Society and Market

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book chapter › Research › peer-review

Standard

Society and Market. / Høst, Jeppe Engset.

Market-Based Fisheries Management: Private fish and captains of finance. Springer, 2015. p. 45-79 (Mare Series, Vol. 16).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book chapter › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Høst, JE 2015, Society and Market. in Market-Based Fisheries Management: Private fish and captains of finance. Springer, Mare Series, vol. 16, pp. 45-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16432-8_3

APA

Høst, J. E. (2015). Society and Market. In Market-Based Fisheries Management: Private fish and captains of finance (pp. 45-79). Springer. Mare Series Vol. 16 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16432-8_3

Vancouver

Høst JE. Society and Market. In Market-Based Fisheries Management: Private fish and captains of finance. Springer. 2015. p. 45-79. (Mare Series, Vol. 16). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16432-8_3

Author

Høst, Jeppe Engset. / Society and Market. Market-Based Fisheries Management: Private fish and captains of finance. Springer, 2015. pp. 45-79 (Mare Series, Vol. 16).

Bibtex

@inbook{849a62d9715042b9a796974c0b5a139c,
title = "Society and Market",
abstract = "Two waypoints were identified at the beginning of this book. The first was a reflection on the different ways social sciences have conceptualized, criticized, and worked with market-based fisheries management. The second was a promise to show diversity and complexity in the social and cultural material. The two were related insofar as social diversity and cohesion are often emphasized by one branch of social science, particularly in the disciplines of ethnology and anthropology in response to more reductionist perspectives in economics and political science. In this book, I have argued that, in general, the two approaches had diverging views on market-based fisheries management, and I have suggested that these originate in the different research objects, instruments, and assumptions that underlie the social sciences. In this postscript, I reflect on the two waypoints, and I discuss the wider perspectives concerning the strong and international currents favoring market-based fisheries. In addition, I suggest mediated fisheries as a possible alternative management principle instead of distribution based purely on market mechanisms.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, Fisheries managment",
author = "H{\o}st, {Jeppe Engset}",
year = "2015",
month = apr,
day = "18",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-16432-8_3",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-3-319-16431-1",
series = "Mare Series",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "45--79",
booktitle = "Market-Based Fisheries Management",
address = "Switzerland",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Society and Market

AU - Høst, Jeppe Engset

PY - 2015/4/18

Y1 - 2015/4/18

N2 - Two waypoints were identified at the beginning of this book. The first was a reflection on the different ways social sciences have conceptualized, criticized, and worked with market-based fisheries management. The second was a promise to show diversity and complexity in the social and cultural material. The two were related insofar as social diversity and cohesion are often emphasized by one branch of social science, particularly in the disciplines of ethnology and anthropology in response to more reductionist perspectives in economics and political science. In this book, I have argued that, in general, the two approaches had diverging views on market-based fisheries management, and I have suggested that these originate in the different research objects, instruments, and assumptions that underlie the social sciences. In this postscript, I reflect on the two waypoints, and I discuss the wider perspectives concerning the strong and international currents favoring market-based fisheries. In addition, I suggest mediated fisheries as a possible alternative management principle instead of distribution based purely on market mechanisms.

AB - Two waypoints were identified at the beginning of this book. The first was a reflection on the different ways social sciences have conceptualized, criticized, and worked with market-based fisheries management. The second was a promise to show diversity and complexity in the social and cultural material. The two were related insofar as social diversity and cohesion are often emphasized by one branch of social science, particularly in the disciplines of ethnology and anthropology in response to more reductionist perspectives in economics and political science. In this book, I have argued that, in general, the two approaches had diverging views on market-based fisheries management, and I have suggested that these originate in the different research objects, instruments, and assumptions that underlie the social sciences. In this postscript, I reflect on the two waypoints, and I discuss the wider perspectives concerning the strong and international currents favoring market-based fisheries. In addition, I suggest mediated fisheries as a possible alternative management principle instead of distribution based purely on market mechanisms.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - Fisheries managment

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-16432-8_3

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-16432-8_3

M3 - Book chapter

SN - 978-3-319-16431-1

T3 - Mare Series

SP - 45

EP - 79

BT - Market-Based Fisheries Management

PB - Springer

ER -

ID: 137376379