Anthropology

=== Economic, political economic, applied and development ===
{{Economic anthropology}}

==== Economic ====
{{main|Economic anthropology}}
Economic anthropology attempts to explain human economic behavior in its widest historic, geographic and cultural scope. It has a complex relationship with the discipline of economics, of which it is highly critical. Its origins as a sub-field of anthropology begin with the Polish-British founder of anthropology, [[Bronisław Malinowski]], and his French compatriot, [[Marcel Mauss]], on the nature of gift-giving exchange (or [[Reciprocity (cultural anthropology)|reciprocity]]) as an alternative to market exchange. Economic Anthropology remains, for the most part, focused upon exchange. The school of thought derived from Marx and known as Political Economy focuses on production, in contrast.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hann|first=Chris|title=Economic Anthropology|year=2011|publisher=Polity Press|location=Cambridge|pages=55–71|author2=Hart, Keith |isbn=978-0-7456-4482-0}}</ref> Economic anthropologists have abandoned the primitivist niche they were relegated to by economists, and have now turned to examine corporations, banks, and the [[global financial system]] from an anthropological perspective.<ref>{{cite book|last=Heffernan|first=Timothy|title=Economic Anthropology in View of the Global Financial Crisis, in The Palgrave Handbook of the History of Human Sciences|year=2022|publisher=Springer Nature|location=Singapore|pages=457–481|doi=10.1007/978-981-16-7255-2_14}}</ref>

====Political economy====
{{main|Political economy in anthropology}}
Political economy in anthropology is the application of the theories and methods of [[historical materialism]] to the traditional concerns of anthropology, including, but not limited to, non-capitalist societies. Political economy introduced questions of history and colonialism to ahistorical anthropological theories of social structure and culture. Three main areas of interest rapidly developed. The first of these areas was concerned with the "pre-capitalist" societies that were subject to evolutionary "tribal" stereotypes. Sahlin's work on hunter-gatherers as the "original affluent society" did much to dissipate that image. The second area was concerned with the vast majority of the world's population at the time, the peasantry, many of whom were involved in complex revolutionary wars such as in Vietnam. The third area was on colonialism, imperialism, and the creation of the capitalist [[world-system]].<ref name="Roseberry 1988 161–85">{{cite journal|last=Roseberry|first=William|title=Political Economy|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|year=1988|volume=17|pages=161–185|doi=10.1146/annurev.an.17.100188.001113}}</ref> More recently, these political economists have more directly addressed issues of industrial (and post-industrial) capitalism around the world.

==== Applied ====
{{main|Applied anthropology}}
Applied anthropology refers to the application of the method and theory of anthropology to the analysis and solution of practical problems. It is a "complex of related, research-based, instrumental methods which produce change or stability in specific cultural systems through the provision of data, initiation of direct action, and/or the formulation of policy".<ref>{{cite book|last=Kedia, Satish|first=and Willigen J. Van|title=Applied Anthropology: Domains of Application|isbn=978-0-275-97841-9|year=2005|publisher=Praeger|location=Westport, Conn|pages=16, 150}}</ref> Applied anthropology is the practical side of anthropological research; it includes researcher involvement and activism within the participating community. It is closely related to [[development anthropology]] (distinct from the more critical [[anthropology of development]]).{{cn|date=September 2022}}

====Development====
{{main|anthropology of development}}
Anthropology of development tends to view development from a ''critical'' perspective. The kind of issues addressed and implications for the approach involve pondering why, if a key development goal is to alleviate poverty, is poverty increasing? Why is there such a gap between plans and outcomes? Why are those working in development so willing to disregard history and the lessons it might offer? Why is development so externally driven rather than having an internal basis? In short, why does so much planned development fail?