卡尔·波兰尼（1968），在他背后的形式主义方法，经济分析的原则的批判，试图定义工具的“传统”社会可以分析经济。到substantivalists索赔的核心是理解货币的引入破坏了当地的社会关系的概念引入“等价值不曾存在。在这种方法中，该substantivalists如下马塞尔·莫斯的遗产，[ 1 ]的人，在他的开创性的礼物（1954），认为在当代和古代社会和北美洲一样普遍，波利尼西亚和罗马古代经济分析的假设，用以解释市场的交易，是不相关的这些社会礼品经济。在这篇文章中，我将首先研究Mauss什么意思礼品经济，从Usula Sharma的工作提供了一个当代的例子之前，（1984）人演示了如何交换礼物可能是妇女的从属地位的工具。在本文的第二部分，然后我看市场交易，通过借鉴Maria Mies的工作（1998），我发现市场的性别性质。在结论中，我problematise之间的分工的礼物”和“市场”的经济体，这都是weber Ian的“理想类型”，既充分考虑到复杂的市场交易和交换礼物，都深深地嵌入在社会关系中的权力关系，因此。
Karl Polanyi (1968), in his critique of the principles that underlie the formalist approach to economic analysis, attempted to define the tools by which the economies of ‘traditional’ societies could be analyzed. Central to the substantivalists’ claims was the understanding that the introduction of money destroyed indigenous social relations by introducing the notion of ‘equivalencies of value’ where none had previously existed. In this approach, the substantivalists were following the legacy of Marcel Mauss, who, in his seminal The Gift (1954), had argued that in contemporary and archaic societies as widespread as North America, Polynesia and Ancient Rome the assumptions of economic analysis, as used in explaining market transactions, were not relevant as these societies were gift economies.In this essay, I will first examine what Mauss meant by the term gift economies, before providing a contemporary example from the work of Usula Sharma (1984) who demonstrates how a gift exchange may be instrumental in the subordination of women. In the second section, I then look at market transactions and, by drawing on the work of Maria Mies (1998), I reveal the gendered nature of the market. In the conclusion, I problematise the division between ‘gift’ and ‘market’ economies, suggesting that both are weber Ian ‘ideal types’ and that neither is fully adequate to account for the complexity of both market transactions and gift exchanges, as both are deeply embedded in social relations and thus in relations of power.