This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
There are vast differences between the economies of isolated, small, selfsufficient societies and large-scale ones that are integrated into the modern system of global commerce. These differences are not only in terms of the scale of the economies. Their systems of production, distribution, and exchange as well as concepts of property ownership are often radically different. Systems of production refer to how food and other necessities are produced. In other words, they are the subsistence patterns discussed in the last tutorial of this series--i.e., foraging, pastoralism, horticulture, and intensive agriculture. Systems of distribution and exchange refer to the practices that are involved in getting the goods and services produced by a society to its people. Regardless of the type of subsistence base, all societies need to have mechanisms of distribution and exchange. These mechanisms, along with ownership concepts, are the focus of this tutorial. All of the large-scale societies of the world today have market economies. These are very impersonal but highly efficient systems of production, distribution, and exchange that are principally characterized by:
1. the use of money as a means of exchange 2. having the ability to accumulate vast amounts of capital (i.e., wealth that can be used to fund further production) 3. having complex economic interactions that are ultimately international in scale
A trip to buy a loaf of bread in an American supermarket typifies the nature of market exchanges. An individual who speaks no English and who is a total stranger to all of the people in the store can walk in, look around without any assistance, and find the bread. Taking it to the check-out stand, the price is registered automatically with a bar code reader and appears How difficult could it be to buy a loaf of bread? on the cash register display screen. Without saying a word, the purchaser can hand over the money, pick up the bread, which is usually now in a plastic bag, and walk out of the store. The exchange is quick, efficient, and did not require talking. The purchaser did not need to personally know the people working in the store, the baker, the miller, the farmer who produced the wheat, or the truck drivers who
carried the product from one stage of production to another and ultimately to the point of distribution. Likewise, the purchaser did not need to even think about the fact that the plastic bag that enclosed the loaf of bread was created mostly out of petrochemicals that very likely started out as crude oil on the other side of the planet. Likewise, the money that was given in exchange for the bread was made with machinery that was created out of a number of different materials that probably were acquired from several different countries. On close examination, almost any simple market exchange involves the interaction of people all over the world and elaborate technology used in production and distribution. This kind of complex market exchange system does not usually exist in small, isolated economies, such as those of indigenous foragers, small-scale horticulturalists, and nomadic pastoralists. These societies rarely use money and most people produce their own necessities. Their very different nonmarket economies are described in the next section of this tutorial.
What is Money?
Before exploring the nature of non-market economies, it is of value to compare the two broad types of money that people have used around the world. Anthropologists refer to them as general purpose and special purpose money. General purpose money is a portable, arbitrarily valued medium of exchange. All market economies General purpose money today use this form of money. It can have a variety of in the United States physical forms--e.g., coins, paper money, or bank checks. It can also be simply a digital transmission from one computer to another that occurs with the use of credit cards or the electronic transfer of funds. The key point about general purpose money is that anything that is for sale can be bought with it--everyone accepts it. General purpose money is also referred to as "standardized currency."
Special purpose money consists of objects that serve as a medium of exchange in only limited contexts. In societies that have it, usually there are certain goods and services that can be purchased only with their specific form of special purpose money. If you don't have it, you cannot acquire the things that it can purchase. You may not be able to easily obtain the special purpose money either. The Tiv people of central Nigeria provide an example. In the past, they used brass rods to buy cattle and to pay bride price. These rods were acquired by trade from Sahara Desert tribes who ultimately obtained them from the urbanized societies of North Africa. If a man could not acquire brass rods by trade or borrowing them, he would be prevented from acquiring cattle and getting married. This was potentially a critical problem because having wives and cattle identified a man as being important and worthy of respect. Traditional pastoralists commonly measure wealth in terms of numbers of livestock. In a very real sense, their animals are their form of special purpose money. They usually make exact equivalences in terms of relative value-e.g., so many sheep equal so many head of cattle which in turn equal the cost of a gun or Cattle--a form of special purpose money among traditional East something else of value. If a man does not African pastoralist tribes have livestock in such societies, he usually cannot trade for high prestige items nor can he get married since animals must be given as the bride price. Using animals as currency has distinct disadvantages