) way
of organizing the capitalist economy. Block acknowledges the value in
making this point against the Rights embrace of the concept of capitalism
and its insistence that there was one single model of how to organize an
efcient and effective society.
I agree with this conclusion as I also agree with the point that the analysis
of the varieties detracted from the analysis of capitalism. Indeed,
the main distinction delivered in the varieties of capitalism literature was
that between the liberal market economies (LME) and coordinated market
economies (CME) (Hall & Soskice, 2001), to differentiate between econo-
mies where markets and competition are the primary way of coordinating
economic action from those where rms depend more on non-market
modes of coordination, relational contracting, network monitoring, and
a greater reliance on collaboration than on competition. Although the
LME vs. CME distinction refers to the macro-organization of the economy,
it was derived from the analysis that takes rms as central actors and
questions what rms need to do in different systems to exploit their core
competencies in the areas of industrial relations, vocational training and
education, corporate governance, relations with employees, and interrm
relations. With rms as the focal units of analysis, it is not surprising that
the literature lost sight of the macro-systemic properties of capitalism,
and that, indeed, by using the LME and CME designations, the varieties of
capitalism perspective practically replaced the word capitalism with
market economy.
This move is not unlike the one that Block suggests was done by Polanyi
in substituting the term capitalism with market society in The Great
A Polanyian Analysis of Capitalism: A Commentary on Fred Block 299
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
Transformation. However, it is precisely the loss of historical specicity in
the analysis of the varieties of market/political economy, generally, that
has been a point of critique of the varieties of capitalism perspective,
recently launched by Wolfgang Streeck, and Dorothee Bohle and Bela
Greskovits. These scholars have argued for bringing capitalism back in
(Streeck, 2010a), understanding capitalism tout court not only its varieties
(Bohle & Greskovits, 2009) and for taking capitalism seriously (Streeck,
2010b). Interestingly, their analyses have found inspiration in Polanyi,
just as Blocks has. Still, these scholars have reached the opposite conclusion
from Block, in that they not only retained but even emphasized the value
of calling the object of their analysis capitalism, and not just political
economy, or market society. This is because they approached capitalism
not as a self-driven mechanism of surplus extraction and accumulation
governed by objective laws, but as a set of interrelated social institutions,
and as a historically specic system of structured as well as structuring
social interaction within and in relation to an institutionalized social
order (Streeck, 2010b, p. 1). Moreover, among key dening feature of the
capitalist social order are legitimate greed and differential endowment
of social classes with agentic capacities (Streeck, 2010b, pp. 7, 11). Even
more basically, for Bohle and Greskovits (2009) at the core of the
understanding of capitalism lie two fundamental motives of action, fear
and greed, and their dynamic interplay. Interestingly, referencing Polanyis
use of the notion of satanic mill, the title of section one of part two in
The Great Transformation, Bohle and Greskovits (2009, p. 374) note that in
any variety of a capitalist system workers are anxious about the satanic
mill (Polanyi, 1944) that undermines the stability of their existence by
abruptly and permanently changing their professional and social status and
identity.
This brings us back to the commonalities between Polanyi and Marx that
I discussed earlier. The countervailing forces of workers fear and capitalists
greed can be well imagined in a Polanyian analysis, even if class conict is
not at the crux of a Polanyian political economy. Nevertheless, attention to
class inequality is not completely foreign to a Polanyian perspective, given
that labor is one central ctitious commodity. In fact, to understand the
countermovement better, one may need to theorize the political action that
happens outside of the state purview more forcefully than Polanyi does. In
my reading of Polanyi, the emergence of the countermovement is rather
under-theorized; it seems to appear quite spontaneously and it is conned to
state institutions. A Marxist analysis gives us potential insights into how
labor becomes a political actor, even if the result is not a proletarian
NINA BANDELJ 300
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
revolution, nor is labor the only civil society actor that participates in the
countermovement dynamic.
In sum, Block makes a persuasive and important argument for an analysis
of political economy that considers society and economy as densely inter-
twined and not as separate spheres, and I am fully on board with this. Still,
I think that such an analysis should call historically particular kinds of
political economy by their rightful name. That name is capitalism if the
system is based on private property rights and market competition for
material gain. In my reading, a Polanyian analysis, which treats capitalism
as an institutional order, has great promise. It would be worthwhile to
advance a Polanyian theory of capitalism along these lines.
NOTES
1. Doing a simple search in Sociological Abstracts with the words capitalism or
market or democracy in the title, and Central and Eastern Europe in
keywords, yields nearly twice as many articles with the word market and 60% more
articles with the word democracy than those with the word capitalism in the title.
2. It should be noted that in his other work Block (2003) does discuss the Marxist
inuences on Polanyi more explicitly.
REFERENCES
Bandelj, N. (2008). From communists to foreign capitalists: The social foundations of foreign
direct investment in postsocialist Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bandelj, N. (2009). The global economy as instituted process: The case of central and Eastern
Europe. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 128149.
Bandelj, N. (2012). Relational work and economic sociology. Politics and Society. 40(2),
175201.
Bandelj, N., & Mahutga, M. C. (2010). How socio-economic changes shape income inequality
in central and Eastern Europe. Social Forces, 88(5), 21332161.
Bandelj, N., Shorette, K., & Sowers, E. (2011). Work and neoliberal globalization: A Polanyian
synthesis. Sociology Compass, 5(9), 807823.
Bandelj, N., & Sowers, E. (2010). Economy and state: A sociological perspective. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Block, F. (2003). The writing of the great transformation. Theory and Society, 32, 245306.
Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2009). Varieties of capitalism and capitalism tout court. European
Journal of Sociology, 50, 355386.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.
The American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481510.
Hall, P., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of
comparative advantage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
A Polanyian Analysis of Capitalism: A Commentary on Fred Block 301
(
c
)

E
m
e
r
a
l
d

G
r
o
u
p

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
Krippner, G., & Alvarez, A. (2007). Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic
sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 219240.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Streeck, W. (2010a). Institutions in history: Bringing capitalism back in. In G. Morgan,
J. Campbell, C. Crouch, O. K. Pedersen & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
comparative institutional analysis (pp. 659686). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Streeck, W. (2010b). Taking capitalism seriously: Towards an institutionalist approach to
contemporary political economy. Socio-Economic Review, 131.
Zelizer, V. (2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zelizer, V. (2012). How I became a relational economic sociologist and what does that mean?
Politics & Society, 40, 145174.
NINA BANDELJ 302