Others share their videos, but expect that one day they will be ‘compensated’ ie. Each person gains prestige in society by how much s/he gives. Homo economicus is believed to base all values and judgments on economic exchange values, what one can gain materially. The best known attempt to formulate a more rigorous theory in the substantivist tradition is Marshall Sahlins' essay from the mid-1960s ‘On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange’ [see Sahlins (1974)]. Of course, as anyone who has read Thomas Sowell knows, such commercial minorities are abundant even today and operate effectively in corrupt countries with weak legal institutions, such as the Lebanese in West Africa and Latin America, or the Chinese in Southeast Asia. In anonymous experiments intended to mimic collective action situations, strong reciprocators tend to punish free-riders, even when they are not the direct victims, and even when there is no clear or assured benefit in the future from doing so. I understand that Michel is approaching from the viewpoint of designing an economy which serves the interests of the community. Homo reciprocans cares about the well-being of others and about the processes determining outcomes--whether they are fair, for example, or violate a social norm. No more loaning of the lawnmower to Fred. It occurs when one person shares goods or labor with another person without expecting anything in return. For example, kin selection instinctively prediposes social animals to powerfully favour close genetic relatives. We call a person who acts this way Homo reciprocans. The strong internalization of a sharing ethic is in many respects the sine qua non of culture in these societies. The strength of ethnoreligious ties (especially as a minority in a wider world), maintained by strong exclusion of outsiders, reproduced a village-like flow of information even within a far-flung community and enabled reputation and ostracism to be the instruments of policing. Clearly there is some obligation implied if not specified, since 'complete unwillingness' to reciprocate can lead to a severance of social bonds. That is, people see themselves imbedded in their families and communities. At the same time, it is one where services and favors, trust and affection, in the course of mutual exchanges, are ideally expected to find some rough balancing out. Generalized reciprocity is the same as virtually uninhibited sharing or giving. "To him who gives shall be given." Even in populations where people don’t know each other directly, it’s still possible to generate “spontaneous order” as long as the group has high community cohesion due to ethnic or religious identity. That is, that the only motivation of humans is material self-interest. The next major contribution to the debate came from Marshall Sahlins. The expectation that the giver will be repaid is based on trust and social consequences; that is, a "mooch" who accepts gifts and favors without ever giving himself will find it harder and harder to obtain those favors. "In cultural anthropology and sociology, reciprocity is a way of defining people's informal exchange of goods and labour; that is, people's informal economic systems. (networked labour mailing list, May 2014). The modern welfare state is thus but an example of a ubiquitous social form. In cultural anthropology and sociology, reciprocity is a way of defining people's informal exchange of goods and labour; that is, people's informal economic systems. (After all, barter is usually very difficult to arrange.) Between people who engage in generalized reciprocity, there is a maximum amount of trust and a minimum amount of social distance. To paraphrase one of Thomas Huebl's talks, he describes the ego, which is mainly concerned with getting something for itself, as going through different phases of development: initially in childhood, the child is dominated by its constant need to receive; then the mature adult who looks for a more balanced exchange, (the market or reciprocity), lastly, transcending the ego, by experiencing abundance through connection to higher energies, and being inspired to pass this on by giving in service. I believe this is what we are seeing in the beginnings of the p2p movement, the 'shareable society' and the reclamation of the commons. . This distorted economic theory of exchange goes well beyond just the market. This page has been accessed 27,368 times. ", "In experiments and surveys people are not stingy, but their generosity is conditional. A simple example is the loan of a lawn mower by one neighbour - call him Frank, to another – say, Fred. In sum, web2.0 technologies not only change the way we view exchanges within our community, but change the frequency, type and access to different forms of reciprocity. It is a very informal system of exchange. ... Marshall Sahlins coined the expression "the original affluent society" to describe. At the end, the total is multiplied by some factor and then divided equally amongst the players. It is thus distinct from the true gift, where no return is expected. Thomas sees this last phase as a precondition for a sustainable society. But it is also an economic principle with wholly distinct characteristics that embody social as opposed to merely commercial attributes. Frank makes the loan on the assumption that at some later date Fred will return the favour.