Non-monetary economy

A moneyless economy or non-monetary economy is a system for the allocation of goods and services as
well as for the assignment of work without payment of money. The simplest example is the family
household, which can be a system of obligations nevertheless.

Moneyless economies are studied in econometry, in particular, game theory and mechanism design. See the
section on microeconomics below.

When embedded in a monetary economy, a non-monetary economy represents work such as household
labor, care giving, civic activity or even friends doing something for each other that does not have a
monetary value but remains a vitally important part of the economy.[1] While labor that results in monetary
compensation is more highly valued than unpaid labor, nearly half of American productive work goes on
outside of the market economy and is not represented in production measures such as the GDP.[1]

Contents
Embedded non-monetary economies
Core (or social) economy
Time banks
Community building
Barter economies
Moneyless interaction of individuals with the monetary economy
Free contributions to the intellectual common good
Non-monetary microeconomies
Publicly known utilities
Privately known utilities
Non-monetary macroeconomies
Moneyless systems having a technological component
Other moneyless systems
Policy implications of embedded non-monetary economies
United States time banks and the IRS
See also
Further reading
References

Embedded non-monetary economies

The non-monetary economy, typically embedded in a monetary economy, undertakes tasks that benefit
society (whether through producing services, products, or making investments) that the monetary economy
does not value.[2]
The non-monetary economy makes the labor market more inclusive by valuing previously ignored forms of
work.[2] Some acknowledge the non-monetary economy as having a moral or socially conscious
philosophy that attempts to end social exclusion by including poor and unemployed individuals, providing
economic opportunities and access to services and goods.[3] Community-based and grassroots movements
encourage the community to be more participatory, thus providing a more democratic economic structure.[1]

See also the non-monetary aspects of mutual aid as an organisational theory.

Core (or social) economy

The social economy refers to the space between public and private sectors occupied by civil society,
including community organizations, volunteering, social enterprises, and cooperatives. The social economy
represents “a wide family of initiatives and organisational forms — i.e. a hybridisation of market, non-
market (redistribution) and non- monetary (reciprocity) economies”.[4] Rather than being fringe activities at
the margins of the formal economy, this amounts to a significant level of activity: The "civil society" sector
of the United Kingdom employs the equivalent of 1.4 million full-time employees (5% of the economically
active population) and benefits from the unpaid efforts of the equivalent of 1.7 million full-time volunteers
(5.6% of the economically active population), and contributes 6.8% of GDP.[4]

Edgar S. Cahn developed the concept of the core economy to describe the informal social networks that he
considered the bedrock of society, which he felt were eroding as monetary economies de-legitimized them.
The core economy as he defined it consists of social capital, and generates collective efficacy that's of
critical importance to the core economy.

Collective efficacy refers to the effectiveness of informal mechanisms by which residents themselves
achieve public order. More specifically, this is the shared vision or fusion of shared willingness of residents
to intervene and create social trust (the sense of engagement and ownership of public spaces), intervening
in the lives of other residents to counter crime, increase voting, or encourage residents to recycle. These
informal mechanisms are what he calls social capital, a public good provided by citizens who participate to
build up their communities (from raising children and taking care of the elderly to volunteer work). This
kind of work is essential to a democratic and stable society.

Unlike a market economy, the core economy relies on specialization reinforced by a "do-it-yourself"
attitude that “Builds self-esteem and a voluntary interdependence that replaces involuntary dependence that
comes w/ industrial and market specialization”[1] and where self-sufficiency is based upon interdependent
family or community units (instead of a market economy's atomized individual). This model reduces or
eliminates the involuntary dependence that comes with the market economy's strict division of labor. It also
focuses on alternative distribution mechanisms to pricing, using instead normative considerations like need,
fairness, altruism, moral obligation, or contribution.[1]