and advantages. Animals can die of diseases and must be actively cared for and guarded. This makes herding a risky business. On the other hand, animals reproduce so that an individual's wealth can grow rapidly. This is like getting a very high interest rate on money in a bank. When general purpose money is introduced into an economy that previously only had special purpose money, the effect most often is dramatic for the social order. Among East African cattle herding cultures, it is now possible for a young man to get a job outside of his local community and to earn general purpose money. In these pastoralist societies in the past, young men had little hope of obtaining wealth before they were in their early middle age. They usually had to delay marriage for years because of the inability to accumulate a sufficient number of cattle to pay a bride price. Typically, a man in his late 20's or early 30's had to obtain a loan of cattle from elder men in his family for
this purpose. The continuing obligation to pay off such loans reinforced the traditional authority of older men and the dependence of younger men. Now it is possible for a young man to accumulate enough general purpose money to purchase cattle and bring them back to his tribal homeland. He can then use them to pay a bride price. As a result, he will not be in financial debt to his elder kinsmen. The result is greater economic independence for young men. This is likely to be seen as good from the perspective of democratic, achievement oriented cultures, such as those of North America and Europe. However, from the perspective of the pastoralist societies in which these changes are occurring, it can be seen as being bad because it undermines the traditional authority of elders. This authority has been a key part of their cultural value system. A major concern of these societies often is that erosion of the value system will result in social chaos and the destruction of their traditional culture. It is clear that the introduction of general purpose money has had a powerful effect on previously isolated small-scale societies. It facilitates trade and gives individuals the ability to accumulate wealth. Paradoxically, however, as the use of general purpose money draws a society into the global economic system, it does not result in economic independence for the society as a whole. In fact, it usually results in less self-sufficiency.
The isolated, self-sufficient foraging, pastoralist, and horticultural societies of the past rarely had market economies. Their economies were qualitatively different from ours in large-scale societies today. In order to understand them, it is first important to realize that financial gain was not the prime motivator in the distribution of goods and services. As a result, standard economic analysis is inadequate in explaining how and why these non-market economies functioned. Typically, there is a low level of technological knowledge in societies with nonmarket economies. There is a preoccupation with the daily and, at most, seasonal food supply because techniques for long term preservation of are generally inadequate. They usually consist only of drying or smoking perishable items. Work teams are small and usually only include members of
the local community. Large-scale collaboration on subsistence jobs is of short duration if it occurs at all because most tasks are relatively simple and require only a few people. Work related interactions between individuals are of a face-to-face personal kind in non-market economies. People who work together hunting, gathering, herding, or tending crops are usually kinsmen or lifelong friends and neighbors. Little or no attempt is made to calculate the contribution of individuals or to calculate individual shares of what is produced. Social pressure generally Non-market economy Polynesian teenagers obligates individuals to freely share food and other sharing their catch to products of their labor with whomever needs it or asks feed their families for it in the community. This operates as an economic leveling mechanism. As a result, there is little or no possibility of saving and becoming more wealthy than anyone else. Subsequently, the incentive to work is not only derived from a desire to acquire what is being produced but also from the pleasure of working with friends and relatives. In addition there is potential for increased social prestige from doing the job well. This Market economy North American office is radically different from a factory or office job in a worker exchanging his modern market economy. In that kind of work, time and work for money strangers come together, often in impersonal groups of thousands. Every minute of labor is accounted for because pay varies with the specific job an individual does and how much time is spent in doing it. The goal of work is likely to be primarily the money that is paid for doing it rather than the pride in producing a good product or working with friends. However, there is a greater opportunity to save and accumulate wealth in market economies. There rarely are impersonal commercial exchanges in non-market economies. The distribution of goods and services usually occurs through either barter or gifts and involves a considerable amount of social interaction. Barter is trading goods and services directly for other goods and services without the use of money as a medium of exchange. For instance, if I have a fish and want the bunch of bananas that you have, I might negotiate a trade with you. However, if you do not want my fish, I will need to barter with someone else who has something for which you would be willing to trade. This can be a complicated, time consuming process involving a good deal of talking.
