Guyer - Fuller

I found it very interesting to compare the methods that economists use, and the methods that cultural anthropologists use, in analyzing the same institutions. This reinforced my appreciation for anthropology: cultural anthropologists look at a group of people, and attempt to see how the people see their own assets (as abstract as they may seem to an outsider) and to analyze their value culturally, socially, and etcetera. I found it interesting that in a strictly monetary sense, the idea of the poor in need of welfare attempting to have some sort of small-scale assets (for example, as a fallback) is generally very resisted by those contributing to welfare; however anthropologically, the argument for such small scale assets (capable of many functions, depending on the situation) seems very valid. Depending through which lens one looks at the situation, the conclusions vary drastically; melding economics and anthropology seems like an interesting venture, but it seems to be more of a venue of comparing and contrasting results as opposed to an alliance between the two fields.

In terms of investing in assets and its undocumented nature – this state is the transitional state, and has a “before” and “after” at some sort of equilibrium. The transitional state is brief in nature and thus difficult to document thoroughly. Especially in dynamic and shifting households, where these assets can change their function within a household rather quickly, and even the equilibrium states can be brief, it is far simpler to look at the before and after, especially as an economist.