Collective efficacy and social capital are central to two very successful examples of civic-based, non-
monetary economies: time banks and local exchange trading systems (LETS). These work systems provide
alternative forms of currency, earned through time spent in directly serving the community, e.g. working in
the community garden, recycling, repairing leaky faucets, babysitting. These units of time can be used to
ask other members of work systems to do jobs they need, or may act as a forum in which special jobs or
needs can be communicated and traded. These systems operate to a large degree outside of the monetary
economy, though do not supersede the monetary economy or seek a return to systems of barter.[3]

Time banks
A time bank is a community-based organization which brings people and local organizations together to
help each other, utilizing previously untapped resources and skills, valuing work which is normally
unrewarded, and valuing people who find themselves marginalized from the conventional economy.[4]
These are things that family or friends might normally do for each other, but in the absence of supportive
reciprocal networks, the time bank recreates those connections. These interactions are based upon the
exchange of hours spent on an activity, where time dollars are the unit of measure/ currency. They are
traded for hours of labour, and are redeemable for services from other members.[5]

Community building

In 1998, Redefining Progress estimated that housework amounted to $1.911 trillion, roughly one-fourth of
the U.S. GDP that year.[1] As of 2010, the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that household work, if
tracked, would increase the GDP by 26%.[6] More than a decade later, household work continues to
provide a key source of foundational support to the domestic economy. Such household work includes
cleaning, cooking, care giving, and educating children.

There may be a closed household economy, where a specific (perhaps familial) group of individuals
benefits from the work performed.

In extreme cases of survival, the open nature of the household economy is most evident. Food, clothing,
toiletries, and basic necessities were often shared or exchanged amongst war-torn, impoverished families in
East Europe post-communism.[7] Cooking, cleaning, clothes-making, and forms of work may seem to be
intuitively thought of as work. An Australian study (1992) determined that an estimated 380 million person-
hours per week were spent on these types of unpaid activities, compared to 272 million hours per week at
paid work.[8]

A large portion of these hours can be attributed to nurturing. Nurturing can take two forms, in terms of
raising children and nursing the sick, elderly, and infirm, both still usually expected from women and
girls.[8] Children represent not only a product of a household but an asset to the community as a whole. In
the home, kids may provide help in the form of chores and so are an asset. In a greater sense, children are a
public good: an investment in which time, energy, and money are spent so that they can become stable
adults who share in reducing national debt and contributing to Social Security, thus a public good.[9] As
children mature and learn, they have the potential to benefit society in whatever profession or products they
eventually produce.[10]

The products and services produced within a home are open to the non-market economy at large. Society
as a whole benefits from this unpaid work, whether in an immediate manner or a more abstract, macro
scale.

The other form of home-based nurturing also serves benefits society as a whole. Care giving provides
assistance for those who are elderly, disabled, suffering terminal illness or chronic illness, or are generally
frail or in need of assistance. Someone who cares for someone in any of these positions is a caregiver. This
is largely provided unpaid by friends or family of the patient.

Care giving often exceeds the nursing tasks that come with caring for someone who is ill or recovering
from surgery. Often, caregivers also must maintain the dwelling, provide meals, and interact with medical
providers and doctors, among other responsibilities. Nearly 80% of labor that keeps seniors out of nursing
homes is unpaid labor by families.[1]

In 1997, the value of work produced by caregivers was estimated at $196 billion. The figure was $375
billion for 2007.[11] At the time, only $32 billion was spent on formal health care and $83 billion spent on
nursing home care by the federal government.[12] According to these statistics, only half as much money is
spent on nursing and home health care as is necessary. These numbers do not take into account the financial
burden as well as emotion work that is an inescapable part of this work.

