Factors Underlying Endogamous Group Size11Editor's note: This paper was originally given at the Ninth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences in Chicago in 1973 and is published in Population and Social Organization, edited by Moni Nag (The Hague: Mouton, 1975). It is reprinted here in its original form except that the tables and figures have been redone. (The authors would like to thank Darby Erd of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, University of South Carolina, for redrawing the figures.) The following paper, “Central-Place Theory and Endogamy in China” (Chapter 7), relates this paper to studies that have utilized central-place theory in China.

1976 ◽  
pp. 149-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Adams ◽  
Alice Bee Kasakoff
1991 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Little

The rational-choice paradigm has been attractive to many area specialists in their efforts to arrive at explanations of social and political behavior in various parts of the world. This model of explanation is simple yet powerful; we attempt to explain a pattern of social behavior or an enduring social arrangement as the aggregate outcome of the goal-directed choices of large numbers of rational agents. Why did the Nian rebellion occur? It was the result of the individual-level survival strategies of north China peasants (Perry 1980). Why did the central places of late imperial Sichuan conform to the hexagonal arrays predicted by central-place theory? Because participants—consumers, merchants, and officials—made rational decisions based on considerations of transport cost (Skinner 1964–65). Why was late imperial Chinese agriculture stagnant? Because none of the actors within the agricultural system had both the incentive and the capacity to invest in agricultural innovation (Lippit 1987).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document