In small-scale societies, barter is generally used in exchanges with people from other friendly communities. When the communities are frightened of or hostile towards each other but still wish to trade, dumb-barter may occur. This is barter without direct contact between the traders. Individuals from one group leave trade goods at a neutral location usually on the edge of their territory and then leave. Sometime later, members of the other community pick up the goods and leave something in exchange. The first group then returns and either picks up the things that were left by the strangers or leaves them until additions or substitutions are made that are acceptable. In the past, dumb-barter of this sort occurred in parts of West Africa, Northern Scandinavia, India, Sri Lanka, Sumatra, Timor, New Guinea, and the Amazon Basin of South America. Dumb-barter is also known as silent trade and depot trade. Gift giving is a common form of non-market exchange within a community. In small-scale societies, the gifts are frequently tools, food, and other supplies needed to meet family shortages. Public opinion forces a family whose harvest is larger than another's to share it. This results in equality of distribution within the community. The primary motivation for this form of economic exchange is not economic but social. Political power and influence in small-scale societies with non-market economies rarely comes from the control of production and wealth. Rather, it comes from social status, and that is usually acquired by gaining respect through generosity and personal skills such as being a good story teller, curer, hunter, or midwife. Often the most influential person is the one who has impoverished himself by giving away virtually everything of value to others.
Principal form of exchange in non-market economies Within a society Between friendly societies Between mutually hostile societies gift giving face to face barter dumb barter (rare)
Social ties function as rudimentary credit institutions in non-market economies. Kinship bonds within and between families operate to facilitate the distribution of food and other goods through the community. This distribution most often takes the form of gifts. Giving gifts is perceived as a strong moral obligation between kinsmen. Since these small-scale societies usually consist of people who are all related to each other through actual or fictive kinship, everyone is protected by this economic security net.
The crucial difference between gifts and sales is that gift exchanges create and strengthen social relationships. In contrast, continuing social relations are generally incidental when things are bought and sold in a market economy. In order to better understand this, think about the difference between a birthday gift and a supermarket purchase. When you give a friend a birthday present, it reinforces the bond between you and sets up an obligation for your friend to reciprocate when it is your birthday. If you purchase an item at a supermarket, there rarely is a bond created between you and the people working there. There is not an inherent social component to this type of exchange, especially in cities. Formal market places are rare in isolated, small-scale societies because the advantages of trading in them are slight. Every household usually provides for its daily needs from its own production. Surpluses cannot be easily sent to areas of scarcity because of the difficulties of transport. Serviceable roads and vehicles to carry surplus goods to market are scarce or non-existent. Adequate food preservation technology is usually not available either, so perishable things do not last long. When formal markets do exist in isolated, small-scale societies, they are more likely to be places where non-perishable luxury items are traded (e.g., beautiful feathers and mollusk shells used to make jewelry and other ornaments). Non-market economies can only function successfully in isolation. They have always been destroyed by prolonged contact with societies that have market economies.
Concepts of Ownership
In societies with non-market economies, land and other property rights are usually restricted by the overriding rights vested in the community as a whole. Ownership is based on the concept of usufruct . This is very different from the concept of proprietary deed that is common in large-scale market economies. With usufruct, an owner normally can "own" land and other substantial property only as long as it is being used or actively possessed. The society as a whole is the real owner. The individual "owner" is responsible for looking after the property for the society--he or she essentially only has stewardship over it. If the "owner" no longer needs the property or dies, it is reallocated by the society to others. In contrast, with proprietary deed, an owner of property has the right to keep it whether or not it is being used or actively possessed. For instance, an individual may own a number of houses and never use them. In addition, the owner has the right to pass the
property on to descendants or to others chosen by the owner. In fact, ownership is not always absolute in large-scale societies today. In the United States, for instance, ownership may be forfeited to the government under certain circumstances (e.g., eminent domain , failure to pay taxes, or its use in the commission of a felony). When European Americans encountered indigenous foraging peoples with non-market economies in North America during the 18th and 19th centuries, there were conflicts that arose as a result of the failure of both societies to understand the other's concept of ownership. Most often, the indigenous societies had usufruct concepts, while the U.S. legal systems was solidly based on proprietary deed. When government representatives or individuals bought land from Indians, they assumed that they were acquiring all of the proprietary rights to the property. At the same time, the Indians often thought that they were only selling or leasing the use of the property. When the Indians did not leave the land or returned to it later to live, they were perceived as reneging on a legal contract. From their perspective, the European Americans were taking something that did not and could not belong to them. More often than not, the result was hostile relations. The same kind of cultural misunderstanding occurred in western Canada as well. During the 19th century, there was a common derogatory term in the U.S. that owes its origin to the European American misinterpretation of this sort of failed agreement. Anyone who wanted property back despite the fact that there was a binding agreement to sell or trade it was referred to as an "Indian giver."