The same research estimated that in 1997 caregivers would have received $8.18 as the hourly wage.[12] As
of May 2013, the hourly wage was estimated at $9.14 when averaging the minimum wage in Florida[13]
and the median wage for Home Health Aides.[14] Caregiving requires a large dedication, as much as 22 to
70 hours a week. An estimated 25.8 million people as of 1997 performed these tasks.[12]

Caregiving has a disproportionate effect on women and white households.[11] The cost of caregiving is
exorbitant, nearly five times what Medicaid would have spent on long-term care, meaning only wealthy
families can afford to do this type of in-home care. The intersection of class and race in this phenomenon is
an important place to explore as less advantaged families will have to rely on government care, potentially
at the risk of having less quality care. These statistics also highlight a differential effect on women, showing
that women disproportionately do caregiving work.[11]

Valuing all work changes perceptions of what constitutes valuable work. Acknowledging a non-monetary
economy may change the ways in which the unemployed, poor, women, and other stigmatized persons’
work is valued. It can allow citizens to see their community as a more cohesive, intertwined system that
deserves their time and energy. Exploring this economy also exposes numerous areas of help that do not
have enough support from the public and private sectors. Education and caregiving in particular highlight
where assistance is needed and often not provided.

Barter economies

Barter economies also constitute an important form of non-monetized interaction, although for the most part
this kind of interaction is viewed largely as a temporary fix as an economic system is in transition. It is also
usually considered a side effect of a tight monetary policy such as in a liquidity crisis, like that of 1990s
Russia where barter transactions accounted for 50 percent of sales for midsize enterprises and 75 percent
for large ones.[15]

Moneyless interaction of individuals with the monetary economy

This concerns individuals who agree with a participant of the monetary economy to exchange goods or
services (reciprocation) or to receive them without any obligation (genuine gift.) For instance, begging for
anything but money, perhaps in exchange of religious services, as is the case for mendicants. Examples of
individuals:

1. Raphael Fellmer[16]
2. Heidemarie Schwermer[17]
3. Carolien Hoogland[18]
4. Mildred Lisette Norman

Free contributions to the intellectual common good

This is a case of mutualism (see macroeconomies below) embedded in the monetary economy and
restricted to intellectual labour. Typical examples are posting questions and answers on an internet forum
and, of course, Wikipedia. In these cases, subsistence is usually guaranteed by the monetary economy.
Categories of such contributions are Commons-based peer production, Open source, Creative Commons
license, and so on.
Non-monetary microeconomies
This concerns moneyless economies which are often embedded in a monetary economy but not necessarily
interacting with it. (The distinction from other categories is somewhat artificial.) Examples of interacting
economies are families and larger communities, like the one in Twin Oaks, where members are supposed to
work 42 hours per week on average and jobs are assigned manually.[19] Such labour quota (or labour
expectations) seem to be the only form of non-monetary time-based economies.[20]

Publicly known utilities

Suppose first that cost and profits are publicly known. In game-theory, markets initially were modeled as
barter for sake of purity. However, the market models use utilities. These naturally lead to introduce
idealised money as an exchange commodity, which has a transferable utility. This greatly simplifies models
and solutions.[21] Yet, so-called games without side-payment have gained attention because of the Internet
economy, for example, as a model of cooperation between autonomous systems.[22]

Privately known utilities

Often, participants can misreport their properties, like their preferences. Using so-called mechanism design
one can try to arrange the economy so that such misreporting is discouraged. One such case is rationing,
which is a mechanism for allocating scarce goods. An example is uniform rationing, which (loosely
speaking) serves first who asks least. Uniform rationing can also be arranged to more or less the same effect
by paying certain prices.[23]

If the available amount is collected from multiple participants (the suppliers) and redistributed among the
demanders along certain links (bipartite rationing) then a similar mechanism is the so-called egalitarian
transfer.[24] This is further generalised to the uniform gains rule, which is based on a so-called leximin
ordering.[25]

Other examples of mechanisms without money (yet with numerical utilities) are truthful resource allocations
like the partial allocation mechanism, which is an approximation of so-called proportionally fair allocation
of divisible resources;[26] furthermore, combinatorial auctions;[27] supply-demand clearing;[28] and other
market design, in particular, matching like paired kidney donation, hiring of new doctors, school choice
programs, and auctions of radio spectra.[29] Voting (of which there are many kinds) is yet another
alternative. Even if money is not used, there may be a unit of exchange, for example, when a present profit
is "paid" by renouncing a promised profit.[30]

In 2009, researchers at Microsoft called for more research into truthful (i.e. strategy-proof) non-monetary
mechanisms, such as allocations on the internet.[31] For the ensuing investigations, see the article by Han
and others in the section on further reading.

