A gift economy entails sharing goods and services based on relationships and social bonds rather than direct buying and selling. In The Serviceberry, Robin Wall Kimmerer presents gift economies as an alternative to conventional market economies.
To understand Kimmerer’s vision, we’ll explore how market economies operate and then examine the principles of gift economies. Finally, we’ll see how natural systems such as the serviceberry embody gift economy principles.
Table of Contents
The Status Quo: Market Economy
Kimmerer explains that modern society operates primarily under a market, or money-based, economy. In market economies, resources (such as land, energy, food, and water) are viewed as scarce commodities to be privately owned and exchanged for profit according to the laws of supply and demand. Under this model, compensation is immediate and quid pro quo (meaning “something for something”)—you measure the value of your transaction and exchange that amount of money to receive a good or service.
| The Ancient Origins of the Market Economy The principles of market economies—private ownership, trade for profit, and price mechanisms—emerged as early as 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian societies had sophisticated systems of direct exchange using standardized weights of silver, barley, and other commodities as currency. Yet these ancient societies maintained both gift-based and market-based exchanges: Market principles and quid pro quo transactions typically governed trade between strangers or distant communities, while more reciprocal, relationship-based exchanges operated within families and local communities. How, then, did market economies go from one aspect of economic life to the dominant economic system? Market principles were first formalized in the Code of Hammurabi, a legal text that governed ancient Babylon. The Code transformed women and children into property, devaluing spheres associated with women’s work (and with gift economy principles)—household management, caregiving, and community reciprocity—as they fell outside the formal market system. Over time, various philosophies emerged to justify and expand market-based exchange: Persian ruler Cyrus the Great advocated for minimal market regulation, Chinese philosopher Mencius argued against government price-setting, and later Adam Smith formalized these ideas into a theory suggesting that self-interest in markets naturally increases prosperity for all. |
According to Kimmerer, market economies are driven by competition between self-interested individuals, with wealth and status determined by how much one accumulates. This leads to two significant problems: First, the wealthy tend toward overconsumption, which depletes the Earth’s resources. Second, individual prosperity is prioritized over collective well-being, which erodes the social fabric of communities and weakens the bonds between people.
| Does a Market Economy Lead to Selfishness? Although Kimmerer says markets are driven by self-interest, economist Joel Sobel says that doesn’t mean people living under market economies are inherently selfish. According to Sobel, markets can encourage selfish behavior, but not necessarily because they change people’s underlying preferences. Instead, markets tend to: • Create competitive pressures that reward self-interested behavior. • Reduce the visibility of moral consequences—making it easier for people to act selfishly without feeling like they’re violating their values. • Diffuse responsibility and weaken personal accountability, since decisions often involve many actors. So, in market settings, even people who have genuine concern for others will appear to act selfishly—not because they’re naturally selfish, but because their only practical option is to maximize their own gain. Rebecca Solnit’s research in A Paradise Built in Hell supports this view. She documents how, when formal economic structures collapse during disasters, people display generosity and engage in mutual aid rather than descending into selfish chaos. This suggests Kimmerer’s gift economies aren’t utopian fantasies but expressions of deeply human impulses that are often constrained, but not erased, by economic structures. |
A Better Model: Gift Economy
According to Kimmerer, nature presents a better alternative to market economies: gift economies. Gift economies are systems where goods and services circulate through a network of relationships rather than direct transactions. Compensation works differently, too: Gift economies operate on delayed and generalized reciprocity. When you share a resource, you do so with a gift-giving attitude. You don’t demand immediate repayment but trust that your generosity creates a resilient community that will support you when you need it. The “compensation” you receive in a gift economy is your belonging to a web of mutual care rather than a direct return.
In a gift economy, wealth is understood as having enough to share, and social status is determined by one’s generosity with others rather than by their accumulation of resources for themselves. Because those who have abundance share with those who have less, everyone’s needs are met.
(Shortform note: Gift economy principles align with mutual aid theory, where communities give and receive support based on need rather than immediate exchange. Peter Kropotkin, an early proponent of mutual aid, argued that evolution favors cooperation over competition when circumstances allow. This challenges the “tragedy of the commons,” the idea that people acting in self-interest will inevitably deplete shared resources. Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom also refuted this view, showing that communities can manage shared resources without resorting to privatization or state control. What makes these systems work is reciprocity: An emphasis on giving rather than accumulation builds communities where everyone’s needs are met.)
Gift Economies in Nature
Kimmerer uses the serviceberry tree to illustrate how gift economies work in nature. Serviceberry trees produce abundant fruit that feeds birds, who then disperse the seeds. At the same time, the serviceberry’s flowers provide nectar to pollinators who enable the tree’s reproduction. These natural exchanges don’t operate on scarcity or immediate payback, but on mutually beneficial relationships that sustain the entire ecosystem, creating abundance for all participants.
(Shortform note: Just as birds aren’t passive recipients of the serviceberry’s gifts but active participants who disperse seeds and contribute to the ecosystem, Indigenous communities have long practiced active reciprocity rather than passive acceptance of nature’s bounty. For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples have used controlled burning, selective harvesting, and deliberate cultivation to enhance biodiversity and productivity. As ethnobotanist Rosalyn LaPier notes, portraying Indigenous people as passive recipients of nature’s gifts overlooks their ecological management. Recognizing this mutual shaping of environments through reciprocal relationships strengthens the case for economies based on reciprocity and respect.)
Kimmerer also contends that we’re ethically obligated to model human economies after gift economies in nature. Using the serviceberry as an example, she argues that resources like food are gifts from living beings with agency and purpose, rather than mere commodities. Since they’re gifts, we should receive them with gratitude and respect—that is, we shouldn’t simply extract and consume as much as possible without considering the needs of other beings and future generations. This perspective, Kimmerer explains, fundamentally changes our relationship with the natural world—when we recognize resources as gifts rather than commodities, we naturally develop ethical constraints on how we use them.
| Understanding Natural Resources as Gifts Kimmerer’s vision of resources as gifts from living beings with agency challenges the Western view of natural resources as inert commodities to be extracted—and reflects many traditions from Indigenous cultures around the world. For example, in Māori traditions, stranded whales were viewed as gifts from Tangaroa, the god of the sea. When whales beached themselves, Māori approached them with ceremonial respect—performing greetings and prayers, involving spiritual experts to interpret any messages the whale might carry, naming each whale to acknowledge its individuality, and ensuring equitable distribution of its resources throughout the community. Contrast the Māori perspective on beached whales with that of Western societies. Instead of seeing these natural resources as gifts and receiving them with gratitude and respect, Western authorities often treat them as an environmental hazard to be disposed of efficiently. The animals do need to be disposed of because, if left to decompose on the beach, they may explode, posing a risk to public health and safety. But traditional disposal methods—including burial, incineration, and disposal in a landfill—may be wasteful. Some experts advocate returning beached whales to the sea because, as Rebecca Griggs describes in “Whale Fall,” their bodies can sustain hundreds of deep-sea organisms for several decades as they slowly decompose. This natural cycle aligns perfectly with Indigenous understandings of whales as gifts—and proponents of gift economies might argue, like Kimmerer, that we have an ethical responsibility to honor this cycle by “regifting” beached whales to the sea. |
Learn More About Gift Economies
To gain a deeper understanding of what a gift economy is and how it works, check out our guide to Kimmerer’s book The Serviceberry.