19th century Canadian Indian camp set up on the principle of usufruct
19th century treaty signing ceremony between people who had very different kinds of economies and conflicting understandings about land ownership (Indians and Canadian soldiers)
The concept of usufruct was not unique to Native American societies. It has been an important cultural pattern in many small-scale societies around the world, especially among pedestrian foragers.
Distribution and Exchange
When goods and services are given away, purchased, sold, or traded, there are potentially two components of the exchange--pure economic gain and social gain. Both of these motives usually occur at the same time in nonmarket economies. However, in market economies, the social component is often missing except when the exchange is between relatives or friends. With strangers, the social gain is usually sacrificed for efficiency and speed. Important exchange items in non-market economies include many more things than just food and manufactured objects. The most valued gifts are likely to be courtesies, entertainment (e.g., songs, dances, and speeches), curing, military assistance, women (to be wives), and children. In the Western World today, the idea that women and children could be given away as gifts is shocking. However, that was not always the case in Europe. Well into the 19th century, the heads of royal and wealthy families gave their daughters and sometimes sisters in marriage in order to establish or solidify economic and political alliances. Men giving female relatives to potential male allies has been a powerful bonding tool throughout most of the world. Gift exchanges are usually reciprocal . That is to say, if you receive a gift, you are obliged to repay it with another gift. Reciprocity typically results in a continuing sequence of giving, receiving, and repaying gifts. Breaking this obligation to continue the reciprocity is commonly seen as a slight or even a rejection of the other person involved in the exchange. Reciprocity is a binding mechanism in that its continuance helps to hold friends and families together. Reciprocal exchanges generally do not redistribute a society's wealth in a way that causes some people to become richer than others. Rather, they usually result in a circulation of goods and services. There is not a net economic loss for individuals because they ultimately receive gifts in return. Reciprocity requires adequacy of response but not necessarily mathematical equality. In North America, for instance, when adults give a Christmas gift that cost $50 to a five year old child, they do not expect that the child will reciprocate with a gift that also cost $50. If the child reciprocates with a small painting he or she made in school, it is usually considered to be a more than adequate response.
Types of Reciprocity
Reciprocal exchanges are not all alike. In 1965, an anthropologist named Marshall Sahlins observed that there are three distinct types of reciprocity that occur in human societies around the world--generalized, balanced, and negative. Generalized reciprocity is gift giving without the expectation of an immediate return. Example of generalized reciprocity giving birthday gifts to a friend For example, if you are shopping with a friend (North America) and you buy him a cup of coffee, you may expect him to buy you one in return at some time in the future. However, you would likely be mildly offended if he insisted on buying you a cup of coffee at the same time that you bought him one. To do so would suggest that he does not wish to become involved in a continuing reciprocal exchange with you. In a sense, it is a rejection of your token of friendship. With balanced reciprocity, there is an explicit expectation of immediate return. Simple barter or supermarket purchases involve this understanding. If you walk out of a store without paying for the goods that you have taken, you very likely will be stopped by the store employees and possibly arrested because you failed to Example of balanced reciprocity selling surplus vegetables in a immediately reciprocate with the appropriate local market for money (Papua amount of money. Christmas gifts in the Western New Guinea) World are also usually a form of roughly balanced reciprocity. If you go to the home of relatives or close friends on Christmas and give them Christmas gifts, there is an expectation that you will receive gifts in return at the same time. If you do not receive them, you are likely to infer that your relatives or friends either made a social mistake or do not care about you. On the other hand, giving a birthday present is more like generalized reciprocity because you do not expect a gift in return when you give one. However, you may expect to get one from the recipient of your gift later in the year when your birthday comes along.