Non-monetary macroeconomies
The following is a list of moneyless systems which intend (or did) encompass an entire society.

Moneyless systems having a technological component

The following systems aim at moneyless societies, often aided by technology.

 1. Technology-driven, often centralised ("resource based") societies: the Zeitgeist movement,
its related projects named Venus, Auravana, or Kadagaya in Peru,[32] and the Money Free
Party.
2. The Technocracy movement, which proposes to replace money with energy certificates.
3. Large-scale algorithmic distribution (as envisaged by Stefan Heidenreich) for negotiating
"matched transactions," each of which "has effects beyond all immediate participants." Yet,
the procedure emulates money "when our profiles, our likes, and our consumer histories are
used to calculate who will buy what and where."[33] The transactions are recorded and,
along with utility/urgency and reputation/personal history, the "matches" are determined.[34]
4. Paradism, which heavily relies on automation.[35]

Other moneyless systems

In the following, technology is less emphasised. The boundaries between the below systems are often
blurred. The example of transplantation is international but could be classified as a micro-economy, too.

1. Mutualism in the sense of a (moneyless) economic theory. People contribute to a community

without payment not only to help but also because they expect to be helped by a member of
the community when in need (a selfish interpretation of solidarity.) So, the term 'mutualism' is
understood as aid by the community and not necessarily reciprocation. For example, if a
transplantation center donates a kidney to another center, then its entitlement to receive a
kidney from the community is increased by means of its export balance.[36] Other examples
are the anarchist communities during the Spanish Civil War, where quota and rations were
used for distribution,[37] and the Minka communal work.
2. Debt system, as used in manorialism or with the aid of the tally stick. To continue the
previous example, if a transplantation center donates a liver to another center, then the
recipient center is obliged to return one at the earliest occasion. To save transportation cost,
such obligations are passed from one creditor center to the other in the obvious way.[38] The
transplantation clearing house could further diminish transportation cost by deferring such
alienation of the obligations. This would be similar to the fairs from which the banks and
government-issued money evolved.[39]
3. The redistribution economy, which is a more authoritarian case of mutualism. For example,
the Incas and possibly, also the empire of Majapahit.[40]
4. A combination of mutualism and redistribution: Uruganda and similar economies like
Umuganda/Isarongo and Ubuntu. These economies are based on culture rather than a fool-
proof system. [41]
5. Labour vouchers, which are inalienable certificates of hours worked.
6. Non-monetary (state) communist currents, ranging from libertarian proposals[42] to the harsh
reality of Democratic Kampuchea. Many communists and socialists envisaged a moneyless
society.[43]
7. Gift economies: other than the word suggests, the gift in such economies usually comes with
an obligation to do something in return.
8. Altruistic society: as proposed by Mark Boyle, a moneyless economy is a model "on the
basis of materials and services being shared unconditionally" that is, without explicit or
formal exchange.[44]
9. The subsistence economy, which caters only for essentials, often without money.
10. Calculation in kind, which (in a restricted form) dispenses with any general unit of
calculation when exchanging goods or services.
11. Natural economy, where resources are allocated through direct bartering, entitlement by law,
or sharing out according to traditional custom.
12. Non-market ecosocialism as advocated by Anitra Nelson: as for the nonmonetary aspect,
each household "guesstimates" its basic needs, which are met in return for "collective
production as a community obligation." The production, distribution, and procurement of
goods and services from "more distant communities" are collectively agreed on.[45]

