Economists bear particular responsibility when it comes to money. More often than not, the other specialists of the human and social sciences, not just historians of trade and finance but numismatists, sociologists, psychologists, philosophers, semiologists, political scientists, jurists and so...

This book endeavours to throw light on the phenomenon of money in general in an essentially comparative and therefore concrete way and not from a universalist, dogmatic and abstract standpoint. To do this, it apprehends monetary relations within the particular society to which they belong.

When analysing any social phenomenon, encounters among different social science disciplines and fields of investigation dispersed over time and space may well produce illusory rapprochements. Such encounters nevertheless have great potential for producing truly common knowledge. In matters of...

[eng] There is no agreement between economists about the definition of money. The authors indicate the necessity of a transhistoricai definition of the concept of Money. A relevant definition must take account of the wide range of monetary practices and forms which can be observed through time...

The article raises the concealment of sharing in La Monnaie souveraine (1998) and in the works it inspired. The neoliberalism made hegemonic an approach by the circulation of money and more generally of all social facts. However, this catallactic vision that some critics of the orthodox economy...