Negative reciprocity occurs when there is an attempt to get someone to exchange something he or she may not want to give up or when there is an attempt to get a more valued thing than you give in return. This may involve trickery, coercion, or hard bargaining. For instance, your neighbor may be offered a new job in a distant city starting in two Example of negative reciprocity days. She desperately needs to sell her car before selling prepared food in an urban center at an inflated price when she leaves. It is nearly new and it cost her there is very little competition $22,000. You offer her $10,000 which she and high demand (North America) reluctantly accepts because there is no other choice. Your taking advantage of her situation resulted in negative reciprocity. At times, negative reciprocity does not involve taking advantage of someone. In fact, someone may willingly give you more than you believe that you are giving in return. For example, a poor student wanting to go to an expensive university might be polite and respectful toward a rich uncle with the hope that he will help out financially. That Example of negative reciprocity being respectful towards a boss uncle may gladly pay for his nephew's or niece's in order to get a promotion education in return because of the attention and (North America) recognition that he receives. The money is relatively unimportant to him compared to the respect and attention that is offered. Likewise, an employee acting respectful, or even subservient, towards an employer in order to get a promotion could be considered an attempt at gaining a negative reciprocity advantage in the workplace.
Some economic exchanges are intended to distribute a society's wealth in a different way than exists at present. These are referred to as redistributive exchanges . They usually function as economic leveling mechanisms. In the Western World, charity and progressive income tax systems are examples of redistributive exchanges. Progressive income taxes are intended to make people with greater wealth give at higher rates than those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Some of the tax money is then allocated to help the poorer members of society. The intended net effect is to reduce or prevent extremes of wealth and poverty. When wealthier individuals in a society make charitable donations, it can have a similar effect. What the donors get in return may be a tax advantage, a relieved social conscience, and/or increased
social status and recognition. Indeed, one of the main reasons that some very wealthy individuals make sure that their large charity donations are publicized is because of the public recognition that results. Redistributive exchanges are not unique to the Western World. In fact, some of the most elaborate ones that we know of have been in small-scale societies with non-market economies. The potlatch among the Indian cultures of the Northwest Coast region of North America is a good example. This was a complex system of competitive feasting, speechmaking, and gift giving intended in part to enhance the status of the giver. While potlatches were important traditions of Indian communities from Oregon to Southern Alaska, they are most well known among the Kwakiutl people of northern Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Strait in Western Canada. For the Kwakiutl, potlatches were important social gatherings held to celebrate major life events such as a son's marriage, the birth of a child, a daughter's first menses, and the initiation of a sister's son into a secret society. They also were used to assert or transfer ownership of economic and ceremonial privileges. It sometimes took years to accumulate the things needed for a big potlatch. Loans (with interest) had to be called in from relatives for this purpose. When all was ready, high ranking, influential people from the local and other communities were invited for several days of feasting and entertaining. Guests were seated according to their relative status. The host made speeches and dramatically gave gifts of food, Hudson Bay Company blankets, canoes, slaves, rare native copper artifacts, and other valuable items to the guests. The guests with higher status received more. The host sometimes also destroyed money, wasted fish oil by throwing it on a fire, and did other things to show that he was willing to economically bankrupt himself in order to increase his social status. The acceptance of the gifts was an affirmation of the host's generosity and subsequently of his increased status. The feast and the gifts essentially placed the guests in debt to their host until they could at some future time invite him to their own potlatch and give him more than he gave them--in essence a return on an investment. The potlatch served as a tool for one-upmanship for important Kwakiutl men.
During the 19th century, there was a continuous cycle of potlatches among the Kwakiutl in which the amount of wealth given away progressively escalated. The Canadian government outlawed potlatches in 1884 partly out of the mistaken belief that the Kwakiutl were bankrupting themselves. In fact, very little wealth was being lost. What was happening was a redistribution of perishable goods and items of high value throughout the society. Men who voluntarily gave away their wealth in potlatches were later the recipients of many potlatch gifts. The Canadian government finally lifted their ban on potlatches in 1951. Potlatches are again occurring openly among the Kwakiutl and some other indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast. Today, they are used to commemorate important family and clan events such as baby showers, weddings, school graduations, special anniversaries, and in memory of dead relatives.
NOTE: While the 19th century Kwakiutl potlatch feasts were greatly focused on impressing other men of high status in order to move up in social ranking, this competitive aspect of gift giving was less important for other Northwest Coast societies. Among the Salish people of Washington and Oregon, this sort of competition was considered to be inappropriate. Among the Tlingit of southern Alaska, gifts given at mortuary potlatches were simply intended as compensation for assisting at the funeral.