Policy implications of embedded non-monetary economies

The UK in particular has been targeted by the government since the New Labor administration of the mid-
1990s onwards—the social economy has been developed as a means of delivering effective public services,
and mobilizing active citizenship. In 2002, for example, the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) 2002
launched the Strategy for Social Enterprise to develop “the government’s vision … of dynamic and
sustainable social enterprise strengthening an inclusive and growing economy.” The intent of the Strategy
was to create an enabling policy environment for social enterprise, to make social enterprises better
businesses, and to establish the value of social enterprise, in order that the sector may help to deliver on a
range of policy agendas: productivity and competitiveness; contributing to socially inclusive wealth
creation; neighborhood regeneration; public service reform; and developing an inclusive society and active
citizenship.[4]

However, by and large current policy does not reflect the implications of a system that does not validate
actions that transmit community values, provide support, generates consensus, etc. These actions in the past
were subsidized by cheap or free labor derived from subordinate groups, like women and ethnic or racial
minorities, who as a result of entering the workforce to receive monetary validation negate these positive
public goods.[1]

The biggest issue that time bank coordinators face, as a result, is funding. Time banks do not rely on
volunteers, but require financial support — to pay the time broker’s salary, for a publicly accessible drop-in
office, for marketing costs — to successfully attract socially excluded people in deprived neighborhoods.
While many UK time banks have been supported by grant funding from the National Lottery, over time it
becomes harder to secure ongoing funding, or to increase the funding available for time banks overall, and
established projects close while new ones are begun elsewhere.[4]

United States time banks and the IRS

Organizations that administer time banks, barter networks, or currencies may register for tax-exempt status
under section 501(c)(3) as non-profit organizations working to benefit the community.[46] The IRS has
recognized some time banks as tax exempt; it is harder to obtain exemptions for a barter network or local
currency, as they are harder to prove as operating purely on a basis of service to the community.

Being a time bank alone does not enable an organization to obtain tax exemption under 501(c)(3).[47] If,
instead of a time bank, an organization operates a local currency or barter network, such an organization
may be deemed to be operating for the private benefit of individuals, even if those individuals are members
of a charitable class. An exchange platform that is designed for use of the broader community, and not
specifically for a charitable class, may not be considered a tax-exempt activity for a 501(c)(3)
organization.[46]

See also
Gift economy
Community currency
Controlled market
 Distributism
Economic freedom
Economy monetization
Envy-free item allocation
Fair cake-cutting
Free market
Informal sector
Local exchange trading system
Market socialism
Market structure
Mixed economy
Mutual aid (organization theory)
Neoclassical economics
Planned economy
Post-capitalism
Promise theory
Regulated market
Social market economy
Socialist market economy

Further reading
Yenmez, M. Bumin (2015). "Incentive compatible market design with applications". Int J
Game Theory. 44 (3): 543–569. doi:10.1007/s00182-014-0444-8 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2
Fs00182-014-0444-8). S2CID 45772688 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4577268
8). (Refers to models without transfers.)
Han, Qiaoming; Du, Donglei; Xu, Dachuan; Xu, Yicheng (2018). "Approximate efficiency and
strategy-proofness for moneyless mechanisms on single-dipped policy domain". Journal of
Global Optimisation. 70 (4): 859–873. doi:10.1007/s10898-017-0586-x (https://doi.org/10.10
07%2Fs10898-017-0586-x). S2CID 4593321 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:459
3321). (Mentions many more non-monetary mechanisms.)
Azis, Haris; Li, Bo; Wu, Xiaowei (2019-05-22). "Strategyproof and Approximately Maxmin
Fair Share Allocation of Chores" (https://deepai.org/publication/strategyproof-and-approxima
tely-maxmin-fair-share-allocation-of-chores). DeepAI. arXiv:1905.08925 (https://arxiv.org/ab
s/1905.08925).
Christoforou, Evgenia; Anta, Antonio Fernández; Santos, Agustín (2016). May 2016. "A
Mechanism for Fair Distribution of Resources without Payments" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g
ov/pmc/articles/PMC4882081). PLOS ONE. 11 (5): e0155962. arXiv:1502.03337 (https://arxi
v.org/abs/1502.03337). Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1155962C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/
2016PLoSO..1155962C). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155962 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjou
rnal.pone.0155962). PMC 4882081 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC488208
1). PMID 27227992 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27227992). S2CID 9596297 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9596297).
Project Society after Money (2020). Society after money: a dialogue (https://www.academia.
edu/37923686). Bloomsbury USA.
Aigner, Ernest; Scholz-Wäckerle, Manuel; Hanappi, Hardy (2018), The impossible transition
towards a society after money. Transition Impossible? (https://bach.wu.ac.at/d/research/resul
ts/89185/), Paper presented at conference of Institute for Ecological Economics in Vienna.
 Deguchi A., Kajitani S., Nakajima T., Ohashi H., Watanabe T. (2020) From Monetary to
Nonmonetary Society. In: Hitachi-UTokyo Laboratory (H-UTokyo Lab.) (eds) Society 5.0.
Springer, Singapore https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-2989-4_6
Rakitskii, B.V. (1979) Law of Economy of Time. In: The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3d
edition. Refers to K. Marx and F. Engels, Das Kapital, "Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 46, parti, p. 117".
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Economy+of+Time%2c+Law+of
Albenberg, Harold (1970), The computer and the moneyless society (Dissertation)
F., A. (1932), World platform of the moneyless system

