{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02619647355163728, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006045340050377834, 'mean_word_length': 4.841176470588235, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Economic Thought of Karl Polanyi: Lives and Livelihood, J. R. Stanfield. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986, x + 162 pages

Despite the title, this is not a study of the economics of Karl Polanyi, but a brief for the continuing vitality of Polanyi's approach. Stanfield argues that Polanyi's work provides insights on two issues: the value of comparing economic systems, and the merits of market capitalism as a form of social organization. He claims that comparisons across economies can be extremely useful, and that Polanyi provides the paradigm of how to make these comparisons. He further claims that this method can be used to show "that the market economy cannot preserve a humane existence in the face of industrialism and that it is necessary to reimbed the economy in society through an administered and communitized economy" (p. 150). Unfortunately, Stanfield has structured his argument in a way that prevents him from proving either of these claims. Stanfield fails because, in addition to arguing for the superiority of Polanyi's methodology, he implicitly assumes that Polanyi had the last word on matters of substance as well. He does this by writing as if nothing significant had happened since Polanyi wrote. This is clearly not the case. Economies and economics have changed dramatically in the past 30 years. Many of these developments raise questions about the theoretical and factual foundations of Polanyi's arguments. Stanfield has chosen to neglect these developments and to write as if Polanyi's arguments and evidence were sufficient. Most of his citations are to Polanyi and his followers or allies; few contrary works are cited or discussed. The result is a book that, in light of recent developments, seems out of date, naive, and simplistic. It is hard to understand why Stanfield chose this approach. Polanyi himself would have taken these developments into account if he were writing today: Why didn't Stanfield? By assuming that Polanyi was right,