Among many of the indigenous societies of New Guinea, elaborate redistributive exchanges similar to the potlatch have been very important cultural traditions. In order to increase personal status and become a respected "big man," senior men often spent years accumulating pigs and other valuable, exotic items such as cassowaries (large birds similar to emus and ostriches) in order to give them away at elaborate ritual feasts. As in the case of the potlatch, recipients of pigs and other valuable things were obliged to return gifts of greater value at some time in the future. Failure to do so would be unthinkable because of the loss of respect and status that would result. Perhaps the most well known of the New Guinea pig give-away traditions was among the Kawelka of the Central Highlands. As a result of trade with the outside world, the Kawelka pig give-away events had grown in scale by the 1970's to include motorbikes, trucks, and tens of thousands of Australian dollars. At times, the total value of the goods given away reached hundreds of thousands of dollars. This was an extraordinarily large fortune for essentially subsistence base horticultural societies. It is important to keep in
mind that most of this wealth actually circulated within the society. As a result, there was very little net loss. However, a small number of the pigs were eaten and the cassowaries were usually killed for their feathers.
Papua New Guinea men preparing themselves for a ceremony
Commerce Between Small-scale Societies
So far, we have primarily examined the nature of economic exchanges within a single society. As the scale of societies gets larger, they increasingly become involved in commercial exchanges with other societies. During the last two centuries, international commerce resulted in an enormous redistribution of wealth to the industrialized nations located mostly in the northern hemisphere. This process essentially began with Western European nations draining the surpluses from their colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. The colonies provided raw materials at low prices for European factories, and the colonists bought the products of those factories at elevated prices. The net effect of this institutionalized negative reciprocity has been that the majority of the former European colonies are still underdeveloped poor nations. As the old colonial empires collapsed over the last half century, multinational corporations and large banks continued the process of draining the surpluses from underdeveloped regions and funneling them mainly into Western Europe, North America, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and a few oil rich nations (especially around the Persian Gulf). China and India are in the process of joining this club of major international creditors. It is not likely that this progressive redistribution of global wealth to a few rich nations can go on forever without serious consequences for the global economy. Trade imbalances can cripple economies in debtor nations when their debts become larger than they can repay. It is sobering to realize that the largest national debt in the world is owed by the United States. In fact, the U.S. has had a massive trade shortfall every year for nearly 30 years. It is unlikely that the U.S. or any other nation can continue to be a net importer of goods for long without major negative impacts on its economy. The U.S. still has the largest
economy in the world. Consequently, an economic crisis in the U.S. can cause extremely serious problems globally--there can be a domino effect which would devastate international trade. Commerce among small-scale societies in the past usually involved more institutionalized balanced reciprocity than is found in the international trade system today. In addition, commerce generally involved considerably more social gain. An example of such inter-societal commerce among small-scale societies was the Kula Ring of the Southwest Pacific Ocean. This was an extensive network of inter-island trade to the east and northeast of New Guinea. The Kula Ring was studied firsthand among the Trobriand Islanders during World War I by an anthropologist named Bronislaw Malinowski. At that time, it still operated largely in its purely indigenous form. The Kula Ring was a closed trading system in which only established senior male trading partners from each island could participate. The trade was carried out with large outrigger sailing canoes. Long, dangerous sea voyages were undertaken for the purpose of this trade. On the surface, it appeared to be primarily an exchange of gift items and ceremonial feasting organized to reinforce bonds between senior trading partners. The trade network was essentially circular. If a trader was traveling in a clockwise direction around the circuit, he would give long necklaces of red shells (soulava) as gifts to his trading partner. If he was traveling in a counterclockwise direction, he would give armbands of white shells (mwali). These necklaces and armbands were the kula items.
Kaibola men of the Trobriand Islands
The way in which traders greeted each other on arriving at an island and carried out their trade was prescribed by tradition. While the senior trading
partners formally greeted each other and reinforced their friendship and authority by giving kula gifts, the younger men usually unloaded more practical trade items on the beach to be bartered. These were mostly surplus luxury items from their home islands. The kula gifts were exchanged with the assumption of generalized reciprocity. The regular trade goods were mostly traded in a manner that resulted in balanced reciprocity. If asked why they were undertaking these long distance trading expeditions, the Trobriand Islanders would very likely emphasize the social rather than the economic gain. However, both were the result.