Consult worldcat.org to locate the last two publications.

References
1. Cahn, Edgar S. "The Non-Monetary Economy" (http://timebanks.org/wp-content/uploads/201
1/08/Non-MonetaryEconomy.pdf) (PDF): 1–8.
2. Seyfang, Gill (January 2004). "Working Outside the Box: Community Currencies, Time
Banks and Social Inclusion". Journal of Social Policy. 33 (1): 49–71.
doi:10.1017/S0047279403007232 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0047279403007232).
S2CID 154475834 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154475834).
3. Peacock, Mark S. (15 November 2006). "The Moral Economy of Parallel Currencies: An
Analysis of Local Exchange Trading Systems". American Journal of Economics and
Sociology. 65 (5): 1059–1083. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2006.00491.x (https://doi.org/10.111
1%2Fj.1536-7150.2006.00491.x).
4. Seyfang, Gill. "Time Banks and the Social Economy: Exploring the UK Policy Context" (htt
p://www.cserge.ac.uk/sites/default/files/edm_2006_01.pdf) (PDF). www.cserge.ac.uk.
CSERGE.
5. Afshar, Anna. "Giving and Receiving in the Nonmonetary Economy: Time Banks" (https://ww
w.bostonfed.org/commdev/c&b/2005/fall/nonmonetary.pdf) (PDF). www.bostonfed.org.
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
6. Bureau of Economic Analyses. "What is the Value of Household Work?" (https://blog.bea.go
v/2012/06/11/household-work/). U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
7. Smith, Adrian (2002). "Culture/Economy and Spaces of Economic Practice: Positioning
Households in Post- Communism". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 27
(2): 232–250. doi:10.1111/1475-5661.00051 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1475-5661.00051).
JSTOR 3804544 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3804544).
8. Ironmonger, D. S. (1996). "Counting Outputs, Capital Inputs and Caring Labor: estimating
Gross Household Product". Feminist Economics. 2 (3): 37–64.
doi:10.1080/13545709610001707756 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F1354570961000170775
6).
9. Folbre, Nancy (May 1994). "Children as Public Goods". The American Economic Review.
84 (2): 86–90. JSTOR 2117807 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117807).
10. Vila, Luis E. (2000). "The Non-Monetary Benefits of Education". European Journal of
Education. 35 (1): 21–32. doi:10.1111/1467-3435.00003 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-3
435.00003). JSTOR 1503615 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1503615).
11. White-Means, S. I.; Zhiyong, D. (2012). "Valuing the Costs of Family Caregiving: Time and
Motion Survey Estimates" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130320003346/http://www.consum
erinterests.org/pdffiles/2012-conference/2012-54%20Valuing%20the%20Costs%20of%20F
amily%20Caregiving%20-%20Time%20and%20Motion%20Survey%20Estimates.pdf)
(PDF). Consumer Interests Annual. 58: 1–8. Archived from the original (http://www.consumer
interests.org/pdffiles/2012-conference/2012-54%20Valuing%20the%20Costs%20of%20Fam
ily%20Caregiving%20-%20Time%20and%20Motion%20Survey%20Estimates.pdf) (PDF)
on 2013-03-20. Retrieved 2013-05-17.
12. Arno, P. S.; Levine, C.; Memmott, M. M. (1999). "The Economic Value of Informal Care
Giving" (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/18/2/182.full.pdf) (PDF). Health Affairs. 18 (2):
182–188. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.18.2.182 (https://doi.org/10.1377%2Fhlthaff.18.2.182).
PMID 10091447 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10091447).
13. United States Dept. of Labor. "Minimum Wage Laws in the States - January 1, 2013" (http://w
