 Today, remnants of these historical traditions can be found in the ways in which different academic disciplines look at markets. Although there are exceptions, economists typically see markets in a positive light. They have long analyzed them using abstract methods that model individuals as sovereign, rational choosers. This approach, which leaves a number of problems of real-life markets unexplained, has also been used for incentive-based analyses of other social spheres (see notably Gary Becker, e.g., 1976). These have raised questions about the possibilities and limits of the rational choice approach, especially since behavioral economists have started to explore how real human behavior departs from the behavior assumed in the models (see e.g., Kahneman/Tversky 1979; Laibson 1997; Fehr/Schmidt 1999; for an overview of behavioral economics see e.g., Camerer/Loewenstein/Rabin 2003; for a critique of rational choice theory from a philosophical perspective see e.g., Sen 1977). Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians use different, usually less abstract methods for exploring different markets. Their emphasis has often been on the relation of markets to other spheres of life, because they see individuals as socially embedded, and their decisions as shaped by their social environment. Many researchers from these disciplines are rather critical of capitalist markets. Their methods allow them to see problems to which economists may be methodologically blind. But economists might reply that the methods used by historians, sociologists and anthropologists are in turn less suitable for grasping the positive indirect effects of markets, for example the benefits for customers when a company is restructured. Although they can be intertwined, it is therefore important to distinguish between disciplinary approaches, research methods, and substantive arguments about the value of markets.