ABSTRACT
Part II begins with the discussion of the controversies: the modernist-primitivist and the formalist-substantivist. These two pairs of opposing concepts are closely related to each other, though conceptually different. A modernist believes the Athenian economy was a well-developed market economy differing from a modern capitalist state only in degree and not in quality. A primitivist disagrees. A formalist believes that the Athenian economy can be analyzed by the basic behavioral assumptions of modern economics, namely, utility and profit maximization, whereas a substantivist believes that a different set of behavioral assumptions, such as status maximization, must be substituted. A formalist is more likely to be a modernist, and a substantivist a primitivist, but not necessarily so. For example, one who believes that even the modern American economy should not be explained by utility and profit maximization may be said to be both a modernist and a substantivist with regard to the American economy. Consideration of these problems will, therefore, be relevant not only for the Athenian economy but also for the modern one and will force us to think deeply about the role of economic theory in general.