ww.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm#Florida).
14. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2012: 31-1011
Home Health Aides" (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes311011.htm).
15. Barry, Ellen (7 February 2009). "Have Car, Need Briefs? In Russia, Barter Is Back" (https://w
ww.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/world/europe/08barter.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0). New York
Times. New York Times.
16. Raphael Fellmer (2014). "Glücklich ohne Geld" (http://www.raphaelfellmer.de/buch-gluecklic
h-ohne-geld/) [Happy without money] (in German). Redline Verlag.
17. Heidemarie Schwermer (2015). Das Sterntalerexperiment – Mein Leben ohne Geld [The
Sterntaler experiment - My life without money] (in German). ISBN 9783738622850. Film:
Living Big on Less (https://vimeo.com/channels/528106) on Vimeo and
http://livingwithoutmoney.org/
18. Carolien Hoogland. My year of living without money (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh
C0T8ScOu0).
19. https://moneyless.org/living-without-money-twin-oaks
20. A. Allen Butcher (2002) Communal Economics http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Time-
Based_Economics
21. Shapley, L.S.; Shubik, M. (1966). esp. pp.807-808. "Quasi-Cores in a Monetary Economy
with Nonconvex Preferences". Econometrica. 34 (4): 805–827. doi:10.2307/1910101 (https://
doi.org/10.2307%2F1910101). JSTOR 1910101 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1910101).
22. Beeson, Coulter; Shepherd, Bruce (2020-01-22). "The Empirical Core of the Multicommodity
Flow Game Without Side Payments". arXiv:2001.09911 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09911)
[cs.GT (https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.GT)].
23. Hervé Moulin (1995) Cooperative microeconomics. A game-theoretic introduction. Princeton
University Press. Uniform rationing is emulated using competitive equilibrium with equal
incomes (pp. 195, 248) or, without Pareto efficiency, using fixed prices (p.144).
24. Chandramouli, Shyam; Sethuraman, Jay (2017). (November 2017).
"Groupstrategyproofness of the egalitarian mechanism for constrained rationing problems".
Mathematical Social Sciences. 90: 111–118. arXiv:1107.4566 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.45
66). doi:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2017.06.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.mathsocsci.2017.0
6.002). S2CID 12413683 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12413683).
25. Moulin, Hervé (2017). "One-dimensional mechanism design" (http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/11944
7/13/119447.pdf) (PDF). Theoretical Economics. 12 (2): 587–619. doi:10.3982/TE2307 (http
s://doi.org/10.3982%2FTE2307).
26. Richard Cole, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Gagan Goel (2013) Mechanism design for fair division:
allocating divisible items without payments, Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference
on Electronic commerce, June 2013 Pages 251–268. doi:10.1145/2492002.2482582
27. Dimitris Fotakis, Piotr Krysta, Carmine Ventre (2014) Combinatorial auctions without money.
Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent
systems, May 2014 Pages 1029–1036. doi:10.5555/2615731.2617410
28. Olivier Bochet, Hervé J Moulin, Rahmi Ilkiliç (May 2010) Clearing supply and demand under
bilateral constraints. Proceedings of the Behavioral and Quantitative Game Theory:
Conference on Future Directions, No.30 Pages 1. doi:10.1145/1807406.1807436
29. Alvin E. Roth (oct. 2000) The Art of Designing Markets, Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2007/10/the-art-of-designing-markets
