The Moral Economist versus the Political Economist

By Greg McCulley

Drafted 15 November 1999

����������� I was born a moral economist, and my education and religious upbringing nurtured my na�ve outlook. I stayed that way until the realities of the world around me could no longer be ignored; I became a realist.� It is easy to assume the world is a tidy and fair place, but this is not always the case.� It was once said that life is "nasty, brutish, and short", and I believe this is unfortunately true.� A moral economist would not necessarily agree with me in this belief, for his approach to life (specifically peasant life) is rather rosy and idealized.� In this essay, I aim to illustrate this approach to peasant society, along with its opposite method, the political economist approach.

����������� Perhaps one of the more fundamental differences in the moral and political economists' views is related to risk taking.� Moral economists assert that peasants are "risk averse", meaning that risks are avoided at all costs unless there is no other choice (Popkin, 18).��� The type of risk I am referring to is a risk which would require the expenditure of some surplus of production (most likely agricultural surplus) that would be used as investment.� The return on this investment would be a better profit on the market.� The political economist asserts that peasants will take advantage of such an investment opportunity if there was a reasonable chance of a good return on the investment. Doing so would allow an improvement in the procedure of production, and this would allow for greater profitability.� The moral economist does not perceive that the peasant is concerned with upward mobility, and that peasants do not pursue greater profitability to gain economic security.� The moral view holds that the community provides this support.� This is not what is found in actual application, however.

         In reality, peasants rely on their children as their safety net.� Children are an investment in the family that will provide for the peasant when he is infirm.� Peasants are very aware of this, but moral economists appear to believe that peasants rely on fellow peasants with such faith that these security concerns never arise.� Political economists hold that the peasant is aware of this threat, and as a result, is willing to take some risks in order to enrich his family's holdings, which will in turn stave off starvation in old age. It is logical for a peasant to attempt to better his family and children because the family represents his security structure. Children take care of their aged parents, so the more successful a peasant's children are, the more secure retirement he will have.

          The investment that peasants could use to increase their profitability in the market would be in technology.� Political economists view technology as a boon to economic prosperity.� This makes common sense.� Appropriate technology allows for greater and safer avenues of production and innovation.� These things further enhance the chances that members of a given society will be able to retire in comfort.� The moral economist believes the peasant will avoid innovation for fear of the risk to security and tradition.� What tradition are moral economists referring to?� This brings us to another contrast between the moral and political viewpoints.

          Moral economists state that peasants are happy with whatever state they find themselves in at the moment.� James Scott, a moral economist, advocates traditional feudalism that "supports" peasants because they want that paternal figure to protect them (Popkin, 21).� They feel that the peasant's client-patron relationship is one that is desirable by the peasants, and that when there is a rebellion, it is to restore some previous condition of loyalty to a protective figure.� Political economists refute this view, noting that it merely serves to justify and explain away whatever condition in which the peasants find themselves.� The political approach tells us that peasants are not content with their present condition simply because they are peasants.� They want more out of life, and if peasants revolt against their landlords, it is to gain some social benefit or entitlement that the landlord had suspended form the villagers.

����������� If an observer fails to accept that peasants are willing to take risks to secure their futures, then one is forced to conclude that the members of peasant society rely solely upon the community for support, and that no investment or innovation can take place.� But, farming is inherently a risk-filled occupation.� The farmer does not know if his fields will get enough rain or too much, if parasites will wipe him out or not, or if other agricultural factors will starve his family. In an agrarian village, if there is famine, it will affect not only your crop, but the entire village's as well. Farmers know this, yet they continue to practice the trade; they are not risk averse. The political economist acknowledges that in such risky times, the peasant will become more individualistic and apt to look out for his own family before risking his neck for the community. This view of peasant society seems more realistic to me.

             I believe that the political view of risk is credible because it simply is true to the way humans operate. It does not seem realistic to think that a peasant leading a hand-to-mouth existence would be content to threaten his livelihood and future for the betterment of the community.� The fundamental difference between the two views here boils down to an issue of prioritization, and the political economist believes that the peasant puts the family over the community.

����������� The moral economist's mistaken view of risk-taking leads to other misconceptions as well.� Without the drive to take certain risks, a peasant is implied to be impotent to do a number of other things.� Innovation has already been discussed above, but there is another type of innovation peasants are unable to perform in the moral economist's view: social innovation.� When the moral economist observes the often-scant lifestyles of peasants, he tends to attribute a justification to the lifestyle that is not appropriate.� For example, Samuel Popkin points out that the condition of peasants is viewed as its own justification: the peasant is hungry because he focuses on more profound issues, he is poor because he is free from the pursuit of material wealth, he rebels because he desires a return to a simpler, more equitable time (3).� These views don't hold water.� If a peasant had the chance to alter his condition, he would take advantage of that chance.� Just like you and I, peasants have a survival instinct, a sense of self-preservation.�

����������� I believe that the crux of the difference between the political and moral views is rooted in large part their difference in assessment of peasant risk tolerance.� Differences in the perception of social responsibility, the place of the family, and the desire to engage in market production can be tied to the level of risk a peasant is perceived to be willing to take.� If the view of the moral economist is accurate, then there would not be oppression and conflict throughout the developing nations of the world.� Where does one find this devotion to community?� It exists only in theory.� This is the failing of the moral economy: its precepts are not found in the real world.� The approach of the political economist is more rooted in fact and empirical evidence, and it takes into account more individualistic motivations that can been seen in today's developing nations.