30. Balseiro, Santiago R.; Gurkan, Huseyin; Sun, Peng (2019). "Multiagent Mechanism Design
Without Money". Operations Research. 67 (5): 1417–1436. doi:10.1287/opre.2018.1820 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1287%2Fopre.2018.1820). S2CID 204700236 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:204700236).
31. Procaccia, A. and Tennenholtz, M. 2009. Approximate mechanism design without money. In
ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 177–186. doi:10.1145/1566374.1566401
32. https://moneylesssociety.com/
33. Stefan Heidenreich (2017) "Geld [crossed out] Für eine non-monetäre Ökonomie" (Money
[crossed out] For a non-monetary economy) Merve Verlag, ISBN 978-3-88396-390-7.
Excerpts translated to English by Brian Currid:
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Stefan_Heidenreich_on_the_Post-Currency_Non-
Money_Economy or https://transmediale.de/content/for-a-non-money-economy
34. Elvia Wilk (2018) interviews Heidenreich: "The Economy of the Future Won’t Rely on
Money" https://onezero.medium.com/the-economy-of-the-future-wont-rely-on-money-
5a703e0ad30b
35. https://www.paradism.org/
36. "Kidney" (https://www.eurotransplant.org/organs/kidney).
37. Gelderloos, Peter (2010). Anarchy Works (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderl
oos-anarchy-works#toc16). Little Black Cart. (ch.2)
38. "Eurotransplant Manual" (https://www.eurotransplant.org/patients/eurotransplant-manual/).
39. Mitchell Innes, A. "What is money?" (https://www.newmoneyhub.com/www/money/mitchell-i
nnes/what-is-money.html). The Banking Law Journal. may 1913: 377–408.
40. Arjan van Aelst (1995) Majapahit Picis: The Currency of a 'Moneyless' Society 1300-1700.
Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Vol.151, nr.3, pp.357-393
41. Niyo Zakaria (14 feb 2019) Uruganda Economic Model proposal https://medium.com/pua-
around-africa-diaspora/moneyless-economy-tradeless-and-market-less-uruganda-
economic-model-2c31b35e68cc
42. "A World Without Money: Communism" (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-friends-of-4-
million-young-workers-a-world-without-money-communism.pdf) (PDF).
43. Nelson, Anitra; Timmerman, Frans, eds. (2011). Life without Money: Building Fair and
Sustainable Economies. London: Pluto Press. ISBN 9780745331652. Abstract:
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Non-Market_Socialism See pp.33 ff. of ch.2 by Anitra Nelson:
Money versus Socialism, pp.23-46.
44. Mark Boyle (2012) The moneyless manifesto. Hampshire: Permanent Publications and
White River Junction: Chelsea, p.34
45. Nelson, Anitra (2016). " "Your Money or Your Life": Money and Socialist Transformation" (htt
ps://scriptum.degrowth.net/system/event_attachments/attachments/000/000/109/original/Mo
ney_Degrowth18082016.pdf?1471974879) (PDF). Capitalism Nature Socialism. 27 (4): 40–
60. doi:10.1080/10455752.2016.1204619 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10455752.2016.1204
619). S2CID 156952230 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:156952230).
46. "Tax Exemption for Organizations That Administer Time Banks, Barter Networks, or
Currencies" (http://www.communitycurrencieslaw.org/choice-of-entity-and-tax-exemption/).
www.communitycurrencieslaw.org. SELC.
47. Cahn, Edgar. "What About Taxes?" (http://timebanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/What-
about-taxes_-Edgar-Cahn.pdf) (PDF). www.timebanks.org. TimeBanks USA.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-monetary_economy&oldid=1056399619"

This page was last edited on 21 November 2021, at 15:27 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.